Sitting of 17 March 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of James Dance, Esquire, Member for Bromsgrove, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  TRENT AND LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL [Lords]
  Amendments made.
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified—
  Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

  TORBAY CORPORATION BILL
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified—
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

  PLYMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Bill read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Scottish Convention
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a White Paper outlining his proposals for a Scottish Convention before the Bill implementing the reform of Scottish local Government is published.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): The report of the Scottish Constitutional Committee recommended that proposals for constitutional reform in Scotland should take into account and follow the action being taken on the reform of local government. It is not possible to estimate now whether the proposals for constitutional reform will be formulated before the local government Bill is published.
    Mr. Strang: When does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make an announcement on his proposed Scottish Convention? Has the plan been discreetly shelved?
    Mr. Campbell: We are acting in accordance with the recommendations of the Constitutional Committee in dealing with local government reform first and then with the constitutional proposals.
    Mr. Grimond: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Orkney and Shetland is pleased with the local government proposals? As to the Scottish Convention, did not Scottish reform appear in the Queen's Speech, and, if so, why has it been abandoned, because this was some time ago? Does this mean that nothing is to be done until after the next General Election?
    Mr. Campbell: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about Orkney and Shetland and its response to the White Paper on local government. As to the Gracious Speech, it was stated, after the mention of local government reform:
    "At a later stage plans will be laid before you for giving the Scottish people a greater say in their own affairs."
    That means within this Parliament, but not necessarily this Session.
    Mr. Ross: Surely we expect the Gracious Speech to relate to the Session of Parliament in which it is made? Why on earth was it put in at that time if the Government had no intention of doing anything about it?
    Mr. Campbell: We made it perfectly clear at the time that this related, like other matters in the Gracious Speech, to a time after the proposals for local government had been dealt with. It was announced that a White Paper would be issued during this Session because of the interest in constitutional proposals. It was made clear that these would come at a later stage.

    Housing Finance
    Mr. Hugh D. Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the progress to date of his discussions with local authorities and other property owners on the reform of housing finance.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development is meeting the local authority associations on 22nd March. I have already said I will consider the publication of a White Paper when the consultations are complete.
    Mr. Brown: Is it not intolerable that after a nine-month period of gestation there is no evidence of anything being produced? Could the right hon. Gentleman clear up the doubt arising from his replies three weeks ago on the rate contribution to housing accounts? Do the Government intend to reduce or remove the rate burden on local authorities?
    Mr. Campbell: On the first point, there should be no uncertainty about the main lines of the reforms in housing finance. As to the second point, I mentioned that at the present ratepayers of Scotland are paying 35 per cent. of the costs of council housing compared with 7 per cent. in England. We intend to reduce that to relieve the burden on Scottish ratepayers.

    Rent Rebate Schemes
    Mr. Hugh D. Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities are currently operating rent rebate schemes approved by him; and if his proposals for the reform of housing
    1390
    finance will permit their continued operation.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): Local authority rent rebate schemes do not require my right hon. Friend's approval. As already announced, the new housing finance arrangements will include a comprehensive system of rent rebates covering all housing authorities and all tenants who need them.
    Mr. Brown: Does that mean that there will be no discretion on the part of local authorities to vary or improve the national scheme, and is it clearly understood that the total cost of rent rebate in the council and private sectors will be made by central funds?
    Mr. Younger: On the first point, this is one of the matters being discussed by myself and the local authority associations. When we meet again we will see what they feel about it. As to the second point, the rent rebate schemes at present in operation will carry on until the new scheme comes in but the rest of that is under discussion with the local authorities.
    Mr. Brewis: Are not rent rebates now to be available to people living in private sector houses? If they are, I assure my' hon. Friend that they are very welcome.
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. On average, people living in private rented accommodation, have lower incomes than those living in council rented accommodation, and it is, therefore, necessary that they should have rent rebates.
    Mr. Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown)? Who will bear the cost? Will it be the central Government?
    Mr. Younger: I apologise; I should have answered that point earlier. It was made clear in the statement made on policy last October that the central Government will bear the greater part of the cost of the new rent rebates.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider making fresh recommendations in rent

    1391
    rebate schemes as a consequence of increased unemployment in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: Our current discussions with local authority associations on the reform of housing finance include consideration of a national scheme for rent rebates for council tenants and rent allowances for private tenants. The aim of the scheme is to bring relief to a family who cannot afford a normal rent for unemployment or other reasons.
    Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that urgency is required in this matter and that, for example, in the new town of Livingston we have now 18 per cent. of unemployment among the male population and there is concern about the question of future rents. Could the hon. Gentleman not meet that with action and tell us how many jobs are in prospect for that town?
    Mr. Younger: On the first part of the question, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman, what I am sure he knows, that the rent rebate scheme automatically takes account of the fact that a person is unemployed, because if a person is unemployed he is eligible for rebate, and the social security people make full recompense for rents when dealing with the social security matters of people who are unemployed.
    On the second part of the hon. Member's question, there are a considerable number of jobs in prospect in Livingston. This question was raised recently in an Adjournment debate and I think the figure was mentioned of 2,400 new jobs in prospect. That is for the next four years as against the period for next year which was also mentioned in the debate.

    Western Isles (Water Supply Schemes)
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now give approval for assistance to outstanding water supply schemes in the Western Isles.
    Mr. Younger: There are no applications before my right hon. Friend at present. He is ready to consider schemes submitted by water boards for approval and assistance at the usual rates.
    Mr. Stewart: I will send the hon. Gentleman a list of outstanding schemes. Is he aware that many communities in the Western Isles are without the ordinary civilised amenity of piped water and that the implementation of the outstanding schemes would do something to reduce the level of unemployment, which is the highest in any constituency in Britain?
    Mr. Younger: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I agree that it is desirable that assistance should be extended as fast as possible. I am glad to say that we have approved seven schemes in the past nine months amounting to about £250,000. We hope that this work will continue.

    National Health Service Charges
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much he estimates will be collected in a full year from increased National Health Service charges.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): The increases to be introduced on 1st April are expected to produce an additional income of about £2½, million in a full year in Scotland.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there will be complete exemption for the increasing army of the unemployed in Scotland? Can he give an assurance that no further increases will be imposed by the Government?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the gross income levels for entitlement to exemption and refunds are being raised by up to 30s. a week, so that more people will qualify for exemption.
    Mr. Carmichael: Has the hon. Gentleman made any estimate of the increased number of staff who will be required to operate the scheme and what the cost of operating it will be? For the people of Scotland to pay £2½ million seems rather a lot, but it seems to be a small figure to cope with the staff which may be needed.
    Mr. Taylor: I would need notice of that question, but the principle is the same. We are raising the income limit, so that more people will qualify for exemption.

    Maintenance Orders (Enforcement)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to enforce court orders in favour of separated and divorced women by husbands who fail to pay aliment.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated in reply to the hon. Member on 25th February, the Government recognise the case for improving the existing enforcement machinery. So far as Scotland is concerned, this matter is at present under review by the Scottish Law Commission.—[Vol. 812, c. 844–5.]
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not unsatisfactory that more and more ex-husbands are simply cocking a snook at court orders and, indeed, at the law itself?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The present situation is certainly unhappy, and that is precisely why we have referred the matter to the Law Commission.
    Sir F. Maclean: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a problem which preoccupies a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes. It is also a problem common to both sides of the Border.
    Mr. Crawshaw: This problem has been known for many years, but no Government seem to take any point on it. Why is it not possible to register the fact on the insurance card at the office of issue, and when a person conveniently loses or destroys his card make it obligatory that another card can be issued only from the office where he obtained his previous card?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Difficulties of the sort which the hon. Gentleman rightly raises are being examined by the Finer Committee. We shall deal as quickly as possible with the Committee's recommendations when they are made.

    Housing Rents and Subsidies
    Mr. McCartneyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has now made of the weekly increase in council house rents, on the basis that the
    1394
    housing subsidies to the burghs of Clydebank, Bearsden, Milngavie, Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld and the county of Dunbarton, are abolished
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has now made of the average weekly increase in council rents needed for existing dwellings on the basis that housing subsidies are abolished; and what is the estimated weekly increase needed to offset the subsidy on houses under construction on 1st October, 1970, in the burgh of Kirkcaldy.
    Mr. John Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has now made of the weekly increase in council house rents needed on the basis that housing subsidies to Paisley are abolished.
    Mr. John Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has now made of the weekly increase in council house rents needed on the basis that housing subsidies to Lanarkshire are abolished.
    Dr. Millerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the average increase in rent of Scottish Special Housing Association and municipal houses in Glasgow when Government housing subsidies are abolished.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am making no such estimates because, as I have frequently stated, the Government have no intention of abolishing housing subsidies. They are to be redirected so that more help is given where it is needed.
    If hon. Members opposite are advocating the abolition of all housing subsidies, I hope they will let me have details of their proposals.
    Mr. McCartney: The highly supercilious replies which the right hon. Gentleman constantly gives, orally and in writing, have slightly tarnished the image we once had of him as a benign, friendly Tory. He has said that council tenants in Scotland make a 35 per cent. contribution compared with the 70 per cent. contribution made in England. I put it to him that that places an obligation on him to set out the relative positions of council house tenants in Scotland paying the existing rents with existing subsidies and future council house tenants who

    1395
    will pay the kind of rents and subsidies which he has in mind. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a graduated—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has put enough.
    Mr. McCartney: This is a graduated process of abolishing housing subsidies in Scotland.
    Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman has become thoroughly confused between what is contributed by the ratepayer, with which I was dealing in previous replies, and what is contributed by the Exchequer, with which all these Questions which are being taken together are concerned. The questions are as misleading about the facts and our intentions as is the hon. Gentleman's impression of me as being a benign and friendly figure.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have no mandate from the Scottish people for a higher rents policy? I have advocated abolishing not housing subsidies but the Tory Government. Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the Government intend to raise council house rents in Scotland by 10s. a week for seven years, and that, even with a rent rebate scheme, council tenants will be paying very much more for their accommodation than they are now?
    Mr. Campbell: We are advocating not a high rents policy but a true rents policy. The scheme is being considered in discussions with the local authority associations and, as they are confidential, I cannot go into figures until the discussions have been completed.
    Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State talks about redirecting Government subsidies when we know that the truth is that he is reducing Government subsidies. Can he confirm that it is the Government's intention to reduce the amount of money paid by the Exchequer to local authorities in respect of local authority housing? Can he give some very vague indication—we ask for no more—of by how much the amount is likely to be reduced, because this is a matter of serious concern to people who live in council houses in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: There is no intention to reduce; that has been made clear. At
    1396
    Question Time three weeks ago a Question was tabled by, I think, the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) referring to the gradual increase in the amount to be made available in future years for this purpose.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will now estimate the average weekly increase in rents of local authority houses in Clackmannanshire of the immediate removal of the rate subsidy element and the Exchequer subsidy element, respectively;
    (2) if he will now publish estimates of the average weekly increase in rents of local authority houses in Stirlingshire of the immediate removal of the rate subsidy element and the Exchequer subsidy element, respectively.
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if Government housing subsidies were removed and local authority rate contributions to housing revenue accounts ceased, what estimate he has now made of the average level of council rents in Edinburgh.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: I am making no such estimates because the Government do not intend to abolish Exchequer housing subsidies. They will be redirected so that more help is given where it is needed.
    We also intend to lighten the very heavy housing burden on Scottish ratepayers, but I cannot say more before our current discussions with the local authority associations have been completed.
    Mr. Douglas: Is the right hon. Gentleman asking the House to believe that he cannot calculate two or three quite simple statistics which could be obtained from the authorities' housing revenue accounts? Or is he afraid that such information would disclose that the rents of local authority houses in Scotland will rise by between 100 and 200 per cent. if the Government's policy is carried out? If—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has put enough.
    Mr. Douglas: I tabled two Questions, Mr. Speaker, and they have been answered together.
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already asked two supplementary questions.
    Mr. Campbell: Because the policy of abolishing subsidies referred to in the Question is not to be carried out by the Government, estimates have not been made and I have no intention of making them. [Interruption.] Housing subsidies are not to be abolished. A comprehensive rebate scheme to help all council tenants who qualify for such schemes and a scheme for the private sector are being worked out in consultation with those concerned.
    Mr. Strang: If as a consequence of the Government's new housing policy there are swingeing increases in council rents, will the Government take action to safeguard tenants who will not be covered by rent rebate schemes?
    Mr. Campbell: If there are rises by reasonable steps each year, as I have stated in the House on several occasions, the rent rebate scheme which will be worked out—and an excellent model has been presented by the Brownlie Committee—will deal with questions of hardship and people's inability to pay rents.
    Mr. Ross: Is it the policy of the Secretary of State not to answer a Question if he does not like it? The Questions ask what rents would be if the subsidies were abolished. They do not ask him to abolish subsidies. The right hon. Gentleman should be able to make this straightforward calculation. How can he say that subsidies will not be reduced when he told the Press on 28th October, and promised further details later, that he would save between £10 million and £20 million on housing subsidies by the mid-1970s?
    Mr. Campbell: I have stated several times in the House that if the present system had continued unchanged the amount would have escalated enormously.

    Hunterston (Steel Mill)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for a meeting with the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation to put forward the case for a green field site steel mill at Hunterston.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Responsibility for formulating development plans rests with the British Steel Corporation. I keep in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on these and other matters, and I expect to meet the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation next week.
    Mr. Lambie: That is at least an answer which gives us some information. Important decisions are being taken by the British Steel Corporation, and unless the Secretary of State makes his voice heard on behalf of the people of Scotland we shall have no steel industry in Scotland. I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to spend his time speaking to Young Conservatives over the weekend but to do something in the places which matter.
    Mr. Campbell: That is my endeavour. If I tried to do all the things which hon. Members opposite ask me to do, there would not be enough time in 24 hours. Three weeks ago one hon. Member opposite expected me to do a complete rural tour of Scotland. My voice will certainly be heard where it is needed.
    Mr. Lawson: While being wholly behind the efforts to develop Hunterston, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ensure that a temporary recession in the steel industry is not utilised to kill off substantial parts of the industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Campbell: I do not necessarily accept the situation as described by the hon. Gentleman, but I think he knows that it has been made clear by the British Steel Corporation that it regards the Scottish steel industry as an important area for future development.
    Mr. Ross: Did the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to make it clear that he supports the ore terminal at Hunterston and the proposed steel development there which Scotland needs so much?
    Mr. Campbell: It is clear from the fact that I have zoned the land for the ore terminal and thereby quickly removed one possible obstacle that I have pointed to the attractions of Hunterston as a site for steel works and an ore terminal.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that any discussions between the Clyde Port Authority and the

    1399
    British Steel Corporation are not inhibited in any way by the withholding of the necessary finance by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Campbell: That is another question. I am keeping closely in touch with the whole question of the development of the steel industry in Scotland.

    Ayr County Hospital (Surgical Patients)
    Mr. Lambieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients on the surgical waiting list at Ayr County Hospital have been offered admission, on a voluntary basis, to Glasgow Western Infirmary; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Six, Sir. The patients were informed that it was proposed to transfer them to a teaching hospital and gave their prior consent. The arrangement helped to ease the waiting list in Ayrshire.
    Mr. Lambie: Is it not strange that Glasgow surgeons are touting for patients on the long waiting list for Ayrshire hospitals to justify their establishments in Glasgow? Should not the general hospital for North Ayrshire be started immediately and another general hospital for South Ayrshire be started in the near future?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has completely misrepresented the position. I was referring to an arrangement for the transfer of six patients which was carried out with their prior consent. The conclusions the hon. Gentleman has drawn cannot be justified from the facts.

    Dental Charges
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received from individuals and organisations, respectively, against the proposed increased dental charges; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Thirteen from hon. Members, five from executive councils and one each from a local dental committee and a dental practitioner. I am sending the hon. Gentleman an example of the reply to hon. Members.
    Mr. Hamilton: That will be a miserable reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the charges have been condemned by the dental profession and everyone concerned with dental health except the Secretary of State for Social Services? Can he confirm that anyone visiting a dentist may be liable to pay up to £10 for treatment?
    Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman should read the reply I have sent before reaching any alarming conclusions. I think it is a very good reply, and I am sure he will learn a great deal from it.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Is it not a fact that a large proportion of children do not take advantage of the free services available to them? Therefore, will my hon. Friend do what he can to encourage them to take preventive treatment and advice from their dentists at an age when they qualify to get it free?
    Mr. Taylor: Yes, Sir. About 40 per cent. of dental patients, including nursing mothers and children, will still be entitled to free treatment. The Government intend to launch a campaign shortly to inform people of their entitlement to dental and other services and to encourage them to take un the benefits available. I fully agree with the important point my hon. Friend has raised.
    Mr. David Steel: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the logic of his reply to me and, presumably, other hon. Members about the reduction of the age for free treatment to 18 encouraging people to look after their teeth before the charges come in could be applied right down to 16, 12 and even six if he carried it any further?
    Mr. Taylor: I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that the whole period up to the age of 18 is very important for dental health. That is an appropriate age to introduce charges. The letter fully sets out the reasons for the decision.

    Highlands and North-East Scotland (Helicopter Ambulance Service)
    Mr. Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland on how many occasions in each of the following years, 1968, 1969, and 1970, helicopters were used for the

    1401
    conveyance of persons to hospital in the Highlands and North-East of Scotland.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: Ten, five and four respectively.
    Mr. Gray: The helicopters are on 24 hours stand-by. Does my hon. Friend agree that further use should be made of them in a general purpose sense in the rural areas, such as air-sea rescue?
    Mr. Taylor: I shall look very carefully into what my hon. Friend says. I am advised that for long journeys over water fixed-wing aircraft are to be preferred. Such aircraft are already available for ambulance flights from airfields and airstrips. Because of the cost, it is not possible at present to provide routine ambulance services by helicopter over land.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister aware that in many districts of the Highlands the normal ambulance services are extremely unsuitable for sick people, although they may not be regarded as emergency cases? It is not satisfactory over narrow, single-track roads, which are often very crowded in the summer, to rely on normal road transport.
    Mr. Taylor: I shall bear very much in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said. We have aircraft already available for ambulance flights from airfields and airstrips, but I shall look further into this point.

    West Central Scotland
    Mr. William Hannanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial and other resources he has allocated to the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee in support of the preparation of the study for economic and social reconstruction of the west of Scotland; and what arrangements are being made for the publication of interim reports.
    Mr. John Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings the reconstituted Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee has held and what reports it has submitted to him.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Advisory Committee is still in existence but I presume the Questions refer to the West Central Scotland Plan Steering Committee which I established last year. It has a budget of up to £100,000 per annum, con-
    1402
    tributed half by central and half by local government. The committee arranges its own business, including the preparation of any interim reports. It has met three times, but has not yet submitted any report.
    Mr. Hannan: In view of the great importance of the area in an industrial context—and this is related to earlier questions—will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this? Is he satisfied that £100,000 is sufficient for the project? He said that the committee had met only three times. When can we expect the reports, and does he agree that they should be published so that we may discuss them?
    Mr. Campbell: I do not think that the question of money is at issue here. The committee must be left to arrange its own business and the timing of its reports.
    Mr. Rankin: If money is not at issue, is the right hon. Gentleman also saying that it will not be an issue in the near future? Does he think that £100,000 means anything in a development of this nature?
    Mr. Campbell: It is not a development. It is the establishment of a steering committee to work out a plan for what I agree is a very important area. For about two years before we came to office there had been a very slow revivifying of the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee. When we came to office we decided that it was necessary to set up the Steering Committee to work on the physical planning proposals for the area.

    Agricultural Production
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what expansion he envisages in Scottish agricultural production in the coming year.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is the Government's aim to help agriculture to expand efficiently and competitively.
    Mr. Brewis: But has not milk production in Scotland been declining over recent years? Is not that likely to have a very adverse effect on efficiency and employment in creameries and other ancillary industries?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend has highlighted one particular problem. I ask him to await the statement later this

    1403
    afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

    Water Pollution
    Mr. Oswaldasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will introduce early legislation in order to reduce the pollution of rivers and estuarial waters in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: Extensive powers to deal with pollution already exist under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Acts, but my right hon. Friend is reviewing these at present.
    Mr. Oswald: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's reply, but does not he recognise that a growing amount of industrial effluent and untreated sewage is being poured into rivers and estuarial waters in and around Scotland? Will he give a directive to the local authorities to do something immediately about the health hazard?
    Mr. Younger: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern. Discharges to rivers and estuaries can be controlled by river purification authorities at present. If steps are needed to strengthen the controls, they will be taken.

    Local Government Boundaries
    Mr. Oswaldasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from local authorities in Scotland regarding the proposed local government boundary changes; and what discussions he intends to have with them.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Last Friday I met the local authority associations and heard their views on the White Paper. Plans for further consultations on the matters still to be decided were discussed, and I assured them that no decisions on these matters would be taken before they had been given ample opportunity to express their views.
    All local authorities in Scotland have been invited to submit before 30th April their views about the precise boundaries. Where necessary, I will arrange local discussions to give authorities an opportunity to develop these.
    Mr. Oswald: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of the number of local authorities that are fully in
    1404
    agreement with the existing plan, and how many are somewhat dubious about it?
    Mr. Campbell: I cannot give precise figures, but I have noted the widespread general support which our proposals have attracted in Scotland.
    Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Since there is widespread general support for the broad principles, as I think most hon. Members accept, why is the proposed legislation for the reform of local government a year behind the proposed English legislation?
    Mr. Campbell: We are proposing to do more in our Bill when it comes, and we shall have the benefit of a longer time for consultation and settling some of the matters to be in the legislation.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will my right hon. Friend give a bit more time to the local authorities? Will he be prepared to receive representations from Members, because I am not quite satisfied about the Edinburgh plan?
    Mr. Campbell: I am always ready, as I think hon. Members on both sides know, to receive visits from right hon. and hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies singly or in deputations. No one is more welcome than my hon. Friend. We had from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) earlier in the Session a criticism that there had already been so much consultation with local authorities that we did not need a further round. But we have had very full consultations with the local authorities, and we had a very amiable and long meeting last Friday.
    Mr. Buchan: The point is not whether there were amiable meetings and people were given an opportunity to express their views but whether the right hon. Gentleman will listen to their views. He has already said in his White Paper that it is not for discussion, that it is not for change. That kind of peremptory tough note is not very helpful. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would be tough where it matters, such as in the Cabinet, and less tough towards the local authorities in Scotland.
    Mr. Campbell: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has read the White Paper very

    1405
    carefully. If he has, he has misunderstood it, and I am glad to take this opportunity of pointing out that we have made clear the main points we intend to put in the legislation. That enables consideration now to take place of the many related and consequential matters which must be settled, including the boundaries. After seven years, the time had come on some of these issues, the pros and cons of which had been considered over and over again, for assumptions to be made on basic matters in order to get on with the other discussions.
    Mr. Ross: Since there was so much general agreement, surely it was quite wrong to throw it away by being so inflexible about the number of districts? It is rather foolish of the right hon. Gentleman to say "This is it and there will be no change" when he resurrects Nairn, a district of 6,000 people—God knows what its housing revenue will be—and at the same time says that in Ayrshire there shall be only two districts, one of which has a population of nearly 200,000. It does not make sense.
    Mr. Campbell: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have seen fit to cast aspersions on my constituency. This illustrates the flexibility we have indicated. In the north of Scotland, where Nairnshire is, and where the population is sparse, we have arranged a different kind of district with a smaller population than in the densely-populated areas.

    Marine Fish Farming
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he intends to introduce legislation to define sea fish farming and the rights of sea fish farmers.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is one of the recommendations made in the report of the Cameron Committee which my right hon. Friend will consider in the course of his study of the report.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is great potential for development here? Does he see any difficulty in the need possibly to curtail navigation rights to safeguard such development?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There is certainly considerable scope for development of this kind of fish farming. Legislation would be premature until we can see
    1406
    rather more clearly the ways in which marine fish farming will develop and the methods it will seek to use.

    Horticulture (Oil Fuel Charges)
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish horticulture industry since the recent announcement of increased oil fuel charges; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My right hon. Friend has considered the report of the meetings which I have had with representatives of the Scottish National Farmers' Union on this question. I cannot, however, encourage users of fuel oil to look for special Exchequer support on this account.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is apparently common knowledge that the Dutch are subsidising oil supplies for their horticulture? As we have an application in to join the Common Market, unless the Government take action they will build up a great prejudice against the Common Market and thereby cause great trouble, because they do nothing to help horticulture.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings on this point, but, as we have made clear on other occasions, we believe that the home industry at the moment—and it is the present moment we are talking about—should be protected where it is sensitive by tariffs and quotas.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister's disturbing reply indicate that he is prepared to stand idly by and see the horticultural industry in Scotland go under, in the way he stood by and watched the sugar beet industry go under?
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Not at all. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to refer that to his right hon. Friends and to reflect that it was they who were so slow in dealing with any anti-dumping order. I would ask him to remember that just last week within four days of a request by the industry we acted with an anti-dumping order on cauliflowers coming to this country, and this swift move was very much welcomed by the farming industry.

    Glasgow (Housing Aid)
    Mr. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made to date with regard to the promise of special housing aid for the City of Glasgow.
    Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will make a further statement on his proposals for meeting the special housing needs of Glasgow.
    Mr. Younger: I cannot yet add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Tom McMillan) on 24th February.—[Vol. 812, c. 133.]
    Mr. McElhone: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister gave this promise in Glasgow to Glasgow as far back as 10th June and that we are still waiting? Would he like to tell us, in view of the unsatisfactory answers given in the last debate that we had, that he can give a firm date for and the kind of aid that we shall get in Glasgow?
    Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend gave an outline summary of the sort of lines we were working on in the debate on 3rd February, but a full statement on this must await full, detailed consultation with the corporation, which would not thank us for doing this in a half-hearted way without getting the details first.
    Mr. Brewis: Will my hon. Friend give further consideration to the use of the S.S.H.A. for overspill houses and also general need?
    Mr. Younger: Yes, indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for that question. This is indeed part of the plan envisaged, as my right hon. Friend mentioned in outline in his statement on 3rd February.

    North-East Scotland (Economic and Social Welfare)
    Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that the needs of the economic and social welfare of the northeast of Scotland are adequately provided for in the existing organisation of his Department; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Yes. The organisation of my Department is kept under continuous review and adjusted as necessary.
    Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a danger of the administrative priorities in Scotland being dominated by the social and economic needs of the central Lowlands at the expense of the North-East and the other peripheral areas?
    Mr. Campbell: This is a danger against which I would myself make a special effort to safeguard us. I do not at the moment think that that danger is before us.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread concern in North-East Scotland that the River Don, a valuable tourist and social asset, may be denuded of salmon by the action of an industrial concern in blocking the fish passes? Will he use his powers in relation to the Don Fisheries Board, which seems somewhat ineffectual in protecting this river?
    Mr. Campbell: That is a particular question which I should not answer without notice, but I shall be pleased if the hon. Member will write to me about it.

    Boards, Councils and Committees (Appointments)
    Mr. McElhoneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT the appointments to boards, councils, committees, etc., under his jurisdiction.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: The full information is not at present easily available in a comprehensive form. If the hon. Member has some particular point in mind, I will be happy to try to assist him.
    Mr. McElhone: Would the Secretary of State give an assurance that when he makes reappointments he will appoint a disabled person to the Social Advisory Committee and any other committees concerned with chronically sick and disabled persons?
    Mr. Campbell: As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter with which I am particularly concerned. The answer is "Yes". The question of the degree of disability must, of course, be

    1409
    considered in relation to requirements and the nature of the job.

    Shawhead, Coatbridge (Primary School)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the fact that he is providing funds for the building of new primary schools for an increasing population in Lanarkshire, if he will provide moneys for the building of a new primary school at Shawhead, Coatbridge, where there is an existing school population; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Edward Taylor: It is for the education authority to make proposals for taking up its allocation of capital investment. The programme the authority has submitted does not include a new primary school at Shawhead.
    Mr. Dempsey: But is it not the case that the Minister's Department has made a special arrangement with Lanarkshire education authority to provide the sum of nearly £1 million to build primary schools for the incoming population in East Kilbride—coming from all parts of the United Kingdom—whereas primary pupils in the existing school population at Shawhead are without a new school? Is that not unfair? Should not the money be used to provide a very much required, essential project at Shawhead?
    Mr. Taylor: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the situation in the new town, for example—
    Mr. Dempsey: Yes.
    Mr. Taylor: —the authority's present allocations are not intended to cover schools needed in the East Kilbride new town. Investment will be available for this purpose when the extent of the provision needed has been agreed.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the recent increase in unemployment in the construction industry, he will seek to stimulate the public and private construction work to achieve a higher level of production as a contribution to arresting unemployment.
    Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is keeping the situation under review but I
    1410
    cannot at present add to the replies he gave the hon, Gentleman on 28th January.—[Vol. 810, c. 189–92.]
    Mr. Sillars: May I ask the Minister why it is that the Government are afraid to answer the very simple question: will their housing policies increase the number of new houses to be built in Scotland in future years?
    Mr. Younger: I certainly hope that we shall have an increased number of new houses in the areas where there is the most real need for them. All the policies we are following are aimed at that.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the question of needs was raised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in that we have an increase of 300 per cent. of steel erectors unemployed in Scotland? Can we have an assurance that the Secretary of State for Scotland will add his weight to the many efforts which are being made for more power stations which are urgently needed to be constructed and so allow these men to work?
    Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend and I keep this sort of problem under very close attention at all times, and we certainly have in mind the future of the power station programme.
    Mr. Ross: is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are looking forward to seeing tomorrow what is the latest position about unemployment and that we are all hoping to see that it has improved, but can he tell us whether the Secretary of State and he himself have accepted an indication from the S.T.U.C. to be present at the conference on this subject in Glasgow on 5th April?
    Mr. Younger: We have had many talks with the S.T.U.C. on this matter, and, of course, there are members of the S.T.U.C. on the Scottish Economic Council, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and they from time to time give us their advice on these matters. As for the unemployment figures, I think the whole House will look forward to seeing whether there is some improvement.

    German Industrial Development
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of times either he or the Under-Secretary for

    1411
    Development has paid official visits to West Germany since 1st January for the purpose of attracting German industrial investment to Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: None. But my hon. Friend made a very useful visit to Germany in the autumn.
    Mr. Sillars: One wonders just how useful that visit was. Is the Secretary of State aware that German industrialists are recruiting skilled workers in Scotland to go to work in Germany? What will he do to stop them from poaching our skilled labour?
    Mr. Campbell: Well, I understand that a delegation of the German Industrial Federation which came to Scotland was most impressed by what it saw in Scotland. The German Government have asked German industrialists to expand abroad rather than at home, and that is why we are having a campaign to attract German industry to Scotland. It will start later this year.
    Mr. Buchan: I do not know what impressed them, but it was perhaps the failure to continue with the original grants, and so forth. The position is that the bumptious flannelling of the visit to Germany has been replaced by a reverse process in which the Germans and others are coming over here to recruit the unemployed in Scotland which the Government have helped to create.
    Mr. Campbell: As I said, the visit of my hon. Friend to Germany and the visit by German industrialists to Scotland have been highly successful, and the action that is following.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Does my right hon. Friend think that his efforts will be made easier when we sign the Treaty of Rome, or will it make no difference?
    Mr. Campbell: In the long run it may be easier if the barriers between our country and Western Europe are removed, but, whatever happens about the negotiations on the Treaty of Rome, I am concerned with the immediate future, and in that we have these close contacts with Germany, which is looking for other countries in which to expand.
    Mr. David Steel: On his visit, did the Under-Secretary of State for Development look at the structure of the company
    1412
    codes in Western Germany to which all firms are required to conform, the existence of works councils in factories and the ability of employees to elect representatives to supervisory boards? Would it not be better to learn some of these lessons in industrial relations rather than pursue the Industrial Relations Bill?
    Mr. Campbell: There may be lessons in industrial relations for both management and employees to learn from other countries, but that does not affect the question of German development in Scotland, which we are hoping to encourage.
    Mr. Ross: We welcome everything the Government can do to further development in Scotland, but does not the right hon. Gentleman think it was rather unwise to send this delegation to Germany to proclaim all the incentives which were available and then, a month later, change all those incentives? I understand that no further information has been sent to the people in Germany telling them that the changes have been made.
    Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend, together with other Ministers, was invited to attend a conference on regional development being held in Bonn, and that was the reason for his visit. Because he was going to Germany, he took the opportunity of doing a lot more while he was there.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Civil Servants
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister for the Civil Service what change in the number of civil servants has occurred in the period between 19th June, 1970, and 19th February, 1971, or latest convenient date; and what plans are in hand for reduction.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): Non-industrial staffs have increased between 1st July, 1970, and 1st February, 1971, by about 4,400. In the same period industrial staff numbers have decreased by about 3,100.
    As far as reduction are concerned, we inherited a steep rise in manpower demand during 1970–71. We are cutting

    1413
    this back systematically through shedding Government functions. As a first result, the number of non-industrial staff in post at 1st April this year will be under 500,000, compared with the ceiling figure of over 505,000 set by our predecessors for that date.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend cause to be mounted on the wall in front of his desk in his Ministry a memorial to the effect that he was elected in Guildford, as I was elected in South Worcestershire, on a promise greatly to reduce the bumbling and bloated bureaucracy? Will he not take short, faltering steps towards me to embrace me and my policies?
    Mr. Howell: I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion for the decor of my office. On the serious and important point which he raises, we take this matter very seriously, indeed. We intend to work systematically through the functions of government, cutting out the burdens and thereby the staff needed to fulfil those responsibilities. In that way, unlike our predecessors, we shall achieve our objectives.
    Mr. Loughlin: Is not the reduction in the industrial Civil Service consequent upon the efficiency studies which the Labour Government undertook in the Departments? Is it not true that no redundancy was involved and that the reduction came from wastage resulting from our reorganisation? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one difficulty is that a reduction in the number of civil servants in certain aspects will simply mean a transference of the work to outside contractors?
    Mr. Howell: I accept the difficulties which the hon. Member points to. Nearly everything that happened in the way of decreases and increases before Christmas was the result of the programmes and undertakings inherited from our predecessors. As from Christmas, our own policies and programmes will begin to bite, and we shall see a flattening-out in the growth of the Civil Service.
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister for the Civil Service to what extent the extra 700 permanent staff at an annual additional cost of £1 million
    1414
    per annum for the social service departments will be engaged on dealing with matters connected with the increased number of unemployed; and how these increases will affect Her Majesty's Government's policy of reducing the number of civil servants and the cost of the Civil Service.
    Mr. David Howell: The first part of the Question is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. As to the second part, our policy on Civil Service manpower use is not affected. Total staff numbers reflect work demands placed on Departments, and this means changes, both increases and decreases, from time to time in departmental strengths to meet variations in workloads.
    Mr. Lewis: Is this not a bit crazy? We have a system whereby the Government guarantee to cut the numbers in the Civil Service, and we find that they deliberately increase them; the Government also promise that they will cut unemployment, and yet they take action deliberately designed to increase it. Now the Minister will not take action to see that the people who are entitled to get work should get work at reasonable wages.
    Mr. Howell: The Government's approach to this matter is completely systematic. The aim is to cut the burdens and responsibilities and thereby cut the staff needs. To rush round trying to cut staff without cutting work would lead to bad management, incompetence, and disruption of the kind with which we were more familiar in the recent past than under the present Government.

    Pay
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make a statement on the recent increase in Civil Service pay and by how much this exceeds the average increases in all wages announced since the beginning of 1971.
    Mr. David Howell: Agreement was reached on 11th March for a general 9½ per cent. increase from 1st January, 1971, for certain categories of civil servants, with minimum increases for adults of £1·75 per week. The settlement involves an increase in the pay bill of 9·7 per cent., which is in line with the Governments plans for de-escalation of wage increases.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend apply himself to the chronic disequilibrium in the relations between salaries in the public service'? Why is it that a top civil servant gets £14,000, the Minister who appoints him gets £9,000 and Lord Melchett, Chairman of the British Steel Corporation, gets £25,000 a year? Could we not have some equity in these matters, and a balanced relationship between all grades in the public services, including Members of Parliament?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Howell: That is obviously a very popular question, but the Question on the Order Paper refers to the agreement reached on 11th March. That agreement affected a wide range of grades, excluding the higher-paid grades to which my hon. Friend referred, which are dealt with in a later Question.
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a detailed list of persons employed in the Civil Service who are receiving salaries higher than the Minister and Junior Minister in the Departments in which they are employed; the salaries that these persons receive; the amounts of salary increases received and on what dates since October, 1964, to the latest convenient stated date.
    Mr. David Howell: To obtain the information requested by the hon. Member would involve a disproportionate expenditure of time and money. However, I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT such general information as is readily available.
    Mr. Lewis: I could give the hon. Gentleman the information without much difficulty. For once, I agree with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). Is it not a disgrace that higher-paid civil servants can have frequent increases whereas the poorer sections of the population cannot get even reasonable increases?
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman will find when he looks in the OFFICIAL REPORT that a number of statistics are provided. To go into the details for which he asks would involve an enormous amount of time, money and effort, and I do not think that it is worth it.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does not my hon. Friend agree that not only will the increase in salaries be a burden but civil servants have to be housed? At a time when outside professional consultants and bodies could be used on a temporary basis, should he not recommend their use throughout the whole Civil Service as one way of overcoming the crowded pipeline which he inherited?
    Mr. Howell: As a general principle, the Government are in favour of getting away from the idea that they have to produce and provide every service from within. In other words, they are in favour of buying rather than making where this makes economic sense in the taxpayer's interest.
    Following is the information:

    (a) Approximate number of civil servants with salaries currently above the Ministerial salary of a senior Minister (£8,500): 220.

    (b) Approximate number of civil servants with a flat rate or scale currently wholly above the Ministerial salary of junior Minister (£3,750): 6,000.

    (c) Salaries of grades in the Administration Group with salaries at about the same level as Ministers, on

    (i) 1st October, 1964, and (ii) 1st January, 1971, or (iii) 1st April, 1970 (according to the date of their last increase):
    Permanent Secretary:

    (i) £8,200.

    (ii) £14,000.*

    Deputy Secretary:

    (i) £5,800.

    (ii) £9,000.

    Under-Secretary:

    (i) £4,700.

    (ii) £6,750.

    Assistant Secretary:

    (i) £3,300—£4,300.

    (iii) £4,390—£5,640.

    Senior Principal:

    (i) £2,950—£3,300.

    (iii) £4,045—£4,555.

    *Permanent Secretaries have voluntarily waived the increase taking their salary to this level until 1st July, 1971.

    Secrecy
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Minister for the Civil Service what further action he will now take to reduce unnecessary secrecy in the Civil Service.
    Mr. David Howell: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member on 24th February.—[Vol. 812, c. 149.]
    Mr. Sheldon: Since the Prime Minister has stated that he is in favour of reducing unnecessary secrecy and having more open forms of government, will the hon. Gentleman say why the Public Expenditure White Paper contained no figures for the Revenue, and why no economic forecast which is known to the Government has been made available to the House and is not available today?
    Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury explained to the House on 22nd Februaiy why no projections were given, and he went on to say that if they had been they would not have been of much help to the House. My right hon. Friend's commitment to more explanation and more open government has been demonstrated clearly by the decision to investigate Section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and also by the Government's firm welcome to the development of the public expenditure committee system.

DESALINATION SCHEME AND WASH BARRAGE
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Sir G. DE FREITAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, when he expects to be able to announce his conclusion on the recommendations of the Water Resources Board desk study entitled The Wash Estuary Storage.
Sir H. LEGGE-BOURKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, whether he is able to announce his decisions on the proposals for a desalination plant at Ipswich and for a feasibility study of a Wash Barrage Scheme.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): I will, with permission answer Oral Question 71 and Written Question 55 together.
I have carefully examined both these projects and I have decided that they both have sufficient potential to justify the public expenditure necessary for both proposals to proceed.
In total, about £4 million will be spent on these two projects, the £4 million being divided equally between the two.
The desalination scheme at Ipswich will be carried out in conjunction with
1418
the Atomic Energy Authority and Simon Engineering Limited. The pilot plant will extend the work on the freezing process and eventually will operate with a capacity of about one million gallons per day. The authorised expenditure will include provision for a thorough investigation of any ecological effects of the disposal of concentrated cold brine into the estuary.
If a satisfactory quality of water is produced it will be used to augment Ipswich County Borough's water supplies.
The feasibility study of a Wash barrage was recommended by the Water Resources Board. The last Government authorised a desk study only, which was submitted to me on 17th July, 1970. It recommended authorisation forthwith of a feasibility study of up to four pumped storage bunded reservoirs. If the study is successful, water could be produced from the scheme in the early 1980s. If such a scheme was carried out it would, of course, have important regional planning aspects and would be of assistance in diminishing the need for the use of good agricultural land for the purpose of reservoirs.
Sir G. de Freitas: I welcome the Minister's statement. When considering this Wash Estuary storage scheme, will the Minister remember that it is not so much a barrage scheme as more possibly a financially acceptable reservoir scheme, and also that the need in the East Midlands, which is developing industrially so rapidly, is as great as in East Anglia?
Mr. Walker: I recognise this need and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing it out. If the first of the reservoirs is successful it could produce up to between 50 million and 100 million gallons of water a day, so it is of immense importance.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Whilst greatly welcoming my right hon Friend's decision today, may I ask, if the time scale necessary to produce increased supplies of water is likely to take us into the 1980s, to what extent my right hon. Friend feels that it will be necessary to review the various reservoir schemes which have been put before him?
Mr. Walker: I must make it clear that no matter how successful these schemes are there is a serious nation-wide water

1419
problem. I cannot say that there will not be a need for further reservoirs. If these schemes are successful they will diminish the need.
Dr. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when considering this matter, take advice from his biochemical experts to ensure that there is enough calcium in the water, if it is to be used for drinking purposes, to prevent deaths from low calcium due to a sudden heart disease?
Mr. Walker: Yes. I shall take the best possible advice.
Mr. Turton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what appears to be a great advance in producing the foundation of a water policy. Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether he has any plans for the Morecambe Bay Barrage Scheme, which would make a more complete water policy than that which he has announced today?
Mr. Walker: I am still awaiting the report of the feasibility study which is taking place on the Morecambe Bay Barrage Scheme. I shall have to await this report to decide what action can be taken.
Mr. Denis Howell: Does the desk study which has been received satisfy the Minister about the engineering difficulties, particularly the question of shifting sand, and so on?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State tell us, if this scheme prospers, as all would hope, what will be the total quantities of water which will be available; what will be the cost per 1,000 gallons compared with the traditional methods of obtaining water; and as the amount of water involved is likely to be enormous, as we hope, will this not mean that we shall need some new system, such as the grid system, in order that these large quantities which we are likely to get from the Wash can be got to the Midlands and London and other places quite a distance away from the area?
Mr. Walker: We are examining the whole policy towards water resources, and I shall be making a statement on that after the report of the Central Advisory Water Committee.
The object of the feasibility study is to give us the answers to the kind of questions asked by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Money: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this forward-looking decision will be most warmly welcomed in the Ipswich area both with regard to the potential involved in it and the work which it will bring for the construction industry in the district? For the unemployed in the area, this is probably the best piece of news we have had this week.
Mr. Walker: I hope that it will be of assistance and that the people of Ipswich will enjoy their water.
Mr. Farr: As it has been forecast that in the South-East there will be a shortage of fresh water within the foreseeable future, will my right hon. Friend tell us what plans he has for further desalination schemes there?
Mr. Walker: This is the most important development yet. This plant will be the biggest of its type in the world and, if successful, obviously we could copy it elsewhere.
Mr. Ron Lewis: Will the Minister now go further and have a look at the Solway Barrage Scheme?
Mr. Walker: Not today.
Mr. Body: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the feasibility study of the Wash will have regard to the interests of the ports, especially the Port of Boston, which has tremendous possibilities of expanding its traffic for the growth of trade with Europe, which we all welcome? Will my right hon. Friend also give an assurance that the fishermen who use these ports will not be adversely affected, as they are in danger of being adversely affected by the common fisheries policy?
Mr. Walker: I do not think that the feasibility study which I have announced today will have any drastic effects on the Port of Boston.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order. I make no personal complaint about Question 43, but is it not unsatisfactory, from the point of view of the House as a whole, that once again a Question to a Law Officer has not been reached? Perhaps the Government Chief Whip and the

1421
Lord President of the Council, when making up the roster after Easter, will take this matter into consideration?
Mr. Speaker: I can only repeat what I have said before. I hope that the point will be noted by those who control these matters.

STATEMENTS
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Shortly we shall be having a debate with a very restricted timetable under the guillotine. This debate will be further severely curtailed becaused the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is about to make a very long statement, full details of which were contained in Tuesday's Daily Telegraph details of which could obviously only have been given by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Is it therefore in order that we should have the time of the House taken up by this long statement when it is customary for a Minister to make a statement only when the information is not available or has not been given?
Mr. Speaker: It may or may not be desirable. It certainly is not a point of order for me.

AGRICULTURE (FARM PRICE REVIEW)
3.38 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Farm Price Review. The White Paper is available in the Vote Office.
The increase in production costs since last year's Annual Review has been bigger than ever before, due partly to inflation and partly to higher imported raw material prices. Rising productivity cannot cover such cost increases. If we are to get the expansion we want in the future, they must be met partly through the price the consumer pays and partly in the Exchequer liability for direct support. Our commodity determinations this year provide in this way for costs to be fully met. So the gains secured through greater productivity will be available to the industry to help both income and investment.
1422
Before outlining the determinations, I must make it quite clear that they represent changes in the guarantees set a year ago. They therefore include the increases made in October, 1970. The main changes compared with the 1970 Review are increases of 12p per cwt. for wheat, 10p for barley and 5p for oats; 67½p per ton for potatoes and 77½p for sugar beet; £1.22½p per cwt. for cattle, 2½p per gallon for milk, 7p per score for pigs, 2.8p. per lb. for sheep together with ½p more for wool and continuation of the extra increases in the hill sheep subsidy. As announced at the time, the temporary increase in the fertiliser and lime subsidy made at the last review for one year only will end.
On eggs, we are moving to a free market and the guarantee will be reduced again this year. We are, however, raising minimum import prices significantly in the light of increased production costs. On milk we have proposed a big increase in the guarantee. Levy arrangements will in addition strengthen the price of milk for manufacture and so firm up the pool price. This is necessary in face of a very steep rise in costs. The retail price will have to go up by ½p in July in consequence. We have also taken into account the reduction in the standard quantity. In addition, we are offering substantially higher incentives to encourage still further the good progress made on brucellosis eradication. I am announcing today arrangements to start area eradication.
In conventional Review terms the total increase in the value of the guarantees is about £138 million over the levels determined in March last year. This includes the adjustments to the guarantees made last October.
These determinations have been made in the knowledge that we shall be changing the basic method of agricultural support. After intensive negotiations with overseas suppliers, we have now secured the necessary agreement to enable us to introduce interim levy schemes covering cereals, beef and veal, mutton and lamb and minor milk products from the beginning of July. I am circulating information about this in the OFFICIAL REPORT and making copies available in the Library now. Fuller details will be announced as soon as all the discussions

1423
are completed and the necessary Orders will be laid before Parliament. These schemes will introduce a much needed limitation on Exchequer liability. With the new policies, changes foreshadowed by the approach we have taken this year will be made in the concepts and procedures of the Annual Review.
The Review and the determinations must be seen against this background. Our decisions fully cover cost increases on major commodities. They aim to maintain a proper commodity balance and provide substantial extra resources for sheep. In the present economic situation it would have been wrong to go further than this. I am sure these decisions will restore confidence in the industry and enable it to move ahead both on output and productivity.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Minister will recognise that we shall need to have a full and thorough debate on the White Paper. Would he explain how it is that accurate details of the White Paper appeared in the weekend Press in advance of his statement today? On the statement which he has just made and on the White Paper, is he aware that this Review will be regarded as a "soak-the-housewife" Review, which does not deal with the fundamental problems of agriculture?
First, what is his evaluation of the total amounts of the award, excluding the £54 million adjustment in October? How much of it will fall on the consumer in respect of milk and sugar and how much on the Exchequer? Second, how were costs computed on this occasion? Was it done on exactly the same basis as last year's Review and the Reviews of past years? If not, what would be the figures over and above the figure of £141 million costs?
Third, his statement on import levies is very important and there are no details in the White Paper. Could he give the House some more details? What will this mean in terms of increased prices of beef, lamb and bread, for example? How much money does he expect from levies this year and how much in the next full year? How much does he calculate will go to old-age pensioners to compensate them for the increased cost of food?
1424
Last, as this is a Review in which recoupment falls short of costs, different from last year's Review—
Mr. Peter Mills: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Hughes:—can the Minister say whether the unions have agreed it? Do they believe that it will enable them to get the expansion to which he has referred?
Mr. Prior: To take some of these questions—[HON. MEMBERS: "All of them."]—some of them in reverse order, I was trying to say. If I could deal with the right hon. Gentleman's last question first, the Review is not agreed. When the right hon. Gentleman asked me whether or not the National Farmers' Union thinks that it will restore confidence, it is interesting that he spoke in terms of having to restore confidence—
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: On a point of order. I did not refer to the restoration of confidence: I referred to getting expansion.
Mr. Prior: I am sorry. Certainly, we will not—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I got his words wrong, but in the last six years, since 1964, there has been virtual stagnation in agriculture, and if that does not constitute a loss of confidence, what does? The President of the National Farmers' Union says that this will be a measurable step towards restoring confidence, and with that I fully agree.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, including one about the import levies and their effect and what they are. I left them out of my original statement, because I did not want it to be too long, but I will now give the House the figures. The level of minimum import prices for cereals will be raised, on average, by £3.50 per ton from 1971 and £6 from August, 1972, to December, 1972. For fat cattle, the target indicator price will be £10.35 per cwt., for mutton and lamb there will be a rise in three stages from £9·33 per ton from 1st July to £28 per ton from 1st July, 1972. For the minor milk products, the range of minimum import prices will be set according to the product, varying

1425
from £135 per ton on condensed milk up to £351 per ton on fresh cream.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what effect these levies would have on retail prices this year. In the 12 months from July, 1971, when the introduction will be made, to July, 1972, the increase in retail prices on the cost of food index which we can expect from the introduction of these levy schemes will be approximately half of one per cent. if the right hon. Gentleman really thinks this is a "soak-the-housewife" Review, then nobody knows more about soaking the housewife than the Opposition. [Interruption.]
The right hon. Gentleman then asked me about the cost to the Exchequer of this Review. The Exchequer may have to meet rather more than half the cost of the measures that are being taken. In fact, the estimate of £47 million that has been made takes into consideration the October allowances.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Sir David Renton.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes Mr. Cledwyn Hughes rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Hughes: The Minister—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Sir David Renton. I will call the right hon. Gentleman next.
Hon. Members: Why?
Sir D. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will give a great deal of hope to farmers for the expansion of their industry, hope which has been lacking for too long? To what extent has there been under-recoupment, and how will that under-recoupment be shared by consumers, taxpayers and farmers?
Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for those remarks. The extent of under-recoupment this year on the cost figures accepted by both the Government and the N.F.U. as being the correct cost figures to take for the purposes of the Review is £3 million. However, we are now moving away from a period when a global figure for the cost increase, or for that matter a global figure for the award, really represents the true position of the industry. For example, we are this year treating eggs in
1426
a different manner and are helping on milk by means of minor milk products. There is no doubt that this Review will restore confidence to the industry, and I expect to see considerable expansion this year.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes Mr. Cledwyn Hughes rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: I said I would call the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Cledwyn Hughes.
Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has totally failed to reply to my questions. First, how were the costs computed on this occasion, and were they computed differently from the last occasion? This is an important question. Secondly, what is the total global sum that will fall on the consumer under this Review?
Mr. Prior: The computation of costs has varied a little this year—[Interruption.]—but in accordance with the Statute. In fact, it has made little difference to the outcome.
Mr. Small: How much difference?
Mr. Prior: We cannot really tell. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] This is a very complicated cost computation and there are three different cost factors to be taken into account. There is the cost factor on all Review commodities, which comes to £141 million, as I have mentioned; there is the cost factor which falls outside the statutory Review commodities, which is that part of milk falling outside the standard quantity and those eggs which are not sold through packing stations, and that figure comes to about £165 million, but it is really a meaningless figure; and then there is the total for all commodities, which is £217 million. [Interruption.]
If I am being asked about the part that falls on to the Exchequer and the part that falls on to the consumer, then the answer is that £47 million falls on to the Exchequer and the balance, making up to the £138 million, falls on to the consumer.
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. William Hamilton: Scandalous!
Mr. Evelyn King: To put the matter in proportion following the niggling criticism that we have had so far from hon. Gentlemen opposite, may I ask my right

1427
hon. Friend if it is not a fact that there are few Englishmen who work so hard for so little reward and so conscientiously as the farmer and farm-worker? As they are merely to receive back what they would otherwise lose, are they not setting a shining example to other sections of industry?
Mr. Prior: Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks.
Mr. Loughlin: I bet you are.
Mr. Prior: Productivity in agriculture—this is a compliment to both farmers and farm workers—has been rising at an annual rate of about 6 per cent. If other industries could match that we would not be in the mess we are now in. But the other factor—
Mr. Loughlin: What are the Government doing for old-age pensioners?
Mr. Prior: I was about to say—
Mr. Loughlin: What about the old-age pensioners?
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) must not shout at the Minister from a sedentary position.
Mr. Loughlin Mr. Loughlin rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for a little calm.
Mr. Loughlin: This is absolutely shocking.
Mr. William Hamilton: Resign.
Mr. Prior: Since the war we have had very sharp increases in costs in two years, 1951 and 1970. If hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to complain about the level of increases in prices, they should take full responsibility for what has happened; and if housewives are having to pay more for food this year they know who to blame. [Interruption.]
Mr. William Hamilton: Twister!
Mr. John Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has had only a minor proportion of the money needed for the Price Review from the Treasury, that he has failed in that respect and
1428
that the bulk of the Review will be financed by the housewife? Does he think the figure he has given, one-half of 1 per cent., will be the actual increase in prices to the housewife, or is it just a pig in a poke?
Mr. Prior: The increase in prices to the housewife, which is very limited indeed, is made up of two parts, the one-half of 1 per cent. which will come as a result of the levies that are being imposed from July onwards—that is, one-half of 1 per cent. in one year from that time onwards on the cost of food index—and to that must be added the increase in the price of milk which will come in July, which will be three-quarters of 1 per cent. on the cost of food index. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite have memories which are shorter than I thought. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."] They must know that last year they did exactly the same thing in their Price Review. For what are they blaming me this year? Food prices have risen sharply in the last year and the effect of the levy policy will not be to add further to those increases.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated for recognising in this Review the very severe plight that beset many arable areas of the country as a result of three bad years of weather? Would he agree that for any former Minister of Agriculture to play the demagogue with the consumer in the way the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) has done today is an absolute disgrace?
Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. I will try to put the perspective between the housewife and the taxpayer exactly right. I think I quoted rather misleading figures to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] The cost between the consumer and the Exchequer this year will be borne more or less half and half between the two sides.
Mr. Hooson: Will not the efficiency or effectiveness of this Price Review, even for the farmers, depend largely upon the Government's ability to control the ever-escalating costs of production and, if they do not succeed in doing that, the farmers will not be recouped in any event? Second, as this is once again an unagreed

1429
Review, is it not time that there was a review of the Review procedures so that there could be a reference to independent arbitration when there is no agreement?
Mr. Prior: I do not think that we want to go to an independent arbitration, but I think that the time has come when the Review procedures do need looking at, particularly now that we are moving away from the old system and moving much more towards the levy system.
Mr. Maude: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the majority of consumers in this country would rather have an expanding industry producing quality British food than the half-bankrupt industry which the rabble opposite produced?
Mr. Prior: The increases in costs this year are the highest ever. The industry needs these costs before it can possibly earn extra money for itself. It must have extra productivity to get anything out of it at all. To talk in global sums of £138 million is totally misleading. This is not to say for a moment that the industry itself will have been given £138 million. It will have to come from higher productivity; it will have to come from better prices over the coming year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Higher prices."]—higher prices within the guarantee. If the industry is to succeed and prosper, the greatest beneficiary will be the British housewife.
Mr. Mackie: Although grateful for small mercies personally, may I put this to the Minister? Naturally, I have had to make my calculations quickly, but, taking into account the £10 million which we are losing on the fertiliser and lime subsidies, that is, minus £13 million, and the mythical minus shown at the bottom of page 5 of the White Paper, on which the Minister would not put a figure, is not this Review, therefore, worse than the last two Reviews, and how does that tie up with the comment of his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) on the last two Reviews, that they were totally inadequate?
Mr. Prior: It is certainly not worse than the last two Reviews; in many respects it is better. It does not give overfull recoupment, as the last Review
1430
did—with that I agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, but the costs this year are £141 million, which is double what they were last year, and we know who takes responsibility for that.
Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Could my right hon. Friend tell us what new arrangements there will be for minimum import prices for eggs and egg products, and whether the economies of the industry have been taken into account? Second, does he propose minimum import prices for poultry meat?
Mr. Prior: For eggs, the minimum import prices are being raised from the end of this month by about 3 new pence per dozen. I have no proposals at the moment on minimum import prices for poultry meat; nor would I expect to bring them in for some months, at least pending a satisfactory outcome of our poultry health problem.
Mrs. Joyce Butler: How can the Minister be so complacent when he must know that the 1¼d. a pint on milk and the other increases which must follow on meat and other essential foods will hit hardest the pensioners and low-income families who are already having a great struggle to buy adequate nutrition? As Minister of Food, does not the right hon. Gentleman have an overriding responsibility to protect the consumer, instead of using the consumer to balance his budget?
Mr. Prior: I have an overriding responsibility to try to keep the taxes on food as low as is reasonable, commensurate with my other responsibilities as Minister of Agriculture. What I am doing is saving the taxpayers' money so that more money can be spent either on taxation relief—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or on social security benefits such as the family income supplement.
Mr. Kimball: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the National Farmers' Unions may say about this Price Review now, any balanced judgment on the Review must await budgetary decisions on the selective employment tax and the impact of capital taxation on the industry?
Second, why are the increases in the brucellosis incentive scheme necessary? Are they agreed with the National Farmers' Unions, and how long will eradication take?
Mr. Prior: The brucellosis incentive scheme is a great step forward. Although the present scheme is being very successful, we want to move over to area eradication as soon as we can, and we therefore need to build up a large reservoir of brucellosis-free stock. The incentives go up from 37s. 6d. for a beef cow to £5, and for a gallon of milk from just over one old penny a gallon to just under two old pennies a gallon. I regard this as a great step forward for brucellosis eradication.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Reverting to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), will not this Price Review mean much earlier increases in social benefits for the elderly and other people on fixed incomes? It was rather difficult to hear what the right hon. Gentleman did say, but has he not gratuitously increased the cost of living? Does he realise that he must not now seek to blame other people for this, as has been his custom? Finally, will he break down the increases in costs in much more detail?
Mr. PriorIf the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to read our election manifesto, which he obviously did not, he would have seen that we made perfectly clear that, over a period of years, we were to move over to a levy system as the means of support for British agriculture, that this would lead to some increases in food prices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—yes, that is so—and that we should protect those who need help by giving extra help to them. That is what we shall do.
Mr. Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend take it that he is to be congratulated for strengthening agriculture and, therefore, protecting the consumer from being at the mercy of imports from abroad, and that the consequence of a weak British agriculture would be that the costs would be dictated to the consumers themselves?
Mr. Prior: The interim levy scheme which we shall introduce in July is a great step forward for British agriculture which, I am sure, the whole House will wish to see.
Mr. Deakins: Will the right hon. Gentle man confirm that the figure of cost increases comparable with the £60 million
1432
in the Annual Review White Paper of 1970 is not the £141 million mentioned in this year's White Paper but the £165 million which he mentioned in a throwaway remark, so that this is, in fact, an under-recoupment of about £27 million?
Mr. Prior: No, Sir; I do not confirm that because it is not the fact.
Mr. John Wells: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the new cereal import levy system will not put up the price of imports to farmers, and will he, further, confirm that the more expensive part of the housewife's weekly budget comes in horticultural items which are not subject to this Review, so that all the zoo-like behaviour we have witnessed from the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) is a load of codswallop?
Mr. Prior: There is nothing like synthetic indignation for rousing the Opposition. The impact of minimum import prices for cereals will not affect farmers' inputs either this year, or so far as I can see next year, subject to the prevailing level of world prices.
Mr. Strang: Has not the overriding aim of this review been to reduce the Treasury commitment and not to promote agricultural expansion? Has not the Minister tried to conceal an inadequate award by fiddling the cost figures so that the award will not put into the industry the money needed for new investment and higher wages for farm workers?
Mr. Prior: That is not the view of the National Farmers' Union and nor is it my view. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways: they cannot say that I am doing too much and at the same time that I am not doing enough.
Mr. Charles Morrison: What will be the effect of the Review on net farm income? What estimate has my right hon. Friend made of the effect on the receipts of average farms?
Mr. Prior: It is impossible to say what effect it will have on net farm income, because it depends so much on the movement of costs and the movement of productivity in the coming year, but certainly I expect an increase in net farm income. Receipts on the average type of farm will depend on the commodity produced and the efficiency and costs concerned, and I should not like to put a

1433
figure to that, but the result of the review will certainly be more than a full re-coupment of increased costs, which will allow something for increased investment or increased net income.
Mr. Ross: Am I not right in thinking that an important element in the Review and an, increased cost which the Minister is placing on agriculture is his abolition of the free advisory services, which does not exactly meet our need for agricultural expansion? Can the Minister now congratulate himself on an incredible achievement—not being able to satisfy the farmers that he has been fair to them, and at the same time shocking British housewives?
Mr. Peter Mills: Rubbish!
Mr. Prior: The advisory services remain free. It is typical of the right hon. Gentleman that he should try to distort the position as he has. He always tries to distort things and that is exactly what he has done in his reference to the increase to the housewife. He knows perfectly well that the increase which I have announced today will be but a fraction of the increases which his Government imposed.
Mr. Farr: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing two of our election promises with the introduction of the levy scheme and taking what I regard as a big step towards import substitution? Will he pass the word to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether he can do something about S.E.T., which has greatly inflated costs this year to farmers and housewives?
Mr. Prior: It has definitely inflated farmers' costs and housewives' costs over the years, but we do not hear much about that from the Opposition. I believe that this Review will have a major effect on farm expansion. I hope that it will save imports, and that it will set the industry on the right course for the next few years. It compares very sharply with what happened between 1964 and 1970 when production was virtually stagnant and when incomes in real terms were falling over the whole period.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain why these figures were made available outside the
1434
House before being made available here today?
Mr. Prior: They were not.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. The Minister has just said that the figures were not made available outside the House first. I tabled a Question on Monday and the answer gave exactly the figures which are given in this announcement today. Is the Minister entitled to make a statement which is obviously not true? I have the two statements in my hand. What he said must be an untruth and the Minister should withdraw it.
Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Prior: I have nothing to withdraw.
Mr. Lewis: The figures were available.
Mr. Prior: The figures were not made available.
Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis rose—
Mr. Prior: Let me answer. I have had this matter examined. There is always speculation in advance of a Price Review. I am prepared, in looking at the way in which we conduct these Reviews in future years, to see whether this sort of speculation can be cut down, because I recognise its importance. However, it is totally untrue to say that, any information was given.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is it not a fact that if my right hon. Friend had done his sums as right hon. Gentlemen opposite did theirs the £30 million efficiency factor would have been included and instead of there being no recoupment there would have been a positive contribution? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend guard against importers getting round minimum import prices by paying more than the market rate for another commodity sold in conjunction with that which is subject to the minimum import price?
Mr. Prior: The minimum import price scheme will take a lot of sorting out and we will bear in mind what my hon. Friend said. I do not want to place too much emphasis on the figure of £30 million for the so-called efficiency factor, because I have never believed that it was a fair figure to take. However, in this Review, accepting that we are treating eggs and

1435
milk specially, we do more than recoup on full costs, and we leave the efficiency factor with the industry.
Mr. William Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) about the report in the Daily Telegraph? The figures are not just speculation; they are exactly the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has announced today. He ought to have an inquiry into the matter.
Will he answer the question which he deliberately refused to answer and give a detailed breakdown of the way in which he assesses that the cost to a housewife will be ½ per cent. on the food index? Will he also say quite shortly what the pensioner will get out of this Review?
Mr. Prior: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should take the view that I am not speaking truthfully when I say that the figures were not given; they were not given and nor are those which have appeared accurate. I have studied the published figures very carefully: for example, the sheep figure is not accurate.
The cost of food index will go up by ¾ per cent. as a result of the increase in the price of milk. There will be an increase in the cost of food index of ½per cent. after the interim levy schemes come into operation from 1st July onwards. These schemes will be introduced gradually over the following 12 months.
Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order. I should be grateful for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which is causing difficulty to hon. Members on both sides of the House both at Question time and during supplementary questions on Ministerial statements. Today, for example, the Minister of Agriculture has placed responsibility for various Government actions on the Labour Government, which left office nine months ago. Yesterday and on preceding days, the Prime Minister placed responsibility on the Labour Government, which left office nine months ago, for the present cost of living and for the present unemployment. It would be of great assistance to hon. Members if you could ascertain, and possibly have posted in the "No" Division Lobby, the date as from which the present Government accept responsibility for the government of the country.
Mr. Speaker: I suspect that the hon. Member knew that that was not a point of order at all. The Chair has no responsibility for what hon. Members on either side say. It has no responsibility for the answers.
Mr. Loughlin: On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will accept that when a disparaging remark is made against an hon. Member of the House in a standing position to you, Mr. Speaker, as was made by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) in respect of myself, then the hon. Member who is so charged has a reasonable right to reply. I do not want to reply on this occasion, Mr. Speaker. I do not ask to reply on this occasion.
An Hon. Member: Sit down, then.
Mr. Loughlin: In defence of the rest of the House, may I draw your attention to this, Mr. Speaker, and ask that in future when a remark of that kind is made about an hon. Member he will at least be given the opportunity of replying?
Mr. Speaker: With regard to that point of order, if I had heard a disparaging remark which I thought was out of order I certainly would have dealt with it. I am afraid that we cannot debate these matters further now.
Mr. John Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like unreservedly to withdraw the remark which I made. I referred to the zoo-like behaviour of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), and I feel that that is unfair to the animals.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you could help me over a difficulty. The Minister has announced a new tax, a meat tax. There is considerable speculation in the country as to exactly what this will mean. He has not embodied any details within the Review published today, which is available to Members and to the public. He has merely laid some papers in the Library. There will be speculation as to whether the meat tax will be based upon a target indicator price backed by a seasonal system of coefficients, or whether the meat tax will be a minimum import price backed by 100 per cent. levies. The papers containing this information are no

1437
doubt available in the Library. Am I at liberty, as a Member with access to those papers, to acquire them from the Library and make them public to the housewives outside who are deeply concerned about this vicious meat tax which is being imposed by this doctrinaire Government?
Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order, if it were a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman will wait to see what is circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT and the papers in the Library, he will find that the OFFICIAL REPORT will contain approximate details of the scheme as it is at present before it is laid before the House, where it will have to be debated, and that will give him the information he requires.
Mr. Speaker: I really must protect the business of the House.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a point of order which, with respect, I think that you should deal with. As you know, you are the protector of the back benchers of the House. As you know, the House has been guillotined and has had restrictions imposed upon its Members with regard to business which is to come up shortly. I have in my hands the proof that the Minister has asked you for permission to make a long statement, in the knowledge that there would be many supplementary questions, and for the last 40 minutes the House has been deprived of getting on with the debate on a limited time Motion, when the statement which the Minister has made could have been made tomorrow without interfering with our business, because the Minister knows and I know that the information did not have to be given today.
You surely have the right, Mr. Speaker, to decide whether it is convenient and right for the time of the House to be taken up when there is more urgent business to be dealt with and when the Minister could easily have been told that as full details of his statement were published on Monday there was no urgency for him to make the statement today. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you could quite easily have said to the Minister that, as full details have not only been published in the Press but were tabled in Questions on Monday and Tuesday of this week containing the exact statements
1438
contained in the report, the Minister should make his statement on Thursday, or when the guillotine is not operative.
Mr. Speaker: Unfortunately, the Chair has no such powers. It has no power to control the business of the House. It can try to keen what hon. Members say within order. But I have no responsibility at all for statements, what is in them, nor, indeed, whether they are made at a particular time or not. Mr. Secretary Campbell.
Mr. Thorpe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just had a very important statement which, understandably, has run for a very much longer period than most statements do. It has been very nearly an hour. That being so, despite the absence of the Leader of the House—the Patronage Secretary is present and no doubt is able to break silence if he wishes—in view of the importance of the statement that we have just heard and the undoubted importance of the business which is to follow, namely the Industrial Relations Bill, I wonder whether any approach or suggestion has been made to you that we might extend our business to a later hour in order to have further time.
Mr. Concannon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I agree with the Leader of the Liberal Party in what he has just said, it is worth noting that the Liberal Party has never stayed to vote on the Bill after 12 o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: That shows the dangers of getting involved in these matters. I must point out to the House that quite a lot of the time has been taken up by noise of one sort or another and a certain number of points of order. We must get on. Mr. Secretary Campbell.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that I should be out of order were I to say that the Minister had told a lie, so I do not say that. But as he has committed a terminological inexactitude, I give notice that I shall try to raise on the Adjournment the matter of the mistake in the facts that he has given.
Following is the information:
With effect from 1st July the new minimum import price and levy arrangements will reflect those now in force, but the present "co-operating country" and "country levy" provisions are being discontinued and the new

1439
system will be based on variable general levies assessed on the difference between lowest representative offering prices and the relevant minimum import prices.
The range of products covered will continue as at present and will include all the cereals and cereal-based products normally traded (other than rye and rice). Maize intended for industrial uses will be allowed levy-free entry. Denatured wheat, flour not suitable for human consumption and malting barley of high diastatic quality will have separate minimum import prices.
The present level of minimum import prices will be increased, in average terms by £3.50 per ton starting in July, 1971, and continuing for the year August 1971 to July 1972; and for the period August, 1972 to December, 1972 by an amount which for the crop year 1972–73 as a whole would be £6 per ton on average above present levels. The level of minimum import prices thereafter will be the subject of later determination.
The minimum import prices will rise seasonally throughout the year from August to July in order to encourage orderly marketing. The total range of the variations will be £3.
The forward period for which contracts may be registered will continue at 3 months and announcements of prospective rates of levy will be made accordingly.
With effect from the first week in July (beginning on 5th July, 1971) imports of fresh, chilled and frozen beef and veal and of fat cattle will be subject to a system of general variable levies to support minimum import prices, on a weekly basis, for the various main categories of imports other than from the Irish Republic. These minimum import prices will be related to an annual target indicator price for fat cattle in the United Kingdom market, which for 1971–72 will be £10·35 (207s. 0d.) per live cwt. Levies will be chargeable if for any week the average market price of fat cattle in the United Kingdom falls below the target indicator price for that week. Levies will be payable at the time of import or withdrawal from bonded warehouse.
With effect from 1st July, 1971, imports, other than from the Irish Republic, of fresh, chilled and frozen mutton and lamb will be subject to import duties at specific rates. For bone-in mutton carcases the rate will be half that for other mutton and lamb, for which the rates will be £9·33 per ton from 1st July to 31st December, 1971, £18·67 per ton from 1st January, 1972 to 30th June, 1972, and £28·00 per ton from 1st July, 1972.
Special arrangements to apply to imports of fat cattle, beef and veal, and mutton and lamb from the Irish Republic are currently under discussion with the Government of the Republic. These arrangements will be linked to changes in the United Kingdom Fatstock Guarantee Scheme, which are outlined in the White Paper "Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees 1971" published today.
With effect from 1st July, 1971 minimum import price arrangements, enforced where necessary by levies, will be introduced for milk
1440
products other than butter and cheese. They will be set at these levels:

£ a ton

fresh cream

351

canned cream

249

skimmed milk powder

157

whole milk powder

273

condensed milk

135

Arrangements are also being made to ensure that the prices of imported chocalate milk crumb and animal feedingstuffs containing milk solids will not be out of line with the prevailing prices for milk products. Special arrangements consistent with the objectives of the scheme have been agreed in principle with the countries concerned in respect of imports from the Irish Republic, of whole milk powder from New Zealand and Australia and of canned cream from Denmark. Further discussions on the details and operation of the scheme will be held with domestic interests and with some overseas suppliers in the immediate future.

AGRICULTURE (FARM PRICE REVIEW)
  BILLS PRESENTED
    REDEMPTION OF STANDARD SECURITIES (SCOTLAND)
    Mr. Secretary Campbell, supported by The Lord Advocate and Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 relating to the redemption of standard securities; to make provision as respects Scotland in relation to the operation of section 89 of the Companies Act 1948; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 131.]
    CIVIL AVIATION
    Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Frederick Corfield, Mr. Michael Noble, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. David Howell, and Mr. Anthony Grant presented a Bill to establish a public authority concerned with civil aviation and to make provision as to the functions of the authority; to make further provision for regulating civil aviation: to establish a corporation with functions which include the function of controlling the activities of the British Overseas Airways Corporation and the British European Airways Corporation and to authorise in certain circumstances the dissolution of either of those Corporations; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 128.]
  ORDERS OF THE DAY

    INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
    [3rd ALLOTTED DAY]
    As amended, further considered.

  New Clause 5

    EXTENSION OF SS. 35 TO 40 TO COMPOSITE UNIT
    (1) In this section "composite unit" means a unit extending to two or more associated undertakings and consisting of the aggregate, or part of the aggregate, of those undertakings, "associated undertakings" means undertakings of two or more associated employers and "the employers", in relation to a composite unit, means the employers to whose undertakings the unit extends.
    (2) The provisions of sections 35 to 40 of this Act shall have effect in relation to a composite unit as they have effect in relation to a unit of employment within the meaning of those sections, as if—

    (a) any reference in those sections, except in section 36(1)(b), to a unit of employment were a reference to a composite unit;

    (b) in section 35(2) the references to the employer were references to the employers; and

    (c) in section 36(1)(b), for the words "larger unit of employment of which that unit forms part" there were substituted the words "larger composite unit extending to the same group of associated undertakings (or to a larger group of associated undertakings which includes those undertakings) and consisting of the whole or a larger part of the aggregate of that group or larger group".—[Mr. R. Carr.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    4.30 p.m.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: With this new Clause I will allow discussion of the following:
    Amendment No. 21, in page 25, line 39 at end insert:
    (3) Before the Secretary of State makes an application under this section with respect to a unit of employment, he shall consult the parties appearing to him, in relation to that unit, to be the parties to whom this section applies.
    Amendment No. 22, in page 28, line 1 leave out from "be" to "parties" in line 3 and insert:
    (a) those appearing to the Commission to be.
    1442
    Amendment No. 23, in page 28, line 6 leave out "any other persons" and insert:
    "such other persons (if any)".
    Amendment No. 24, in page 28, line 7 leave out "who" and insert:
    "as in the Commission's opinion".
    Amendment No. 25, in page 28, line 45 leave out "of" and insert:
    "employer or trade union included among".
    Amendment No. 160, in page 25, line 30 leave out "or intentions".
    Mr. Carr: It will help to explain what new Clause 5 does if I draw attention to the form in which Clause 35 of the Bill is now drawn.
    Clause 35(2) makes it clear that the parties to whom these Clauses apply are the employer and any trade union which the employer recognises or with which the employer has a procedure agreement. It will be noticed that I use the word "employer" in the singular. In other words, the Clauses extend only to the undertaking of a single employer. The effect of new Clause 5 and its associated Amendments is to make it possible for an application to be made in respect of the undertaking of a group of two or more associated employers.
    We have always maintained that the procedure provided for in Clauses 35 to 40 should be limited in its application to a single company. Today, we are talking about what we mean by "a single company". As the House will know, we have resisted and we still resist proposals that an application under Clause 35 could cover a whole industry or section of industry. As I say, we still resist that, and we make no change in the position of this procedure on that point. What we are doing is to recognise that the undertaking of a single employer in the technical sense may not always be the sensible unit of employment where there is a closely integrated group of two or more financially associated employers operating the same procedure agreement, negotiating with the same union, suffering from the same industrial relations problems and controlled by the same holding company. What the new Clause does, therefore, is to enable an application to extend to more than one subsidiary of the same holding company where that is

    1443
    the only sensible basis on which to tackle the kind of problems with which the Clauses are intended to deal.
    Mr. John Fraser: If the right hon. Gentleman attaches such importance to the integrated nature of a subsidiary company and a holding company in reaching a procedure agreement, why does he maintain that the holding company or the subsidiary company can still remain an extraneous party under the terms of Clause 87?
    Mr. Carr: With respect, that is another argument which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has dealt with on a number of occasions.
    Mr. Stanley Orme: Not very satisfactorily.
    Mr. Carr: I emphasise again that the new Clause represents no change of substance in the Government's intentions. We are not making it possible for an application under Clause 35 to cover a whole industry or a whole section of industry. I believe that the House will realise, even though hon. Gentlemen opposite do not agree with the basic procedure here, that, if we are to have such a procedure, the change that we propose is both desirable and necessary if the procedure is to be effective. I say that because, in these days, when one often finds in large companies a high degree of centralisation in decision-making on industrial relations as well as other matters, it will often be essential to look at the undertakings of several associated employers as a single exercise because, in terms of industrial relations, it is not possible and certainly not desirable to treat their problems separately.
    Mr. Orme: It appears from what the right hon. Gentleman has said so far that it will not be possible, for example, to make the engineering industry's York Agreement legally enforceable. However, that agreement is applicable to major firms. Could it be made legally binding in those firms under this Clause? In other words, could that agreement, which cannot be made legally binding on a national basis, in part be made legally binding?
    Mr. Carr: In terms of a group of associated companies, yes, but not over the whole industry.
    Mr. Orme: What is the difference?
    Mr. Carr: There is an enormous difference. There are 4,500 members in the Engineering Employers Federation. That is what we say cannot be done. But we are saying that it does not have to he done, but that it would be possible under this Clause to look in one application at the procedure agreement for a composite group.
    Mr. Orme: British Leyland?
    Mr. Carr: Possibly, yes. But whether it would ever be sensible to look at an undertaking as large as British Leyland in one inquiry is another matter. To take another case, for example the Birmid Group—and I will quote from the Report of the C.I.R. about that in a moment—obviously it is sensible to be able to look at that. We are not saying that we should always look at a group of composite companies as one. We are saying that it should be possible and may be sensible to do so.
    Mrs. Barbara Castle: The right hon. Gentleman will realise, of course, that we on this side of the House are against his whole principle. But, on the basis of his principle, what is the difference between applying it to a whole industry and saying that we cannot do that but that we will apply the new procedure agreement which takes the place of the York Agreement unit by unit, group by group, by instalments?
    Mr. Carr: The right hon. Lady misunderstands the working of the Clause 35 machinery. It is not machinery to impose some preconceived, prenegotiated agreement. It is machinery to use for a company which we are now saying should also be possible for a composite company as well as a single one in the technical sense. It is machinery for a company like that, where there is evidence either of the absence of a procedure agreement or of a procedure agreement which is working imperfectly so that there is loss of production through failure to keep to it, to ask the C.I.R. to look at the circumstances and try to get a voluntary agreement between the parties, and, if it fails, for the C.I.R. to make its own recommendations on the sort of agreement that that company or composite company should have. In other words, the procedure does not enforce

    1445
    a ready-made agreement on a company. It is a procedure for looking at a company in trouble and saying as a result of expert investigation by the C.I.R., the sort of procedure agreement most likely to get that company out of trouble. So there is no question of taking the York Agreement or any other agreement and imposing it by force on a company, either single or composite.
    To continue the case for the need to be able to look at a composite company, it is often the case that, largely for financial reasons, separate companies can be established on the same site carrying out substantially similar operations and operating the same procedure agreements with the same unions. It would be wrong simply, because the companies were technically separate employers, for them to be forced to operate on the problems of one of them while being forced to leave the problems of the others on one side.
    In our view, there are important reasons for grouping the undertakings of associated employers in some cases. Thus, it will often be found, perhaps more frequently in the future than in the past, that domestic procedure agreements established in agreement with trade unions are settled at group or division level in the big composite companies rather than at the level of the individual company within a group or division.
    Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I quite see the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Now will he return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme)? If there is a procedure agreement which can be either voluntarily agreed or imposed under certain conditions, will the right hon. Gentleman now say whether associated companies would be considered extraneous parties in relation to a dispute?
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman cannot draw me into a debate—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh but at the moment we are discussing new Clause 5 which relates to Clauses 35 to 40 of the original Bill. The right hon. Lady wants me to be drawn into a discussion about Clause 87 and the Amendments that we have already dealt with relating to procedure. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General expounded to the House the reasons for the Amendments
    1446
    to the original Clause 87 which have narrowed the original application of that, in a sense more favourable towards the trade union case than was the original Clause. This was because on consideration we thought it right. But these are separate issues and it does not mean that what is correct in one case is necessarily correct in the other. We have now accepted those Amendments.
    Mrs. Castle: This is not just a debating point on our part. It is a very serious point from the point of view of the cohesion of the Bill as a whole. The right hon. Gentleman has just given an illustration of when an associated company should be so considered for the purposes of this part of the Bill and he has given us a practical example. He has said: "Here are two companies, they may be separate but they are on the same site and need the same negotiating agreement. We believe in the terms of the Bill that they should be associated companies." We have a right to ask whether that kind of illustration and parallel will carry over into the definition of an associated company. We cannot have one definition in one part of the Bill and one in another.
    Mr. Carr: I am talking about what it is possible to look at under one particular procedure. In Clause 87 we are talking about an extraneous party and whether it is directly involved in and giving direct support to one or the other side in an industrial dispute. I suggest that we are looking at two entirely different problems. We take the other points seriously. We have debated them seriously and, for better or for worse, we believe for better, the House has decided upon them. We now have the opportunity to do likewise with this new Clause and the associated Amendments.
    We are not saying that a composite company must be looked at as a whole, we only say that to get good procedural agreements it ought to be possible to do this. I was giving some of the important reasons why we believe that. It is important, often essential, for management at group or division level to be involved in any consideration of the reform of industrial relations which the C.I.R. considers necessary. A few moments ago I said I would like to take an example from the C.I.R.'s past work. I would like now to quote from paragraph 61 of the C.I.R. Report on the three associated

    1447
    companies of the Birmid Qualcast group. The C.I.R. recommended as follows:
    "There is a need for the development of policy at Division level in order that the separate companies shall have clear guidance on objectives. In particular, the proposals which we make in this Report require the formulation of Division policies, although company management needs to be closely associated with this process of policy formation … Policies are not only required for the development of the institutions and procedures of collective bargaining. Payment estimates are a major topic requiring attention at division level …"
    This illustrates my point clearly. It would be an important omission if, under Clause 35, it was not possible, where necessary, for the C.I.R. to be able to examine group problems and bring pressure to bear on group management when this was the only satisfactory way of resolving the underlying management and industrial relations problems which gave rise to a reference under Clause 35.
    I should emphasise that the new Clause will make no difference to the tests which have to be passed by a company or companies in respect of which an application is made under Clause 35. The extended or composite unit covered by the application must be one in which the existing procedure agreement is defective, or where no procedure agreement exists, and where as a result the development of orderly industrial relations has been impeded and substantial and repeated losses of working time have occurred.
    4.45 p.m.
    There is no suggestion in the Amendment that as a matter of course applications should extend to all subsidiaries of a holding company. Where such subsidiaries were not in any case parties to the same procedure agreement they could not be brought within the scope of the application, even if anyone wished to do so. On the other hand, where, as was so obviously the case in the Birmid Qualcast situation, the C.I.R. concluded that the problems of several associated companies could best be treated together, then this new Clause and the Amendments will make that possible.
    There is only one other change of substance in the group of Government Amendments to which I ought to draw attention. That is Amendment No. 21 which requires that before the Secretary of State make an application under
    1448
    Clause 35 he must consult the parties involved. The House will no doubt remember that in Committee the Government moved an Amendment which made it obligatory that the parties, either the employer or the union who wish to activate the procedure, must first come to the Secretary of State so that he can make conciliation available and this procedure was not to be used unless it was absolutely essential.
    Clause 35 also gives the Secretary of State the right to initiate this procedure. Clearly the Secretary of State cannot apply to himself for conciliation and so we thought it right, and this was a helpful suggestion made in Committee by the Front Bench opposite, which seemed sensible to us, that if it is a question of the Secretary of State's initiative in operating the procedure he should be required to go to the parties before making his application to the court. That is the purpose of the Amendment.
    It is important and I would like to express gratitude to hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite. It is nice to be able to do that in our otherwise controversial debates. I am grateful to them for putting forward that suggestion and thus giving me the opportunity to include it here—all the more so since it was a suggestion to improve a procedure to which they are basically opposed.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whether or not he conciliates, the final decision to go will rest with him?
    Mr. Carr: That is perfectly true and that is how it should be. The right is there for the Secretary of State or the parties. It does not lie in the mouth of anyone opposite to object to the concept that the Secretary of State should be able to take the initiative in matters concerned with industrial relations because it was at the heart of many of the proposals, not only in "In Place of Strife" but in the Bill brought forward by the right hon. Lady. We do not like this and we have kept it to its absolute minimum.
    Under the Clause 35 procedure it will be noted that whereas the Secretary of State has a right of initiative in addition to the parties to start the procedure he has no rights at the end of the procedure to go to the court and get an agreement

    1449
    made binding. Only the parties, or one of them, can do that. The Secretary of State cannot do it, provisionally by Order, or by going to court and asking for the agreement to be made enforceable.
    As we have made clear, we only expect the procedure made available by Clauses 35 to 40 to be used rarely. We believe that the existence of the machinery will be of great value in industrial relations and that this new Clause and its associated Amendments will increase the value of the original proposals.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I acknowledge the very small but rather important concession which the Secretary of State has made in his Amendment. It is important not only because of what it does but because of the principle which it enshrines and to which we closely adhere; namely, the principle of consultation. However, the right hon. Gentleman rightly acknowledged that it will not diminish our fundamental opposition to the principles which are enshrined in Clauses 35 to 40 and which are extended by the new Clause.
    I was very happy to hear the Secretary of State quoting a report of the C.I.R., because the creation of that body was near and dear to my approach to the problems of industrial relations. I only wish that the right hon. Gentleman had chosen the quotation which I made at least twice in Committee because it relates to my constituency. It was from the C.I.R.'s Report on International Harvesters. But more important than that Report was what the Commission went on to do to achieve the implementation of its own recommendations without having at its back the coercive sanctions which the right hon. Gentleman is bringing to its work.
    I quoted a letter from the managing director of a composite unit in which he agreed with the unions that had they found it necessary to write into the agreement provision for legal enforceability it would have been a denial and mockery of the spirit which went towards bringing the agreement into existence. It is a matter of great regret that the C.I.R., which seemed to be so full of potential for good in industrial relations, should be crippled primarily as a consequence of these Clauses which put on the C.I.R. the apparatus of the National Industrial Relations Court which has already led
    1450
    to the resignation of two of its members and which may well lead to further departures. The Secretary of State knows better than I how difficult it is to replace those very important individuals who contributed so much to the work of that body.
    Mr. R. Carr: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said. May I take this opportunity of underlining what I have said before. I hope and believe that the majority of references to the C.I.R. in future will still be made under the old procedure. All that we are doing here is saying that if there is a bad case in which the parties are not willing to go to the C.I.R. under the normal procedure we must have a reserve power to be able to get that sort of inquiry to work. I express not only my appreciation of the C.I.R.'s work but the wish, intention and hope that the majority of the Commission's work will still consist of references under the old procedure.
    Mr. Walker: The right hon. Gentleman made exactly the same point on a previous occasion. He said in Committee that Clauses 35 to 40 were reserved for dealing with exceptional cases, but the resignations from the C.I.R., leaving vacancies which are unfilled and which there is very little prospect of filling, arose from the Bill's provisions generally and particularly because of the way in which these Clauses link the work of the C.I.R. to the rôle of the National Industrial Relations Bill and, in that sense, deprives it of the freedom and independence which we gave it.
    The new Clause is a concession to the employers, and particularly to the Engineering Employers Federation, who have made no secret of their dissatisfaction with Clause 35. It was widely known that they wanted the N.I.R.C. to have power to impose industry-wide legally enforceable procedures. The new Clause represents a dramatic widening of the area which can be covered by a reference, first, because it changes, in subsection (2)(b), the reference to "employer" to "employers" thus enabling employers to join together in seeking a reference, and, secondly, because a composite unit appears to be capable in itself of covering enormous areas of industry.
    Just before the debate I looked through an interesting publication in the

    1451
    Library called "Who Owns Whom". In it are listed holding companies with enormouns subsidiaries. Because of the inter-relationship of company directorships and shareholdings, the workers in them probably have no knowledge that they have such links. The odds are that some of the directors do not know. I pick out one at random. The Hawker Siddeley Group has literally scores of subsidiaries covering wide areas of industry—aerospace, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering and such great companies as Crompton Parkinson. If that company could be considered to be a composite unit, the area and numbers covered by a reference could be enormous.
    There is an ambiguity in lines 1 and 2 of the new Clause. If the Secretary of State says that I interpret it wrongly, I will readily accept it, but I hope he will make the matter clear for the benefit of those who will have to implement the legislation. The new Clause refers to "two or more associated undertakings". It does not refer to those which are associated one with the other or others. The provision could be interpreted as meaning separate associate companies—that is, concerns which may not necessarily have links with each other. On that interpretation, there is scope for a further dramatic widening of the area covered by a reference.
    When in Committee we took objection to the power to impose a legally binding procedure on employers and unions we were told that such power already existed in legislation and that the principle was not new but had been conceded by the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act. Once a composite unit has established a legally enforceable procedure, Section 8 of that Act can be used by an employer to extend the procedure to fresh areas of industry in which it was not originally applicable. Perhaps the Government will say whether the new Clause could be similarly applied in future.
    The Secretary of State said that he wanted the application of Clauses 35 to 40 to be extended but only to closely integrated groups. However, the definition of "associated employer" in Clause 149(5) seems to be so loose as to invite
    1452
    endless new-style demarcation disputes about whether a company is associated. I commend to the House the contrast provided by Section 154 of the Companies Act, 1948, in which it was deemed necessary or expedient not to deal with such a complex matter in one paragraph or subsection but to devote about 1+ pages to it. I should like the Secretary of State to contrast the two and say whether he is satisfied that the definition of "associated employer" which he has chosen is sufficiently tight to avoid the possibility of endless controversy about the scope of an imposed legally enforceable procedure.
    5.0 p.m.
    The Secretary of State may say that the unit to which the reference shall apply shall ultimately be determined by the C.I.R. But the C.I.R. is vested only with powers to extend and not to reduce the area. In other words, if the National Industrial Relations Court passes on the reference at the appropriate stage to the C.I.R. which, being the practical body involved—and I take it that this is the Secretary of State's reason for doing it this way and the N.I.R.C. is essentially a judicial body whereas the C.I.R. is made up of people with practical experience of industry—brings its practical experience and knowledge to bear, he has given it power, if it thinks it appropriate, to extend the area covered by the reference. But if it deems that the N.I.R.C. has got it wrong and that the area is too large, it has no power to reduce it.
    All these things make the extension of Clauses 35 to 40 very much more dramatic than would appear from the modest way in which the right hon. Gentleman put the matter to the House.
    Mr. Raymond Gower: A few moments ago the hon. Gentleman referred to large companies which had a number of subsidiaries. Clause 35(5) defines a "unit of employment" as an undertaking or part of an undertaking. Undoubtedly that would include a lot of smaller parts of a single large firm. The more sophisticated division proposed in the new Clause merely carries on what was provided there.
    Mr. Walker: That is not so. The new Clause offers scope for a very dramatic extension of the power to impose a

    1453
    legally enforceable procedure. Either I have not put my argument with sufficient clarity or the hon. Gentleman has not been following me closely.
    Mr. R. Carr: I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's detailed questions are answered in, I hope, an authoritative way by whoever replies to the debate, but I should like to make one point. The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension when he talks about his fears of the power being widened. A single application must be in connection with composite employers all operating the same procedure agreement. The hon. Gentleman said that he had referred to "Who Owns Whom". There may be a very composite group with lots of individual companies. It is very unlikely that they will all be operating the same procedure agreement, so there is at least some substantial limitation in that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the intention is not to make this wide, but I will see that his points are answered authoritatively at the end of the debate.
    Mr. Walker: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. But the example I selected from "Who Owns Whom" was deliberately chosen, because by and large the subsidiaries of Hawker Siddeley Ltd. are companies covered by the existing procedure for the avoidance of disputes in the engineering industry, the notorious York Memorandum. I was about to refer to this and express regret that the Solicitor-General is not, for once, on the Government Front Bench. I make no complaint about that, because he has done yeoman work for the Government throughout the Bill. If for once he is having an afternoon off, good luck to him.—[An HON. MEMBER: "He is coming later."]—Jolly good. I am sure that my point will be put to the hon. and learned Gentleman. We pressed him very hard in Committee on some assumptions that I and some of my hon. Friends had made which were cast into doubt by a leader in The Times. It concerned the proposals for a new procedure agreement in the engineering industry. The Times had said that the simple truth is that in no circumstances could such an agreement as is at present at issue be made legally enforceable. The Solicitor-General rightly reminded us that the Bill provides that the requirement for a non-legally enforceable Clause becomes
    1454
    active only after the commencement of the Act. Those agreements entered into before the Act are covered by Section 4 of the 1871 Act.
    But another question then arose, and it still requires an answer. I wrote to the Solicitor-General. He courteously gave me a very helpful reply, but it did not adequately deal with the point. The problem is this. Because the Bill repeals in its entirety the 1871 Act, it seems to me that the procedure agreements which now exist, and which will continue after the commencement of the Act, will be stripped of the protection they now have and will therefore be exposed to test in the courts, notwithstanding anything in the Bill. Let us assume that the new proposals within the engineering industry are not concluded and the existing York Memorandum is still operative after the commencement of the Act. It seems to me that, notwithstanding the renewal of some of the protections of the 1906 Act in relation to tort, there will be nothing to prevent an employer subsequently saying, "There has been a breach of contract, a breach of the York Memorandum. I am no longer precluded from testing it in the courts because the 1871 Act has disappeared. I will chance my arm in the court under the general law relating to tort."
    The Solicitor-General said in his letter to me that it was not the Government's intention that any agreement not now directly enforceable should be directly enforceable after the commencement of the Act. He said that if the Bill did not make that clear he would take such steps as were necessary for it to do so. We still have not been told how it makes the position clear. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. and learned Friend will tell us clearly this afternoon where the Bill provides a necessary safeguard, or what action they intend to take to make it do so.
    Mr. McNamara: When my hon. Friend and I were discussing this matter together two other points arose from it. First, if an agreement which was not enforceable by virtue of present legislation, and which the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to be enforceable, is merely renewed, does it become enforceable? Second, if it runs out but the parties continue to act as though it were in operation, is there a supposition that it is thereby binding?
    Mr. Walker: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has noted those points and they will be answered at the end of the debate. There is an additional point on the enforceability of procedures, that when it becomes an Act the Bill will have created an entirely new context which will also alter the validity of agreements previously entered into. Parties may have entered into an agreement being unaware that they will subsequently have obligations imposed upon them by Clause 34 to police the agreements. This would compel some reconsideration.
    We have an Amendment to delete from Clause 35(1)(b) the phrase
    "or intentions"
    The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges our opposition to the Clause in its entirety, but we take particular exception to the intentions of the agreement being exposed to interpretation in this way. It is true that parties to agreements in industry talk of the spirit and intention underlying them, but the important difference is that they are the parties to the agreement. They are the people who say, "What did we mean when we entered into it? Let us look back.", not a third party, not the Secretary of State, not people who are not involved in the situation or in the industrial situation at all. It is for that reason that we say that the people on whom the responsibility for interpretation of intentions rests are the parties, and no one else.
    I do not want to reiterate the arguments advanced in Committee on the Clauses, but there was one point which the guillotine prevented me from drawing to hon. Members' attention in Committee. I wanted to point out the Government's inconsistency with the philosophy of the Royal Commission. We used to hear quite a lot immediately before the Bill was introduced, and in the early stages of our considerations of it, about the consistency of the Government's proposals with the Donovan recommendations. But as time has gone on that claim has become so threadbare and tattered that it has been dropped entirely by the Government. One more inconsistency is enshrined here. In paragraph 507 of its Report the Donovan Commission, anticipating exactly what we are debating now, said:
    1456
    "It has been suggested that in certain circumstances the Secretary of State should have the power to promulgate a Statutory Instrument imposing a disputes procedure on which the two sides have failed to agree."
    The provision here is different in detail, but embodies exactly the same principle.
    "This would be tantamount to using a kind of compulsory arbitration in order to compel the parties to co-operate in the settlement of grievances, and to do so through the force of law. But this is one of the things no law can do: it cannot make people co-operate if they do not want to do so. Such imposed procedures are almost certain not to be used."
    I could not think of more apt words with which to conclude. I wholeheartedly agree with the Royal Commission, and regret that the Government did not take those words to heart before embarking on what is embodied in the new Clause and the Clauses to which it refers.
    5.15 p.m.
    Mr. John Page: I hope that the Minister will clear up one small doubt in my mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said just now that it is a procedure agreement that is mentioned, and there therefore one would expect even in a conglomerate company that it would apply only to associated companies with the same kind of manufacturing interests. In that instance, the matter is perfectly clear. But we can visualise a group or association of companies which—a rather unlikely event—could lack a procedure agreement in general. If there was an absence of a satisfactory procedure agreement in one of the conglomerate companies, I suppose that it would be possible for an imposed procedure agreement to relate to a large number of different types of company within the associated group.
    When my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) raised this subject in Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General did not feel inclined to have agreements on an industry-wide basis. I accept that, but in a way it seems a pity if an umbrella is being put up that it does not cover a larger number of companies with a similar manufacturing end product or a similar type of use. For example, it would be more appropriate for all the companies working at an airport to have the same kind of procedure agreement than for all the associated members of a conglomerate company to have such an agreement.
    Mr. James Sillars: We have heard the Secretary of State so often say that he does not intend this, that or the next thing. But what is important is not what the right hon. Gentleman says but the wording of the Bill and the interpretation the courts will place upon it. I do not think that I was mistaken when I thought I heard him say that the provisions in Clauses 35 to 40 are to deal with the exceptional case. I think that he argued that we should not he too upset about them, that they were to deal with the very odd situation that could arise in an industrial conflict. But nowhere in Clauses 35–40 and the new Clause is there any reference to their dealing with the exceptional case. There can be a general application to industry. I believe that it is because of the dangers of a general application to the whole of industry, or large sections of industry, the Conservative Party rejected the propositions in Clauses 35–40 in "Fair Deal At Work". I do not accept that the Secretary of State is genuine in saying that he is legislating simply for the exceptional case. We must judge him on the Bill, and judging him on that we see that he is not legislating for the exceptional case. It is possible that we have found the Secretary of State out here.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): We have said repeatedly that we are legislating for the special case, and the Bill is so drawn that there are a number of gateways to be gone through when an application is made. It is not a question of just an easy reference. One must first go to the Secretary of State and then to the N.I.R.C., so it is not something that is easily established.
    Mr. Sillars: I am extremely grateful for that intervention because it illustrates the point which I am making, that there is a difference between what the Government say from that Dispatch Box and what the Bill contains.
    If the Government are genuine—which I doubt—why have we in Clause 35(3)(b) the following words:
    "nothing in the preceding paragraph shall prevent the party giving the notice from making an application under this section at any time after the notice has been given"?
    I think those words were introduced by a Government Amendment in Committee. If the Government are genuine,
    1458
    surely it cannot be consistent to argue that the party making the application can only continue with the application provided the Secretary of State gives his approval. Then the Government could argue that that was certainly narrowing the channels of the application to ensure that only the exceptional case went to the Industrial Relations Court.
    As the Bill is worded at present, however, and taking into account the intended Amendment, when there has not been compulsion before in this country, the ability to have general application throughout industry is one of the reasons why the trade union movement is absolutely shocked at having these Clauses imposed upon it. We regard this as perhaps the most obnoxious part of an obnoxious Bill. The Under-Secretary of State will have to come clean with the House to prove more conclusively than his right hon. Friend did why this is said to deal only with the so-called exceptional cases.
    Mr. Adam Butler: Let me first apologise to my right hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) for not being present during their initial remarks. I was popular, as so many of us are today, with the teaching profession.
    The new Clause, as such, obviously makes eminent sense. I speak from a little bit of experience, and I declare my interest in involvement with a company about which I am going to talk, which is Courtaulds, a company with many subsidiaries, a great number of them in the hosiery field and dealing with the Union of Hosiery Workers. It is likely that this Clause would not apply to us because arrangements which we have with the union do work—the procedural and substantive agreements which we have—but here is a clear case of a group with many subsidiaries, all related, and in common ownership, and it makes, as I say, eminent sense for a composite unit to apply to such a situation.
    Mr. John Page: Assume that, with the example which my hon. Friend gave, the agreements were not working satisfactorily and an application were made. Could he, from his experience of his company, tell the House whether there are a large number of different kinds of procedural agreements in this large company, or whether, as a whole, there is

    1459
    the same type of procedural agreement, or whether the same procedural agreement is applicable to all the different parts of Courtaulds which may be manufacturing many different types of end products?
    Mr. Butler: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. The situation, I think, would apply to those of the subsidiaries of Courtaulds which are dealing with one particular product, and, as I mentioned, with one particular union. In that situation, the same procedural agreement could and should apply. If an application were to be made, then this might indicate that there could be no procedural arrangement in operation at all, or, secondly, that there were bad clauses in it, or some good and some had. That is how I would assess the answer to the question which my hon. Friend has posed.
    As to Clauses 35 to 40, which this new Clause adds to, I would say that all are agreed that procedural arrangements are one of the most vital factors in dealing with a potential strike situation or with disputes. It is agreed that there must be rapid assessment of a problem and rapid settlement of a dispute, but it is generally agreed by those with experience—on both sides of industries—that in the absence of a procedural arrangement inevitably one will get the wildcat strike or, indeed, an official strike which is called by the union officials.
    If we accept that as the starting point, then surely it makes sense—and here I am taking the common-sense approach, and not what hon. Members opposite continually take, the extreme and blackest situation—if we accept that procedural arrangements are essential to improve on industrial relations, the argument must follow logically that it is right in the extreme case for selective enforceability to be applied. This is certainly the reaction I have had from my audiences up and down the country, where this point was made.
    Again, for the benefit of those who find misunderstanding or misrepresentation of this point, let me make it quite clear that this does not refer to any case of a substantive agreement on conditions of work or wages. There is no question, in these Clauses, of enforceability of such an agreement, but only of procedure for dealing with disputes.
    1460
    We talk about enforceability, but here, as we see running throughout the Bill, the requirement is that the Commission on Industrial Relations shall attempt wherever possible to settle the issue voluntarily. Clause 37(3) illustrates the point of my argument. The Commission has been called in, and Clause 37(3) says:
    "The Commission shall thereupon promote and assist discussions between the parties … with a view to obtaining their agreement on new or revised provisions … "
    about a voluntary settlement, and this is the point which runs throughout the Bill as a whole.
    Finally, in case, because of a rush because of the limitation of time, I may not have another chance to say it, I should like to make a point about Amendment No. 21, which is an addition to Clause 35. Here I am glad to find that my right hon. Friend has listened to the point which was made, I think, by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), during one of her many interventions in Committee, that the Secretary of State should consult the parties to the dispute. This is something which is highly to be welcomed, and I am sure I can say on behalf of my hon. Friends with whom I have had discussions on this that they, too, feel the same—that this is something we can universally welcome.
    Mr. Gower: I want to refer to the last phrase in the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) when he said that this part of the Bill is the most objectionable part of an objectionable Bill. I would put this to him. There is public awareness that where there are bad conditions, or where people are suffering from unfair or poor remuneration, there is naturally a development of industrial unrest. That this should be so is fairly widely accepted. I hope the hon. Member follows me—there is public awareness of the need sometimes for industrial action, where conditions are particularly bad or the remuneration can be seen to be extremely poor.
    However, there is also a public feeling of exasperation where there are strikes or prolonged industrial disorders based upon procedural matters of this kind. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) pointed out, if these agreements are imperfect it is highly desirable that they should be improved.
    Mr. Sillars: Everyone will agree that we should reduce tension wherever possible, but the main charge against Clauses 35 to 40 is that they might increase tension and introduce new tensions. "Fair Deal at Work", on which the hon. Gentleman fought the election, says, in relation to imposed agreements on page 32:
    "Such a situation would create new tensions and suspicions and put the conduct of industrial relations into a straitjacket."
    That was the policy of his Government on 18th June.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gower: Be that as it may, in recent years there have been defective procedures. It may be that industrial trouble will be avoided by not doing anything about them at the time, but in the long run there is likely to be much more trouble if defective procedures continue to exist. That is why this part of the Bill is highly important. This kind of trouble is more difficult to interpret to the public at large than industrial trouble arising from bad pay and bad conditions.
    My right hon. Friend's opening speech clearly demonstrated the desirability of extending Clauses 35 to 40 to composite units. On the other hand, I am not entirely happy about the drafting. Clause 35(5) is an attempt to define the term "unit of employment". The Bill introduces too many definitions, and this causes confusion. Although I appreciate what a difficult job the parliamentary draftsman has, I am sorry that it was not possible for the basic definition of "unit of employment" to include the composite units and associated undertakings described in the new Clause.
    The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) wished to take out the words "or intentions" from Clause 35(1)(b) but this would not be desirable in all circumstances. Although the terms will be defined and known to the parties, there will be cases where it will be obvious to the Secretary of State that the intention was that industrial action should be postponed until certain requirements had been fulfilled. That is why the words "or intention" were included. They were not included to cause confusion, but because it happens that it is in the contemplation of the parties that such industrial action should be postponed
    1462
    until other things have been done. If, in default of that, industrial action has been taken, there is a prima facie case for the Secretary of State to consider his original reference, and it will then be for the Industrial Court to consider.
    Mr. R. Carr: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will reply to some of the points which have been raised. I will first reply to the general point raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). I have made clear to the House on several occasions that the procedure involved in Clauses 35 to 40 was not included in our pre-election detailed policy statements. Seldom has any party in opposition published in such great detail rather than in broad generalities what it intended to do, and I feel no shame in having departed from the great detail which we put forward in this one minor respect. I use the word "minor" not in the sense of potential importance but in relation to the scale and number of the proposals.
    I believe this to be right. If a party when in opposition takes the trouble to do its homework as thoroughly as the Conservative Party did when in Opposition, and puts forward proposals in such details as we did for general discussion in advance of an election, it would be a bad thing for the Government of this country if it could not, on assuming office and considering the matter, with all the resources which one has only when in office, decide to make one addition to a whole range of proposals. I do not apologise in any way.
    Mr. Sillars: I want to make sure that the right hon. Gentleman and I are not at cross-purposes. I was not so much concerned about an addition to as about a deletion from the policy. This was very well thought-out indeed, and that the trade unions certainly agreed with the point that was made in relation to this in "Fair Deal at Work".
    Mr. Carr: I accept that point, and I maintain that as a general principle. I emphasise once again that the procedure in Clauses 35 to 40 is emergency procedure, to be used when, alas, the general sound principle on which we wish to conduct our industrial relations unfortunately breaks down or fails to come

    1463
    to life. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) in a short but valuable intervention stressed the importance of having exceptional procedure available for exceptional cases.
    I hold completely by the basic proposition as a general principle but, on reflection and on consideration after taking office, the Government came to the conclusion that there were, unfortunately, signs that the general principle might not come to life and might not work in certain cases. There must therefore be exceptional procedure available to meet such emergencies. I use the word "emergency" in small letters and not in capitals, in the technical sense.
    I will move from the general point to deal with particular points, those made, for example, by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) in moving the Amendment. He expressed fears about the wording of the first two lines of the new Clause because he felt they might enable applications to be made of a wide nature, much wider than I had indicated was our intention in my opening remarks.
    In any application the Secretary of State or either of the parties would first have to satisfy the National Industrial Relations Court that the conditions described in Clause 35(1)(a) or (b) do in fact apply. It would not be possible for the Secretary of State or the composite employer to go to the court and to say, "Please may I make an application to have this procedure applied over the whole of these associated companies?", because he would have to satisfy the court that the area for which the application was being made suffered from the defects described in Clause 35(1)(a) or (b).
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned Hawker Siddeley and said that he was taking this deliberately as a composite group. The hon. Gentleman was making the point that virtually all in the engineering industry would be subject to the York procedure and anything which might come from it. But that would not be sufficient to enable either the Secretary of State or Hawker Siddeley to go to the Court and say, "Please may we make an application for the whole of our group?". I do not know how many companies there are in
    1464
    that group, but Hawker Siddeley would have to satisfy the Court, if it was asking for, say, six companies within the group to have this procedure applied to them, that all those six were suffering from the defects in Clause 35(1)(a) or (b). It would not be possible, willy-nilly, for the Court to say, "Right. We pass on the whole of the Hawker Siddeley group to the C.I.R.". The Court would have to be satisfied that the group was suffering from the defects in Clause 35(1)(a) or (b).
    As there was an Amendment down which allowed the C.I.R. to come and ask for an expansion of its remit, the hon. Member for Doncaster asked whether it should also be given power to ask for a narrowing of its remit. I see the obvious attraction of that argument, but I do not believe that it stands up on investigation. One has to realise, as I have just said, that for anything to have been referred to the C.I.R., the Court must have been satisfied that it was suffering from these defects. I believe that it would be wrong for the C.I.R. to be able to narrow the area which it was going to investigate since, by definition, that area must be suffering from these defects. On the other hand, we believe that it is right for the C.I.R. to be able to say, "Yes, we are looking at this area where these defects exist, but we believe that, in order to be able to look at and to probe into the depths of it and come up with the right kind of solution, we should be able to look more widely than the trouble area which has been referred to us."
    The hon. Member for Doncaster, with some concern, read lines 1 and 2 of the new Clause and asked whether "associated" meant associated with each other or could mean an association of two unconnected undertakings, each of which is associated with others in a group. The answer is that they really must be associated with each other. That is made clear and would have been clear to the hon. Gentleman if he had read on to line 3 of the new Clause. The hon. Gentleman expressed doubt about the first two lines, but if he had read on to the third line he would have seen these words,
    "'associated undertakings' means undertakings of two or more associated employers.".
    I think that that clears up the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

    1465
    That brings me to another point raised by the hon. Gentleman about the definition of "associated undertakings" and, therefore, the meaning of "associated employers". As the House knows, I am not a lawyer and I do not pretend to be an expert in company law. However, I am advised that the definition in Clause 149(5) is similar to the definition of "associated company" in the Companies Acts. So there is no fear of a great widening because of the definition. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, I will take formal legal advice on the matter and, if necessary, write to him about it. However, my preliminary advice, and our intention, is that this should not be a means of widening the scope of application under the new Clause.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether these provisions for selectively binding procedure agreements could be widened by the application of Section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959. I believe that there are a number of defects in the hon. Gentleman's proposition, but I shall only take up this time of the House with what I believe to be the one conclusive answer to his fear. The 1959 Act does not permit the imposition of procedure agreements; it permits only the imposition of substantive terms in collective agreements. I believe that that conclusively answers the hon. Gentleman s fear on that point.
    5.45 p.m.
    The hon. Gentleman then made reference to questions which he has raised with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, particularly some further correspondence, on the effect of the repeal of the 1871 Act on agreements which are already made before the Bill comes into being. We are still looking into this matter. We believe that the position is all right, in the sense that the hon. Gentleman would mean by those words; but we are not yet absolutely certain. However, I repeat the assurance that we shall complete these investigations, and if we are not absolutely certain of the point we shall introduce the necessary Amendments in another place. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a final answer now, but I repeat the assurance that the matter is under investigation and that, if necessary, we shall deal with the point by introducing Amendments in
    1466
    another place. I understand that it is a fairly complex legal point, but we shall deal with it if our final advice is that it is necessary.
    Mr. John Page: Will my right hon. Friend make the position about the associated company crystal clear? When a reference or an application is made it must be shown that Clause 35(1)(a) or (b) applies and that there is a specific difficulty in, say, one unit in an associated group. That can be examined. If a procedure agreement were imposed, am I right in saying that it could be imposed on all the other companies in that group, whether or not there is trouble in them? If it does not mean that, I do not see the point of the new Clause.
    Mr. Carr: It does not mean that. It would be quite wrong, and contrary to our principle, to be able to impose an agreement on any unit of employment, composite or single, which had not been the subject of reference to and investigation by the C.I.R. For example, if one imagined a composite company making use of this machinery and going to the Court for an application, it would be up to that company to specify what units within it should have paragraphs (a) or (b) of Clause 35(1) applied to them.
    Suppose that a composite company had 10 units and had only selected six to put before the Court, and that the Court agreed that there were defects in those six, and the C.I.R. came to a solution for those six. It would then not be proper for the company to wake up and say, "Can we have that imposed now on the remaining four?" If that was needed, the company should have applied for the whole 10 to begin with. We will not allow anyone to go to a Court and have imposed an agreement for an area which has not been subject to the detailed investigation and recommendation of the C.I.R. That is absolutely basic to our concept.
    Mr. McNamara: Arising out of this example, in which the Secretary of State spoke of six units out of 10 being referred—if those 10 units had had the same procedural agreement, but it had broken down in only six, and if the Court then introduced an agreement to cover those six which was a vast improvement on the existing situation, would this company

    1467
    then have to wait until the existing agreement in the other four units broke down before it could apply?
    Mr. Carr: I would hope not. Surely, what we are talking about here is a voluntary system. We are using this non-voluntary pressure only with regret and in emergency. Surely no one on the Opposition benches would wish any procedural agreement to be arrived at in this way, which by definition will have been arrived at only because of the serious failure of voluntary agreements, and then to be applied on a wider base.
    If we had the situation put forward by the hon. Member, in which this imaginary company applied only for six units and if a new procedure agreement came out of that inquiry for those six which proved better than was in the other four, one would hope that normal voluntary negotiations would take over, and that both the unions and the management in the other four units would see the advantage of following the example of the six.
    But I would resist the idea that what has been decided in relation to the six, because of the regrettable breakdown and failure of voluntary methods, should be imposed from outside on the remaining four.
    Mr. McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman knows that I am not in favour of any imposition anyway. The point which I was trying to get from him was the point of keeping it to a single unit, and this is so. I cannot then see the reason for the introduction of this Clause on the ground mentioned by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page).
    Mr. Carr: There is a very important reason. Let us take the question of this composite company with these 10 units, which has trouble in six. Without the new Clause and associated Amendments, it would have to be proceeded with in six separate applications. The new Clause would allow the six to be dealt with in one application. Not only would this be more speedy, but, since they are within the same composite company, the industrial relations policies will, may or—one might almost say—should have something in common.
    1468
    Therefore, as I quoted from the C.I.R. report on the Qualcast inquiry, it is of advantage for the C.I.R., and may even be necessary for the C.I.R., to be able to bring in the wider company considerations and policies than to proceed unit by unit in six separate investigations. I therefore believe that this achieves something of great value, without going over the border which we draw very firmly, that no selective enforcement procedure can be used except in a case which has been specifically inquired into and reported on by the C.I.R.
    Mr. Adam Butler: To get this absolutely clear, is it right that we are saying that, where there is a procedural arrangement, although it is not perfect, providing that it is working in a satisfactory way, there is no question of the imposition of a perfect arrangement by or through this new Clause?
    Mr. Carr: I am very glad to confirm exactly what my hon. Friend says. We do not like an attempt to impose. I can go right back to my opening remarks. It is contrary to good principles, and it is not something which should be embarked on lightly or unless it is absolutely necessary. It certainly should not be possible to embark on it merely because of some external person's or body's view of what is perfect. Voluntary negotiations and agreements are and should remain the rule in British industrial relations.
    Here we are talking of procedure designed to be used, and which should be capable of being used, only where the normal voluntary methods have unfortunately broken down, where there is a serious problem which needs solution and which cannot be solved in any other way. I hope that that answers all or most of the points raised.
    Mr. Heffer: The position outlined by the Secretary of State leads me to ask why the Clause has been presented at all, since it seems totally unnecessary. The Engineering Employers' Federation, which is anxious to have a Clause of this kind, perhaps has a different interpretation of it than the right hon. Gentleman has given us. The right hon. Gentleman must give some better explanation of why the Clause is essential.
    We have never argued that all existing procedure agreements are necessarily the best possible. No one has ever argued

    1469
    that there are not areas of industry where existing agreements appear to have broken down and where there is a need for an improvement. No one has ever said that we should not improve the voluntary system. In fact, we have accepted throughout these debates, as has the trade union movement, that there is certainly room in certain areas, in certain factories, in certain establishments, in certain industries, to improve procedure agreements.
    But the point which the right hon. Gentleman seems to slide over is not the fact that it is necessary at times to improve procedure agreements but the fact that, under this Bill and this Clause procedure agreements will be imposed against the will of the parties who should voluntarily accept them. We object to this in particular.
    6.0 p.m.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that this proposal clears up the points which were raised by my hon. Friends, but, having re-read the new Clause and especially line 3 of it, to which he referred, I suggest that it is as ambiguous as ever and does not clear up the points in the way he described.
    I appreciate that where there is an extremely good procedure agreement operating in, say, one part of a company and a bad agreement operating in other parts of it, it is wise for the good one to be adopted by the whole. But consider the reverse situation. The York Memorandum operates throughout the country and although the trade union movement is urging improvement all the time, to ensure more speedy negotiating, in nine cases out of 10 that memorandum operates perfectly well. There is, however, the odd factory where there is constant difficulty with it.
    Although we accept this to be the case, we do not accept that the answer must be with the procedure agreement. Other factors must be investigated, and this was pointed out by the Royal Commission when it said that strikes were not the root of the evil. It pointed out:
    "…this is not the root of the evil, as we have found when seeking to identify the underlying causes of unofficial strikes. The root of the evil is in our present methods of collective bargaining and especially our methods of workshop bargaining, and it is in the absence of
    1470
    speedy, clear and effective disputes procedures.
    There are bound to be differences, and a different approach, with factors other than procedure agreements, will be required in some cases.
    The new Clause is unnecessary to deal with the real problems which exist in industry—that is, unless the right hon. Gentleman is not revealing the whole truth of the matter. I am not suggesting that he is deliberately misleading the House. I would not wish to do that today, when the whole debate is taking place in a somewhat lower key. Nevertheless, it is strange that the Engineering Employers' Federation seems extremely keen to have a provision of this kind, and the federation will obviously interpret it in terms of its widest application, although the Minister said that it will be used only in exceptional cases.
    Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Gentleman made a sound point when he said that because a procedure agreement works in one place it need not necessarily work in another. I agree that one needs tailor-made procedure agreements for particular circumstances. However, we believe that in an associated group of companies where there are some common policies, it is often necessary to look at more than one if there is trouble in more than one. The example I gave about the C.I.R. and the investigation into the Qualcast problems illustrated this point of looking at more than one company at a time. It is to enable that possibility to be available that we need this provision.
    Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my remarks. I was arguing that one can have the best procedure agreements working perfectly in nine out of 10 factories, but that there will be the odd case when one must look at other factors and at possibilities other than procedure agreements. I know from personal experience that procedure agreements must be constantly improved to ensure that the best procedural machinery exists for the speedy settlement of differences.
    Mr. McNamara: While the right hon. Gentleman gave the example of Qualcast and the C.I.R. recommending an examination of the procedures in other parts of the company, the point at issue here is that if the employers or unions refuse to accept such a recommendation, the

    1471
    matter would then go to the Industrial Court and be binding on them. In other words, we want to know whether it will be binding on them to look at the procedures in other parts of the company.
    Mr. Heffer: My hon. Friend raises a point which goes to the heart of our objection to the new Clause and this part of the Bill. While we accept that better procedure agreements may be needed, even in an associated company—that is, if that is the best course to follow in the circumstances of the case—there is, nevertheless, a difference between that principle and the one which the Government are forcing on us, which is that if a difference cannot be settled voluntarily,
    it may be imposed on the parties concerned. That is our basic objection to this part of the Bill, and nothing the right hon. Gentleman said takes us away from that objection.
    This could, of course, be the first step toward an acceptance of not only binding procedure agreements but binding substantive agreements. Bearing in mind our basic objection to this part of the Bill and the inadequacy of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, I urge my hon. Friends to take this matter to a Division.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 240.

    Division No. 248.]

    AYES

    [6.8 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Dean, Paul

    Hicks, Robert

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Allason, James(Hemel Hempstead)

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Dixon, Piers

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Astor, John

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Holland, Philip

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Awdry, Daniel

    Dykes, Hugh

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Eden, Sir John

    Hordern, Peter

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Hornby, Richard

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Batsford, Brian

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

    Howe, Hn, Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Beamish, Col. Tufton

    Emery, Peter

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Bell, Ronald

    Eyre, Reginald

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Farr, John

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Fell, Anthony

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    James, David

    Biffen, John

    Fidler, Michael

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Jessel, Toby

    Blaker, Peter

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Body, Richard

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Boscawen, Robert

    Fortescue, Tim

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Fowler, Norman

    Kershaw Anthony

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

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

    Kilfedder, James

    Braine, Bernard

    Fry, Peter

    Kimball, Marcus

    Brewis, John

    Gardner, Edward

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Gibson-Watt, David

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Kirk, Peter

    Buck, Antony

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Knox, David

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Lambton, Antony

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

    Gorst, John

    Lane, David

    Carlisle, Mark

    Gower, Raymond

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Gray, Hamish

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Cary, Sir Robert

    Green, Alan

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Chapman, Sydney

    Grieve, Percy

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Lang Stone)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Grylis, Michael

    Loveridge, John

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Gummer, Selwyn

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Clegg, Walter

    Gurden, Harold

    MacArthur, Ian

    Cockeram, Eric

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Cooke, Robert

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    McLaren, Martin

    Coombs, Derek

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    McMaster, Stanley

    Cordle, John

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Costain, A. P.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Critchley, Julian

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Maddan, Martin

    Crouch, David

    Hastings, Stephen

    Madel, David Maginnis, John E.

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Hawkins, Paul

    Maginnis, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Hay, John

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Marten, Neil

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

    Heseltine, Michael

    Maude, Angus

    Mawby, Ray

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Tapsell, Peter

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

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

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Raison, Timothy

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Tebbit, Norman

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

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Temple, John M.

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs Margaret

    Moate, Roger

    Benton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Molyneaux, James

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Money, Ernie

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Tilney, John

    Monro, Hector

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Trew, Peter

    More, Jasper

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Rost, Peter

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Mudd, David

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Murton, Oscar

    Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Scott, Nicholas

    Waddington, David

    Neave, Airey

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Walder, Davkt (Clitheroe)

    Nichotls, Sir Harmar

    Sharpies, Richard

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Normanton, Tom

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Wall, Patrick

    Nott, John

    Simeons, Charles

    Walters, Dennis

    Onslow, Cranley

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

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

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Osborn, John

    Soref, Harold

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Speed, Keith

    Wilkinson, John

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Spence, John

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Pardoe, John

    Sproat, Iain

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Stainton, Keith

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Peel, John

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Percival, Ian

    Steel, David

    Worsley, Marcus

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Pounder, Rafton

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Stokes, John

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Price, David (Eastlelgh)

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

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

    Sutcliffe, John

    Mr. Victor Goodhew.

    NOES

    Albu, Austen

    Cronin, John

    Golding, John

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Allen, Scholefield

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

    Gourlay, Harry

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Ashley, Jack

    Davidson, Arthur

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Ashton, Joe

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Barnes, Michael

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Handing, William

    Barnett, Joel

    Deakins, Eric

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Hardy, Peter

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Harper, Joseph

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Dempsey, James

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Doig, Peter

    Hattersley, Roy

    Booth, Albert

    Dormand, J. D.

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Horam, John

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

    Driberg, Tom

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Dunn, James A.

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Buchan, Norman

    Dunnett, Jack

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

    Eadie, Alex

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Hunter, Adam

    Cant, R. B.

    Ellis, Tom

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

    Carmichael, Nell

    English, Michael

    Janney, Greville

    Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

    Evans, Fred

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

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

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    John, Brynmor

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

    Coleman, Donald

    Foot, Michael

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Forrester, John

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Corbel, Mrs. Freda

    Galpern, Sir Myer

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

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Ginsburg, David

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    1474

    1475

    Judd, Frank

    Moyle, Roland

    Spearing, Nigel

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Kelley, Richard

    Murray, Ronald King

    Stallard, A. W.

    Kerr, Russell

    Ogden, Eric

    Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

    Kinnock, Neil

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Stewart, Pt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Lamond, James

    O'Malley, Brian

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Latham, Arthur

    Oram, Bert

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Lawson, George

    Orbach, Maurice

    Strang, Gavin

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Orme, Stanley

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Oswald, Thomas

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Leonard, Dick

    Palmer, Arthur

    Swain, Thomas

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Pavitt, Laurie

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

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Tinn, James

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Pendry, Tom

    Tomney, Frank

    Loughlin, Charles

    Pentland, Norman

    Torney, Tom

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Tuck, Raphael

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Prescott, John

    Urwin, T. W.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Varley, Eric G.

    McBride, Neil

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Wainwright, Edwin

    McCartney, Hugh

    Probert, Arthur

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    McElhone, Frank

    Rankin, John

    Wallace, George

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Watkins, David

    Mackie, John

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Weitzman, David

    Maclennan, Robert

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Wellbeloved, James

    McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Whitehead, Phillip

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

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

    Whitlock, William

    Marquand, David

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Roper, John

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Rose, Paul B.

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Meacher, Michael

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Mendelson, John

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

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Woof, Robert

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Sillars, James

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Silverman, Julius

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Small, William

    Mr. James Hamilton.

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Clause accordingly read a Second time.
    Mr. Robert Mellish: On a point of order. I understand that the Division Bells on the Lower Committee Floor are not in action, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am sure that some hon. Members therefore did not know that there was a Division. I do not wish to have another Division, although I know that you would grant it if necessary, but would you ask the authorities of the House to ensure that the bells ring at the right time?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I will direct the Serjeant at Arms to have inquiries made and to give whatever instructions are necessary for anything wrong to be rectified.
    We come now to Amendment quadruple (p) for "Peter".
    Mr. McNamara: I should have thought that today of all days, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it should have been quadruple (p) for "Patrick".
    I beg to move Amendment (pppp) to the proposed Clause, in line 6, leave out '40' and insert '38'.
    1476
    This is the first opportunity that we have had to look again at a couple of Clauses which had scanty debate in Committee, mainly because some of their substance was covered earlier. I have discarded many of the comments I wish to make because they were cleared up earlier in the last debate.
    Clause 39 enables an industrial court, on application, subject to a time limit, from an employer or trade union, following recommendations under Clause 38 from the Commission, to make those recommendations legally binding, and Clause 40 restricts successive applications under Clause 39 and provides for the modification or revocation in special circumstances of orders made under Clause 39.
    Clause 39 is the Clause with an extremely repugnant phrase—"legally enforceable contract"—and makes binding procedure agreements as if a contract consisting of these provisions had been made between the parties.
    This is a phrase that we find particularly detestable, because here we have the imposition of procedural agreements on

    1477
    the parties under a procedure which they need not necessarily have taken part, a procedure in which they wanted no part and with terms and conditions which are imposed on them and to be enforced, if necessary, by recourse to the law and which they could well regard as being against their own interests and the interests of those they represent, whether as an organisation of workers or as an organisation of employers.
    The point that I raised towards the end of my hon. Friend's speech about Birmid Qualcast has relevance, because when referring to the recommendations of the C.I.R. the Secretary of State said that it recommended the examination of procedures in areas of the company other than those where disputes were occurring. The question which therefore arises is whether, if a trade union or employer refused to accept the recommendations of the C.I.R. and one or other of the parties went to the Court for enforcement there would therefore be enforcement of that recommendation in those parts of the industry or associated firms where there was not a dispute. If that is so, it denies all that the right hon. Gentleman said in our earlier discussions.
    When arguing originally in favour of the Clause 39, the Solicitor-General has now had the ground cut from under his feet by the introduction of the new Clause on composite unions. He said:
    "We are not making a general intrusion into freedom. We are designing selected, precise, case-by-case procedures which will exert pressure upon management and union leaders to improve procedures in given situations".
    From the definition of "associated companies" and "composite unions" it is clear that we are going not from case to case on a few selected fronts, but on a broad front if it is in a large combine.
    The Solicitor-General went on:
    "If society wishes to see an improvement in the standard of procedures, it is not unreasonable to select a method of the kind we suggest, just as in the context of the 1959 Act it was decided that it was sensible to bring the standards of collective bargains up to those generally agreed and, in those circumstances, to impose the conclusion upon selected firms."
    Here, again, we are imposing it not on selected firms but on a number of firms associated together.
    When it was suggested that the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act could apply, the Secretary of State said that that
    1478
    was not so, because under Section 8 that Act applied only to a substantive agreement; but the nature of a procedural agreement may be such that it could affect the whole of the substantive agreement, in that it would cover not only the terms of the settlement of dispute but the working arrangements, and the working arrangements might affect the wage packet and, therefore, be part and parcel of the substantive agreement. In some types of agreement, they are both so interwoven that it is impossible to separate them.
    I wish first to refer to the imposition of terms on agreements. We are opposed to that anyway, but under a procedure type of agreement it is now the suggestion that with a composite unit this could go much further than the principle laid down by the Solicitor-General when first seeking to defend his Clause, and in certain cirmumstances it is impossible to define the distinction between the two types of agreement.
    Clause 40 is a particularly difficult Clause. We are here dealing with appeals to the Court, and a time limit is laid down. Clause 40 (1)(a) says that there shall be no application for two years unless the Court is satisfied that there are special reasons for entertaining the application within that period. We had a brief debate earlier about what special reasons were applied. The answer on that occasion was far from satisfactory. The Solicitor-General, when asked to give an example, said:
    "The phrase 'special reasons' is not expressly defined. The question will have to be answered by the court in the light of the tests laid down in Clause 35.
    There are several alternative matters. There are alternatives in Clause 35(3)(a) and (b). If those conditions, which normally allow Clause 35 applications to be considered favourably by the court, arise in a special way so that the court concludes that there are special reasons for allowing this early reapplication, then it is able to do so.
    I point to two alternative matters, but there are more than two in Clause 35(3)(a) and (b). In that sense I commend the Clause as it stands to the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 301–14.]
    Clause 35 deals with applications to the industrial court relating to procedural agreements. Subsection (3)(a) and (b) are concerned only with an application being made, under paragraph (a), when the Secretary of State offers his advice

    1479
    to the parties, and paragraph (b) says that nothing should prevent them from making an application in any case.
    I conclude that the Solicitor-General was referring not to subsection (3)(a) and (b) but to subsection (1)(a) and (b) and that there has been an error of judgment. In any case, his general concluding comment seemed to include this in this way. But if he is saying that the special conditions which will apply will be the ordinary, normal conditions for making an application in any case, there would then, therefore, seem to be no reason for these special conditions, unless he meant subsection (3), not (a) and (b), but that part of the Clause which states:
    "The Industrial Court shall not entertain an application made under this section by a party other than the Secretary of State unless that party … ".
    So he is suggesting that there might be special conditions under which the Secretary of State might decide within a period of two years to make a further and particular application to the Court.
    6.30 p.m.
    I find that rather strange. I immediately accept that we have accepted an Amendment moved earlier by the right hon. Gentleman, to the effect that he cannot make any recommendation before he has consulted the parties to it. But I equally accept that he is still a free agent in the sense that he can take what action he wishes to take anyway. The Secretary of State, therefore, under the Clause, now has power to intervene with a considerable vengeance. This is surprising, because in any case he will have on the Industrial Court two place-men who are there at his whim. But if he has to make application under that Clause, and there are special conditions, it tends to suggest that the special conditions under which the application will be made are that despite the fact that the C.I.R. has made a recommendation, that one of the parties has had to go to the Court and an order has been enforced by the Court and laid down upon the parties as being binding. Nevertheless this particular recommendation is being disregarded by the parties. That is despite the fact that there is another remedy available, to fine and, in the long
    1480
    run, to imprison for contempt, if the parties fail to co-operate.
    It also means that, despite what the Government have been urging, in anticipating the legislation and the decisions of the Court being accepted, a decision of the court on the recommendation of the C.I.R. would be so repugnant to one of the parties that they would not be prepared to work or abide by it.
    The Secretary of State is going to the court for a second time, to have a second bite at the cherry, as one of the special conditions to try to remedy the situation. That is not good enough. This is an examination of the procedures of the court which shows that they will not be completely acceptable by the parties. The Solicitor-General's talk of special reasons, other than those which I have suggested, is not any correct sort of answer, as being the special reasons or exceptional circumstances under which an application may be made to the court within that time.
    Therefore, because of the provision of Clause 39 and the imposition of this agreement, and because of the power which we have yet to have defined, and the definition of "special reasons" which we have not yet had, I commend the Amendment to my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Gower: I hope that I am not incorrect in the assumption that if the Amendment were made it would have a somewhat extraordinary effect. The position that would then ensue would be that if there were a single application, as originally envisaged in Clauses 35 to 40 as first drafted, affecting a single unit of employment, that single application would include the provisions of Clauses 39 and 40. I hope that the hon. Gentleman follows me there.
    The single application would have the benefit or the defect, as the case may be—depending upon the opinion of one side of the House or the other—of incorporation in the machinery of Clauses 39 and 40. If, on the other hand, pursuant to new Clause 5 now incorporated in the Bill, there were then joint applications, these would stop short at Clause 38. That would be the result of the Amendment.
    This would lead to a very strange situation. One could, therefore, pursue the provisions of these Clauses. One

    1481
    could pursue the machinery provided on a single application and one could proceed right through to an order in accordance with the provisions of Clause 39. One would then be limited by the provisions of Clause 40 as to the period within which one could make another application.
    On the other hand, if one came forward with several applications pursuant to new Clause 5, one would not be able to proceed as far as the order under Clause 39, but one would not have suffered the disability under the provision of Clause 40 restricting the period within which one could make a further application. It would have a most astonishing result.
    I presume that the hon. Gentleman's reply to me would be that this was the only way to ensure a debate on the latter part of Clauses 39 and 40 on Report. I hope that I am not being unkind in suggesting that, but the acceptance of the Amendment would make for marked inconsistency in the treatment under the Bill of a single application and of a composite application in relation to these Clauses.
    It would be impossible for my right hon. Friend to accept the Amendment in its present form. However, the remarks of the hon. Gentleman might have had an influence upon my right hon. Friend's view of Clauses 39 and 40.
    I would remind the hon. Gentleman that on Clause 39, in most cases, it would be hoped that these results would be achieved by agreement. It would be a matter of negotiation to remedy defects in procedures. We feel that there must be this longstop provision, because any final sanction would be removed from the machinery if Clause 39 was taken out. I hope that the transmission to the Industrial Court under Clause 39 would be in a minority of cases, and that the orders made under this procedure would he for a very small minority of cases and on rare occasions.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: The hon. Gentleman has made a criticism to the effect that by following through the Amendment, this would make a nonsense. I suggest that the proper reading of the Amendment is to limit the reference of the new Clause to Clauses 35 to 38, and that this would have the effect of making composite unit
    1482
    applications non-enforceable, but only these. That makes sense. I thought it fair to put that interpretation to the hon. Gentleman before he concluded his remarks.
    Mr. Gower: Where composite applications are convenient and proper, I see no reason why those should be non-enforceable, as opposed to the single application which might be enforceable. Surely the difference is one of character and of merit. Whether it is one application or a composite application, the sole criterion should be the merit of the application. In some cases it may be convenient and proper that there should be composite applications in the terms of new Clause 5.
    I conclude by hoping that my right hon. Friend will not accept the Amendment and that he will reject the arguments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) about Clauses 39 and 40.
    Mr. Murray: I want to support the Amendment and, in doing so, to focus my argument on two aspects of it. The first relates to the point which I made in my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). One aspect of our opposition to new Clause 5 is that, contrary to what the Secretary of State said, we feel that it would be appropriate to have an enabling Clause rather than a compulsory one. We are not opposed to the concept that where a number of undertakings have a common policy there should be machinery whereby a common procedure agreement might be brought into being.
    What is objectionable about the new Clause is that it is unsatisfactory to make this a compulsory procedure, for the reasons that we outlined in the last debate. It may be that, notwithstanding that there are a number of companies making up a common undertaking with common policies, there is one difficult company, and that in such a case it would be appropriate to have a separate application. In view of that, I think that the Minister should think again and consider whether it would not be better to give an enabling power so that units could be dealt with as a composite company if that was thought appropriate, or separately if that was thought more appropriate.

    1483
    There is a good deal in what the hon. Member for Barry said in his usual commonsense and pithy way. To some extent, the Amendment is a probing one, or a hook upon which to hang an argument. But it is important to stress that the weakness of the new Clause is the fact that it is founded upon the weakest link in the chain of Clauses with which it is associated. Without doubt, the weakest link is Clause 35, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull. North (Mr. McNamara) rightly stressed this point in his speech.
    I take a slightly different line, because I want to focus upon a difficulty which I raised in Committee. The pivot of Clause 35 is to be found in subsection (1) (a) and (b). In the course of a number of debates, we have been given various undertakings, interpretations and glosses on the meaning of Clause 35 and of certain parts of it. I want to raise again the difficulty about the meaning of paragraph (b), because this is the key. It has been described as a longstop, as a rare case and as an extraordinary remedy. But what makes it a longstop or a special and extraordinary remedy? The pivot must be paragraphs (a) and (b).
    Paragraph (a) deals with a defect:
    "the absence of a procedure agrement, or the unsuitability of such procedure agreement as may exist".
    Those are excellent industrial reasons why action should be taken. But the situation is thoroughly confused by paragraph (b), and I am surprised that the Government have applied their minds to such a complicated provision as new Clause 5 without tidying up the weakest link in the chain on which it hangs; namely, Clause 35(1)(b).
    6.45 p.m.
    The paragraph says:
    "where a procedure agreement is in existence, recourse to industrial action".
    Hon. Members will note the lack of any verb. Recourse by whom, to whom and about what, we are no told. We have to look at the remaining words to find out. It goes on to refer to "industrial action", but we do not know who is taking the industrial action. Then there are some words in parentheses:
    "(whether consisting of lock-outs"—
    1484
    note the plural—"strikes"—again note the plural—
    "or irregular industrial action short of a strike) contrary to the terms or intentions of that agreement."
    What does "or intentions" mean? We have been told that what will decide what the Bill means when it becomes an Act is a decision of the Court. But in order to decide the intentions of an agreement, the Court must look at the terms of the agreement. It can look at nothing else. The word "intentions" is vague and ambiguous. It suggests that the Court must do some metaphysical exercise which is not known in law. It is supposed to look at the intentions. This is such a vague term that we must be told what the Government mean. Do they mean what the ordinary lawyer means—
    Mr. Gower: The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong when he says that courts of law never look at intentions. If the terms of a will are uncertain, for example, the court always considers probabilities.
    Mr. Murray: The hon. Gentleman is taking me up wrongly. I said that when a court of law considers an agreement, in order to determine the intentions it looks at the terms of the agreement. It cannot look anywhere else. That is my first criticism.
    However, I have a second and major one. The substantial industrial argument which I press with regard to the weakest link in the chain is what paragraph (b) can mean in practical terms. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman suggested that this procedure would not be used without weighty reasons. This is the longstop argument. It is not a normal procedure.
    What is it that is unusual and that raises paragraph (b) to prominence and provides the opportunity to act not merely on paragraph (a) but on paragraph (b) as well? In passing, I note that this is the case where a procedure agreement is in existence. It is not a case of trying to get agreement where matters have gone wrong. People are agreed and presumably are satisfied with the agreement. But there is an unfortunate sequel, and it is that industrial action is taking place notwithstanding an otherwise satisfactory procedure agreement. Therefore, we have to consider carefully what is the meaning

    1485
    of paragraph (b) in complete concrete terms, and what brings it into operation.
    We get a little guidance. We see the word "lock-outs", in the plural and not the singular. I presume that it cannot be one lock-out. It must be more than one. Then we see the word "strikes", again in the plural, and presumably there one is thinking of employees and not employers. "Lock-outs" is the word for employers, and "strikes" is the word for employees. Then we see the phrase
    "irregular industrial action short of a strike"
    in the singular. Does that mean that industrial action short of a strike is more serious, despite the fact that it is less than a strike? Does it mean that if several strikes have taken place or several lockouts have taken place, one can have recourse to paragraph (b), but not if there has been one lock-out or one strike, even though that would seem to indicate a more unsatisfactory state of affairs because both sides are in opposition and are taking steps about it?
    Mr. Gower: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman concede that in some respects there is some continuity in the term "irregular, industrial action"? I agree with what he says about "strikes" and "lock-outs", but the phrase "irregular industrial action" has a connotation of continuity which is absent from those other words.
    Mr. Murray: That is true. Clause 6(2) states that
    "'irregular industrial action short of a strike' means any concerted course of conduct (other than a strike) which is in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute … carried on by a group".
    I believe that any suggestion of continuity is rather struck out somewhat by the word "irregular". Further, by that definition it could be one concerted course of conduct on one occasion, and that brings me back to my basic criticism. Therefore, while I agree that there is some point in what the hon. Gentleman says, it does not meet my argument.
    Mr. Paul R. Rose: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that a strike can also have an element of continuity about it?
    Mr. Murray: Yes, most certainly. This seems to be a basic weakness, and I very much regret that the Government,
    1486
    in considering the application of Clauses 35 to 40, have omitted to strengthen
    the weakest link in the chain.
    Mr. R. Carr: The major part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) was devoted to detailed—though, I accept, none the less important—points in regard to Clause 35, and this put me in some difficulty because the Amendment seeks to delete from the new Clause the reference to Clauses 39 and 40. However, in operating the whole of the procedure one must take the whole thing in context. In particular, one must relate subsection (1) with subsection (4) of Clause 35, because there are these two gateways.
    First of all, in the unit of employment—which in the context of the new Clause could be a composite unit of employment—there has to be the absence of a procedure agreement or the unsuitability of a procedure agreement or, where there is a procedure agreement, there has to be a sign of recourse to industrial action, and so on. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that the words "irregular industrial action" provide a continuity.
    If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at subsection (4) he will find that these things must have been going on to the extent that
    "the development or maintenance of orderly industrial relations in that unit has been seriously impeded or … there have been substantial and repeated losses of working time in that unit".
    That wording clearly indicates that a single strike or lock-out could not lead to the application of the procedure. Therefore, the words "strikes" and "lock-outs" must be in the plural.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to "intentions", which was the subject of, I think, Amendment No. 160. In this respect we are dealing with a situation where although there is a procedure agreement it is of such a vague nature as really to preclude terms in any ordinary sense being available, and one may have to fall back on something as vague as the word "intentions". Many procedure agreements in British industry are, as I believe, wrongly based, because they are put in too vague a manner.

    1487
    I believe that this sort of provision is essential in order to be able to look at the sort of case that may arise. We must have paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Clause 35, or we must have paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (4) before the machinery can go into action either for the unit of employment as defined in the Clause or for the composite unit of employment as defined in the new Clause.
    I must ask the House to reject the Amendment because I think it would destroy the whole of our purpose. If the Amendment were accepted, it would mean that the C.I.R. under Clauses 35 to 38 could recommend improvements to the procedural arrangements of the composite unit and one or more of the trade unions or employers concerned could apply to the Court for an order making the recommendations legally enforceable, but the Court would not be able to apply the recommendations to a composite unit, for which the C.I.R. had designed them, but only to a single undertaking within the composite unit. It seems ridiculous to have a situation in which the C.I.R. has designed something for the composite unit but the Court is able to enforce it only for part of the unit and not for the whole.
    Mr. Rose: Perhaps the Secretary of State can help me on this serious point. Where the C.I.R. has recommended, and the Industrial Court has made an order for, a composite unit, there appears to be no machinery for breaking up that composite unit at a later stage so as to make procedural orders for separate units. It seems that no provision has been made for that contingency.
    Mr. Carr: It might help me if the hon. Member would just repeat what he has said. I find it a little difficult to take in, I must confess.
    Mr. Rose: I think that the right hon. Gentleman was at that moment talking to his hon. and learned Friend, as is understandable. It may well be that an agreement for a composite unit is made by the court on the recommendation of the C.I.R. But it may later appear—or would, if an application were made—that it would be better to have separate agreements for separate units. There seems
    1488
    to be no machinery for breaking up the composite unit and making new, even voluntary, agreements for the separate units.
    Mr. Carr: I think the answer is to be found in Clause 40. Subsection (2) of that Clause states:
    "If all the parties specified in an order … make a joint application to the Industrial Court to revoke the order, or to vary it in a manner specified in the application, the Court shall revoke the order or (as the case may be) shall vary it in accordance with the application."
    Does not that subsection meet the point made by the hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Rose: I do not think so, because it refers to "all the parties specified". This is a drafting matter, and I merely ask the Secretary of State to consider it. I suggest that one of a number of parties in one particular unit, rather than all the parties together, may wish to alter the agreement. But I think the right hon. Gentleman has the point.
    Mr. Carr: Yes, I have it more clearly now, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. The answer may be found in subsection (3) of Clause 40. At the moment, that subsection speaks of only one of the parties applying for the order to be revoked or discharged. It may be necessary also to deal with the power to vary. However I undertake to look at this aspect, and I shall study the hon. Gentleman's words at greater leisure when I see them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    There would be little point in doing this with relation to the composite units if we were to accept the Opposition Amendment to ensure that Clause 40 did not apply. I understand the Opposition's reasons for wishing to remove Clause 39, because of their general dislike of an order in any case, but I find this attention to Clause 40 rather difficult to understand. It would be foolish to have Amendments which allow the use of an Order in relation to single units but deny it in relation to composite units. That would be unwise and would not even achieve the purpose which the Opposition have in mind. For that basic reason I must ask the House to reject the Amendment
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. McNamara: Would the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind to the meaning of "special conditions"?
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman spoke at rather a high speed and moved rapidly from point to point. I make no complaint about an hon. Member speaking at high speed except that it is very difficult for the poor hon. Member who is to reply to take in what is being said.
    Mr. McNamara: I apologise. In Clause 40 there appear the words:
    "… the court is satisfied that there are special reasons for entertaining the application within that period."
    I quoted at great length from the statement by the Solicitor-General in Committee when we tried to pin him down as to the meaning of "special conditions". We never really got a satisfactory answer, nor did we get a proper definition of the term. As there is no reference to special conditions in Clause 35 to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred when replying to my hon. Friend, we still need an explanation of this. I hope that I have been slow enough and long enough.
    Mr. Carr: I was under the impression, as is my hon. and learned Friend, that he had explained that. The whole point of Clause 40(1) is to say that during a period of two years the Court shall not entertain any application. The General rule is that an application will not be entertained in less than two years unless the Court is satisfied that there are special reasons. The special reasons, of which the Court would have to be the judge, could be if there were serious problems and disputes and loss of time and there really was a breakdown of industrial relations of a serious nature. Then it would be wrong to say that it was time-barred for as long as two years. Clearly, the Court would have to be satisfied that the need was great. I have to accept that it would be for the Court to decide whether the applicant, be it the Secretary of State, the employer or the union, has made out a good case.
    Mr. Murray: The right hon. Gentleman has courteously replied to my argument and prayed in aid, as I suspected he would, Clause 35(4). I would ask him to look carefully at that, because it seems that we proceed under (4) and may get
    1490
    progress if it appears to the Industrial Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that one of the defects in paragraphs (a) or (b) exists. First of all there is:
    "the development or maintenance of orderly industrial relations in that unit has been seriously impeded"
    or the provision on which the right hon. Gentleman foundered. The first does not involve the second at all. They are independent of each other, and paragraph (a) does not, involve anything of the nature of what is contained in paragraph (b). I ask him to think about this again, because if Clause 35(1)(b) is deficient in the way that I have argued the deficiency is not made up by subsection (4)(a).
    Mr. Carr: I will certainly look at this, because I appreciate the constructive interventions which the hon. and learned Gentleman has repeatedly made. Without going back on that, I will just give my immediate reaction, which is that when we read subsection (4)(a) I would hardly think that anyone would conclude that something had been seriously impeded by a single strike or lock-out, or one or two events. The interpretation of "seriously impeded" would involve something much more than a few isolated incidents, certainly more than a single incident. I will not allow my immediate reaction to obstruct my undertaking.
    Mr. Rose: My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has done a service to the House in moving this Amendment, although much of the ground had already been covered when dealing with the new Clause. Not the least part of that service was that he and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) and I have been able to ask a few questions of the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has had a great deal of difficulty in replying to them, and I can understand that, because they were of a highly complex legal nature. Yet the Minister went to the country last weekend and accused the trade unions of misleading the country over the contents of the Bill.
    Mr. Orme: He does not know the Bill himself.
    Mr. Rose: It seems that a Minister who, quite understandably, is unable to

    1491
    give an explanation to this House of the meaning of the Bill—and this is not the first time—has no right to go to the country and accuse others of deliberately misleading when he is having extreme difficulty in understanding much of what is in the Bill. I want to say, in as gentle a way as I can, that he has been less than his usual fair self in making that criticism. I believe that many people have the greatest difficulty in understanding the legal terminology, caused by the draftsmanship of his hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Carr: I accept that there are some complex parts of this Bill, but it was not over complex details that I accused the T.U.C. of distorting the Bill. It was to do with the basic concepts. For example, to take a case from one of its advertisements, it says that if someone were to lead the workers out on strike in a factory where conditions have become intolerably hot and an employer refused to do anything about it then they would be in trouble. That is not a misunderstanding of detail, it is distorting the basic simple points. One of the basic points in the Bill is that if someone goes to court with a claim the court has to take into account the extent to which the employer may have been to blame. If the employer refused to do anything about intolerably hot working conditions he would get nothing out of the court. The hon. Gentleman knows that, and the T.U.C. could know it.
    Mr. Rose: The right hon. Gentleman does not know it. The right hon. Gentleman knows that under Clause 85 a person may be guilty of an unfair industrial practice for inducing a strike in breach of contract. Although that strike may be subsequently legitimated under Clause 86, his hon. and learned Friend says, and has said, that the result of this would not be to legitimise the original action of the person inducing the strike. As it took the hon. and learned Gentleman nearly three months to answer that question and to tell the country and the House what was meant, it is not surprising if other people find it a difficult concept to understand. The person inducing the strike may well be liable, and the person inducing a strike in order to enforce a closed shop will be in breach
    1492
    of an industrial practice and will find himself in trouble. The phrase "in trouble" is very moderate.
    I do not regard that as misleading. It is a matter of opinion, and is to be decided, not by this House, unfortunately, but by a Court in which our debates will have no effect and where judicial pronouncements will be holy writ. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor I has the right to forecast what the decision of the Court will be.
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman said that when people were led out of work somebody who had committed an unfair industrial practice would be liable. He would be liable for compensation assessed by the Court, and in assessing the compensation the Court must take into account to what, if any, extent the employer is responsible. If, in the terms of the T.U.C.'s advertisement, the employer had refused to do anything about it he would obviously be largely to blame. Therefore, by definition of the Bill, it is distortion to say that in those circumstances anybody is liable to a substantial penalty, let alone huge fines or gaol, if he does not pay. That is gross misrepresentation.
    Mr. Rose: If the right hon. Gentleman wants to take up this point, he is welcome to have the other end of it. The right hon. Gentleman says that if a person leads men out on strike he may well be liable for compensation. I do not accept the word "compensation". Assume that as a result of the strike £2 million worth of production is lost. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the element of compensation would be £2 million? He knows very well that the Court would impose on the person what it considered to be a reasonable fine for his action. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that to use the word "compensation" is nonsense in this context and that he is misleading the country when he uses it instead of the word "fine". Suppose a person in a closed shop led people out because somebody refused to join the union. There would be no defence under the Bill.
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman constantly omits to say that the T.U.C., in its example, said, "and the employer refused to do anything about it". The employer's refusal to do anything about it must be

    1493
    taken into account by the Court and the employer would be held responsible and, therefore, the compensation could not be enormous, let alone huge fines and the imposition of a gaol sentence, if one did not pay.
    Mr. Rose: If this is the best example—
    Mr. Carr: It is the T.U.C.'s example.
    Mr. Rose: Exactly. If this is the best example which the right hon. Gentleman can find in the T.U.C.'s document to show that the T.U.C. is misleading the country, it is pitiful. Even by that example the T.U.C. is not misleading the country, because the Court would have to apportion the damage and would have to say that it may well be a disproportionate action by the employee to lead members out on strike and, therefore, he is partly responsible and may well be liable to pay a large sum of damages.
    We all know the law on contributory negligence. The Court could decide in a case of that type that the employers and employees were at fault. That would not stop an employee or some other person inducing the strike having to pay compensation.
    Mr. Orme: It is interesting that the Minister should attack the T.U.C. on this account. In a speech which he made at lunch-time he praised one element of the T.U.C. and attacked the strike action to be taken by my union and others tomorrow. He took the phrase "mindless militants" from the New Statesman. He could not think of a phrase himself. The right hon. Gentleman continuously changes his ground. How can anyone take any notice of his word?
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. Rose: I take my hon. Friend's point that the Secretary of State attacks the T.U.C. for irresponsibility one day and praises it for responsibility the next. I am at least consistent. I regard the T.U.C. as having acted responsibly throughout, and I support the T.U.C.'s stand throughout in its pamphlet and in its actions. I only wish the Secretary of State could bring a little impartiality to bear when dealing with industrial relations.
    1494
    I wish to deal with the Amendment because I am worried by the attitude of the Government and of the Minister to an eminently moderate and reasonable Amendment. The Amendment does not seek to delete anything which was in the Bill. All it seeks to do is to prevent the imposition of something which was particularly unacceptable to this side of the House and the extension of it to a new concept; namely, the concept of applying it to a number of associated groups or companies on a wide scale. We are not trying to diminish what was originally in the Bill. It is the new Clause which seeks to extend the concept which we have perhaps found to be the moat unacceptable concept in the Bill, with the possible exception of Clauses 85 to 87.
    The imposition of procedure agreements, which are defined in Clause 34(3) as collective bargains, on persons who do not agree and then to add a two-year embargo is fundamentally unacceptable to us. The fact that the procedure is tortuous, as the Minister admitted, does not make it any more acceptable. Apart from trade unionists, lawyers find repulsive the principle of imposing a contract on those who do not wish to enter into it. The additional obligation imposed by Clause 34 to police the agreement adds insult to injury in that it means that shop stewards and trade union officials will have to discipline their members for not abiding by an agreement into which they did not wish to enter. The Secretary of State has failed to deal with this.
    There is no clarification of the Government's attitude to the question of disciplinary action. In Committee the Minister launched an attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) by saying that my hon. Friend had indulged in flights of fancy when he talked about and tried to define "reasonable practicability". Yet the Minister has not been prepared to accept our Amendment No. 159, which would mitigate the concern genuinely expressed on this side of the House about Clauses 38 to 40. To add further insult to injury, they are being made applicable to what is called, for the sake of convenience, a composite unit. This is a derivation from one of the transatlantic transplants which are to be grafted on what has been hitherto the live tissue of the trade union movement in Britain and

    1495
    which are already producing antibodies in the form of strikes and industrial unrest caused by the Secretary of State and irresponsible statements of the type he made this weekend.
    The Clause is far more than a drafting Amendment. It is an extension of an altogether unacceptable principle. I thought that on Report it would be shown that the Minister had accepted his own words; namely, that these procedures were to be applied in an emergency. Some people have called them "a back stop". Therefore, I should have expected to see on Report an Amendment to place this group of Clauses in the part of the Bill dealing with emergency procedures and to spell it out as a fact in legislation and not merely in words in the House.
    The Secretary of State is capable of proposing the most illiberal and coercive legislation and yet addressing the House in the most reasonable phrases and honeyed words which conceal a principle which cannot be accepted and which has been written in handwriting which is not his but that of the Solicitor-General. Yet procedure agreements are perhaps the least susceptible types of agreement when we talk about legal enforceability; and when the subjects of enforcement are to be dispersed throughout industry in different units they will be even more difficult to enforce.
    The Secretary of State could not answer when I asked what would happen when a group of companies was involved in one of these agreements and after two years it was sought in one of those companies to do away with the enforced agreement and to have a voluntary agreement. The right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to look at the point, but it illustrates the complications which will arise. We are ensuring not that the agreement will be kept but merely that it will be imposed. It is not the imposition of an agreement which is difficult—anyone can impose an agreement—but the keeping of an agreement, which is the object of good industrial relations. No one will make a trade union keep an agreement which it did not enter into voluntarily. This is a fundamental which the Minister fails to understand. He thinks that by provid
    1496
    ing for imposed agreements he will ensure that they are kept.
    The Clause will introduce the new fictitious agreement concept into industry—wide bargaining, and yet the sort of stoppage likely to occur will occur not in the whole of industry but in a particular plant. Immediate action may be necessitated in the plant. The Minister gave a perfect example when he referred to the factory in which the heating was too great or there might be a need to safeguard employees from other health hazards. There may be a change in the method of working. Yet there is no status quo provision written into the Bill. If the Secretary of State says that the Court would have to take into account the conduct of the employer, why not write that into the Bill? That would at least mitigate the effect.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said, the Government have no mandate on this matter. They said—and I accept the words of the Secretary of State—in "Fair Deal at Work":
    "We believe it would be wrong to accord to collective agreements the quite exceptional status of a contract which must be enforceable regardless of the wishes of the parties."
    I accept that the right hon. Gentleman can change his policy. But that is not the policy on which he went to the country. Nothing has happened since to give the right hon. Gentleman even the loophole of saying, "Certain things have changed".
    The only thing that has changed since "Fair Deal at Work" is that the Donovan Report, which endorsed this concept, was published. Now the right hon. Gentleman has gone against his own pamphlet, his own programme and Donovan, since the election of his Government. With no mandate, the Government are extending the concept. It is another abuse of the procedure of the House. On Report we would have expected some conciliation, some attempt to meet the arguments of this side, but all we have had is a further injection of bitterness, a further divisive Clause. This is what we are coming to expect from the right hon. Gentleman all too often, in spite of his honeyed words at the Dispatch Box.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—
    The House divided: Ayes 241, Noes 284.

    Division No. 249.]

    AYES

    [7.26 p.m.

    Albu, Austen

    Foot, Michael

    Mendelson, John

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Forrester, John

    Millan Bruce

    Allen, Scholefield

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Garrett, W. E.

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Ashley, Jack

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Ashton, Joe

    Ginsburg, David

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Golding, John

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Moyle, Roland

    Barnes, Michael

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Barnett, Joel

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Beaney, Alan

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Ogden, Eric

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Oram, Bert

    Bishop, E. S.

    Hamling, William

    Orbach, Maurice

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Orme, Stanley

    Booth, Albert

    Hardy, Peter

    Oswald, Thomas

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Harper, Joseph

    Palmer, Arthur

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Bradley, Tom

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

    Hattersley, Roy

    Pavitt, Laurie

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

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Dens

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch&F'bury)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Pendry, Tom

    Buchan, Norman

    Horam, John

    Pentland, Norman

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

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Prescott, John

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Cant, R. B.

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Probert, Arthur

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hunter, Adam

    Rankin, John

    Carter, Ray (Birming'h, Northfield)

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

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Janner, Greville

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

    Richard, Ivor

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Coleman, Donald

    John, Brynmor

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

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

    Conlan, Bernard

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

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Roper, John

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Rose, Paul B,

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Cronin, John

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

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

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

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Sillars, James

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

    Judd, Frank

    Silverman, Julius

    Dalyell, Tam

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Skinner, Dennis

    Davidson, Arthur

    Kelley, Richard

    Small, William

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Kerr, Russell

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Lamond, James

    Spearing, Nigel

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Latham, Arthur

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Lawson, George

    Stallard, A. W.

    Deakins, Eric

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Leonard, Dick

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Strang, Gavin

    Dempsey, James

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Devlin, Miss Bernadette

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Doig, Peter

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Swain, Thomas

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lomas, Kenneth

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

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, F

    Loughlin, Charles

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

    Driberg, Tom

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Tinn, James

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Tomney, Frank

    Dunn, James A.

    McBride, Nell

    Torney, Tom

    Dunnett, Jack

    McCartney, Hugh

    Tuck, Raphael

    Eadie, Alex

    McElhone, Frank

    Varley, Eric G.

    Edelman, Maurice

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Mackie, John

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Wallace, George

    Ellis, Tom

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Watkins, David

    English, Michael

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Weltzman, David

    Evans, Fred

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

    Wellbeloved, James

    Fernybough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Marquand, David

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Whitlock, William

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Mr. Alan Fitch and

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Woof, Robert

    Mr. James Hamilton.

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    MacArthur, Ian

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Astor, John

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    McLaren, Martin

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Fortescue, Tim

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Awdry, Daniel

    Foster, Sir John

    McMaster, Stanley

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Fowler, Norman

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Fox, Marcus

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Batsford, Brian

    Fry, Peter

    Maddan, Martin

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Gardner, Edward

    Madel, David

    Bell, Ronald

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maginnis, John E.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Benyon, W.

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Marten, Neil

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Maude, Angus

    Biffen, John

    Goodhart, Philip

    Mawby, Ray

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Gorst, John

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Blaker, Peter

    Gower, Raymond

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Gray, Hamish

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Body, Richard

    Green, Alan

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Boscawen, Robert

    Grieve, Percy

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury S. Edmunds)

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

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Braine, Bernard

    Grylls, Michael

    Moate, Roger

    Bray, Ronald

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Molyneaux, James

    Brewis, John

    Gurden, Harold

    Money, Ernle

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Monro, Hector

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Bryan, Paul

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    More, Jasper

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

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Buck, Antony

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Mudd, David

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Murton, Oscar

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

    Hastings, Stephen

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hawkins, Paul

    Neave, Airey

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hay, John

    Nicholls, Sir Harmar

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Heseltine, Michael

    Normanton, Tom

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Hicks, Robert

    Nott, John

    Churchill, W. S.

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Onslow, Cranley

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

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

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Cockeram, Eric

    Holland, Philip

    Osborn, John

    Cooke, Robert

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Coombs, Derek

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hordern, Peter

    Pardoe, John

    Cordle, John

    Hornshy-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Howe, Hn, Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Peel, John

    Cormack, Patrick

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Percival, Ian

    Costain, A. P.

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Critchley, Julian

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Crouch, David

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Crowder, F. P.

    James, David

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Curran, Charles

    Jessel, Toby

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

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

    Jopling, Michael

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Raison, Timothy

    Dean, Paul

    Kilfedder, James

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Kimball, Marcus

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Dixon, Piers

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Kirk, Peter

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Dykes, Hugh

    Knox, David

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Eden, Sir John

    Lambton, Antony

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Lane, David

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

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

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Emery, Peter

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Farr, John

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Rost, Peter

    Fell, Anthony

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

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Longden, Gilbert

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Fidler, Michael

    Loveridge, John

    Sandys, Rt. Hn, D,

    1500

    1501

    Scott, Nicholas

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Wall, Patrick

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Walters, Dennis

    Sharples, Richard

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

    Ward, Dame Irene

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

    Tebbit, Norman

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Temple, John M.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Simeons, Charles

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Thomas, John S trailing (Monmouth)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Wiggin, Jerry

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

    Tilney, John

    Wilkinson, John

    Soref, Harold

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Speed, Keith

    Trew, Peter

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Spence, John

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Sproat, Iain

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Stainton, Keith

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Worsley, Marcus

    Stewart-Smith, D. C. (Belper)

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Younger, Hn. George

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Waddingion, David

    Stokes, John

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Sutcliffe, John

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Mr. Walter Clegg and

    Tapsell, Peter

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Mr. Victor Goodhew.

    Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment (qqqq) to the proposed Clause, in line 17, at end add:
    (3) Where a collective agreement or a procedure agreement exists in respect of a composite unit (in this Act called a composite unit agreement') then the provisions of sections 32 to 34 of this Act shall have effect or be varied in relation to composite unit agreements as follows—

    (a) notwithstanding anything in section 32 the composite unit agreement if entered into before the commencement of this Act shall not be legally enforceable;

    (b) in sections 32 and 33 collective agreements or procedure agreements deriving from or made by reference to a composite unit agreement shall not be legally binding where the composite unit agreement is not legally binding;

    (c) in section 33, awards and decisions made under a procedure agreement deriving from a composite unit agreement shall conclusively be presumed not to be legally binding where the composite unit agreement contains an agreement that the awards and decisions are not intended to be legally enforceable or the composite unit agreement is not itself legally enforceable; and

    (d) after the commencement of the Act, in section 33 it shall conclusively be presumed that composite unit agreements do not intend awards and decisions under procedure agreements which derive from composite unit agreements to take effect as legally enforceable contracts.

    Mr. Speaker: Order. With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 151, in page 23, line 8 [Clause 32], after 'writing', insert:
    'in a formally executed deed signed by the parties thereto within the lawful scope of their authority'.
    Amendment No. 153, in line 22, after 'any', insert written'.
    Amendment No. 152, in line 23, leave out
    '(whether written or oral)'.
    Amendment No. 155, in line 41, at end insert:
    () No collective agreement entered into before the commencement of the Act shall be legally enforceable.
    Amendment No. 231, in page 24, line 32 [Clause 33], at end insert:
    'unless that body has declared that its awards and decisions shall not be legally binding until such time as it expressly declares in writing that its awards and decisions shall be legally binding'.
    Mr. Fraser: It is only by luck, ingenuity, or the good sense of Mr. Speaker that we can discusss Clauses 32–34 again on Report. I remind the Solicitor-General of the series of undertakings, half-undertakings and nods and winks he gave in Committee, which can be explored only in this remote way. It is deplorable that we cannot discuss the Clauses when they fall in their place but must do it like this. In France women used to knit at the guillotine. In this House the guillotine is used to disguise the Government's dropped stitches.
    Clause 32(1) makes collective agreements in writing made after the commencement of the Act legally enforceable unless a contrary intention appears in the agreement. If it does not, the agreement is presumed to be legally binding. In other words, unless an exemption clause is put in the agreement it is not open to the parties subsequently to argue that they still do not wish it to be legally binding. In the case of Ford v. the A.E.F. the agreement did not have an exclusion clause but was nevertheless held by the High Court not to be legally binding, because it was not the intention of the parties that it should be. The wording of Clause 32 means that it is no longer open to a party to argue that.

    1503
    Amendment No. 151 says that to be legally binding the agreement must have the solemnity of a deed. The purpose is to make sure that people understand that agreements must be solemnly entered into if they are to have legal effect as a contract. Not every agreement in writing will be a national agreement. It might not be a very formal agreement. It might be reached on a very limited sphere of action and a very limited industrial situation. The people entering into it will not have at the back of their minds the consequences of entering into it, nor the words spoken in the House or the effect of Clause 32.
    We are not against parties being able to enter into legally binding agreements if they want to, but this must be plainly spelled out, and more solemn arrangements, than merely failure to have an exclusion clause must be entered into to make them fully binding. I come to Amendments No. 152 and No. 153 to Clause 32.
    Mr. Gower: Repeatedly we have heard from spokesmen opposite of their disinclination to invoke the formalities of the law. Now the hon. Member is suggesting we should have those formalities—with witnesses, and so on. I am not blaming him, but is that not a change of point of view?
    Mr. Fraser: The concept of legalities and formalities was one introduced by the Government. If we are to have them they must be in a form which the parties recognise. They should have to get the red seal before making them fully and legally binding. One is trying to explain the effect of Clause 32 and of entering into agreements if we do not have exclusion clauses.
    Amendments No. 152 and No. 153 affect Clause 32 (3) which says:
    "In this Act 'collective agreement' means any agreement or arrangement (whether written or oral) which"—
    and I shall not quote the rest but the effect of the Amendment No. 153 is to insert "written" before the word "agreement" and the effect of Amendment No. 152 is to delete the words
    "(whether written or oral)".
    These two Amendments were raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis)
    1504
    and they marched hand in hand with opposition Amendments to exactly the same effect. I do not think I can better sum up the debate on those Amendments in Committee than quote from the speech of the hon. Member who said:
    "If there were any question of oral agreements being brought before the courts, we could finish up with a bonanza for the lawyers, but headaches all round for managements and unions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 1331.]
    I think that is a fair summary of the debate as the hon. Member put it, and of the views expressed with equal force by hon. Members on this side. The argument was that if one were to allow enforceability of oral agreements made before the passing of this Bill it would bring chaos to industrial relations, because oral agreements made before the passing of the Bill generally did not have a great deal of consequence. After the passing of the Bill an oral agreement made even before the passing of the Bill will have consequences after the passing of the Bill and they will be very serious indeed.
    The law of this country recognises that certain agreements which have serious consequences must be made in writing. That is recognised of credit sale agreements, of hire purchase agreements, of leases. Indeed, we recognise it in connection with contracts of employment—that they must be in writing. Yet the Government are prepared to let a Bill go through which has the effect of making oral agreements, made before the passing of the Bill, legally enforceable.
    What is even worse is that those oral agreements, if they were enforceable, would import into them all the consequences of the Bill. For instance, a trade union has the obligation to police an agreement, and if a party breaks an agreement he is liable to damages for an unfair industrial practice. Therefore, informal oral agreements made before the passing of the Bill, if it turns out that subsequently that they are legally enforceable, could have the consequences of causing a union to pay, let us say, £100,000 in damages. That is not a far-fetched concept. After the passing of the Bill a simple oral agreement, although made before that, could mean an employer could recover for all the consequences of the breaking of the agreement by the other party to the agreement. I agree entirely with the words

    1505
    of the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, that all this will bring headaches to managements and unions.
    Mr. Adam Butler: Would the hon. Member show the House where there is a reference to oral agreements made before the passing of the Bill or an oral agreement made after the passing of the Bill being legally enforceable?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes. I would advise the hon. Member to take the trouble to read the Bill. Clause 34 says:
    "It shall be an unfair industrial practice for any party to a collective agreement—
    (a) where the agreement is a legally enforceable contract …".
    Then if the hon. Member will look at Clause 32(3) he will see:
    "In this Act 'collective agreement' means any agreement or arrangement"—
    Mr. David Waddington: Look at subsection (1).
    Mr. Fraser: —and subsection (3) goes on:
    "(whether written or oral)".
    The mistake the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) is making in looking at subsection (1) is to introduce the presumption that an agreement is legally binding after the passing of the Bill if the agreement was made in writing and that that is all. There is nothing in subsection (1) to say that an oral agreement made before the passing of the Bill cannot be a legally binding agreement. Those words are not there. If hon. Members opposite suggest that there is in the subsection wording which is not there had taken the trouble to read the earlier debate they would have been able to understand this point.
    Mr. Adam Butler: I thank the hon. Member for giving way again. I draw his attention—I cannot be specific offhand as to exactly when—to earlier debates when my right hon. Friend and, I am sure, my hon. and learned Friend also, dealt with those Clauses, when we debated them, and made special reference to this point in connection with legal enforceability and made it absolutely clear that legal enforceability would apply to written agreements only.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Fraser: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has missed the whole point of this debate, which is that oral agreements made before the passing of the Bill can be legally enforceable. I do not want to take up the time of the House in a private argument with hon. Members opposite, and if they will consult their hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford perhaps he may be able to convince them.
    However, if it is of any help to them I would refer to the views of the Solicitor-General himself who, at the end of his speech on that occasion, said:
    "In the light of the observations made both as to the structure and as to the text, we shall look at the matter before Report. In the circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will not wish to press his Amendment"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 1337.]
    The Solicitor-General's hon. Friend obviously did not want to embarrass the Government, and did not press his Amendment, but not before saying the following:
    "However, although I am not happy about that, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will look at the question again beforeReport … ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 1337.]
    I hope the quotations which I have made from both the Bill and HANSARD serve to convince hon. Members opposite that there is a very real problem here, a problem which was recognised, indeed, by the Solicitor-General.
    The hon. Gentleman the Member for Rutland and Stamford said he was not happy. I will tell the House something: the Opposition are even less happy, having had a further look at it. We are concerned that oral agreements reached in good faith without realising that this Bill would be passed with all the consequences about "unfair industrial practices", and with damages flowing from breaches of oral agreements. It is wrong that the Bill should have some kind of retroactive effect on oral agreements. Therefore, we want to press this Amendment. We share the concern which was expressed in Committee, and we want a full explanation and an undertaking from the Solicitor-General that he will accept this Amendment in the spirit in which he looked at it in Committee.

    1507
    I now come to Amendment 155, also to Clause 32. It is to add a new subsection:
    "No collective agreement entered into before the commencement of the Act shall be legally enforceable."
    I think this answers the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. These words are not in the Bill—that no collective agreement is legally enforceable. Indeed, if that was the view he was expressing in his intervention I hope that he will say that he will vote for our Amendment. These words are not in the Bill and the Opposition are seeking to put them in. I hope he will vote for them and have the courage of his own convictions.
    Once again, we want these words because otherwise the Bill could have retrospective effect, if agreements were entered into before the Bill and even if they were in writing. Once again, they were made with no awareness of the consequences of the passing of this Bill. For instance, the parties to an agreement were not aware of the consequences of the Clause which requires unions to police agreements, and perhaps to expel or fine their members. They were not aware of these consequences and not aware of the consequences about damages, and they were not aware of the octopus tentacles of "unfair industrial practices" which run through this Bill. Unless the words we propose are put into the Bill it would be grossly unfair to the parties who reached those agreements without knowledge of future events. Once again even the Solicitor-General was aware of the difficulties. On a similar Amendment in Committee, he said:
    "The intention of Clauses 32, 33 and 34 is that there should be no attempt at any retrospective legal enforceability to anything. The only intention is that agreements which the parties, either in the past or in the future, intended to be legally binding should remain so or be so regarded. There is no reason for the hon. Gentleman's fears there. But I will look at the wording to ensure that we have it in line with that intention."
    After he was challenged on that, he said:
    "I see no reason in the light of what has been said in the debate to think that we have got it wrong. Of course we will look at the wording again to make sure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 1342–4.]
    The Opposition have looked at the wording again, and we are certain that, unless these words are put, in Clause 32 could
    1508
    have a retrospective effect on written agreements. We therefore ask the Solicitor-General to honour his undertaking, to explain to the House the consideration which he has made, to accept the arguments of the Opposition and of some hon. Members on the Government side of the House and to accept the Amendment.
    The effect of Clause 33, to which Amendment No. 231 relates is to make awards and decisions of certain bodies conclusively presumed to be legally binding unless each award or decision contains an expression to the contrary. The Solicitor-General insists upon using this stubborn adjective "conclusive". If the Clause said that, even though there was no exemption Clause, there was a rebuttable presumption that the awards and decisions were legally binding, that might not be so offensive. The Solicitor-General is saying that, unless there is a clear exclusion, it is not open to that body to say that it did not intend to make the award or decision legally binding, but the stubborn adjective will fix the body with it whether it wants it or not.
    Extremely grave doubts were expressed in Committee about whether that body could give a once-for-all disclaimer that its future decisions would not have full binding legal effect. Once again the Solicitor-General was pressed to give undertakings on this. The point was put to him by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray):
    "'Conclusively presumed' must mean what it says, that is, that there is no room for any kind of rebuttal.
    For these reasons, it seems clear that the words 'award or decision' govern the whole of paragraphs (a) and (b) and that there is no escape from this dilemma. If the Solicitor-General means what he says, may I implore him to look at these words again?"
    In reply, the Solicitor-General said:
    "The hon. and learned Member for Leith has advanced a legitimate argument … He suggested that it would not be sufficient to include a general disclaimer, because, as so recorded, such a disclaimer would have to be included each time. If that is the proper interpretation in the Clause, that is not the intention of the Government …"
    Here we have a full undertaking:
    "… and I certainly undertake to make it plain that that is not the intention. It is an

    1509
    important point and I recognise that there is room for doubt.
    MR. DAN JONES: Then accept our Amendment.
    THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL: No, I would not be so conciliatory as that."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 1st February, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 1371–72.]
    As has been pointed out time and again, the courts will not look at the words of the Solicitor-General or of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. They will look at the wording in the Act. If the Solicitor-General recognises that there is grave doubt here, it is incumbent upon him to include the words we ask for in the Bill to make it plain that there could be a once-for-all disclaimer. It is not good enough to have an Industrial Relations Act which presents difficulties to lawyers on both sides of the House—and silks at that. If the Bill presents difficulties to silks, what problems will the Act present at my local refuse yard when there is a dispute about the award of a local branch of a national joint council dealing with whether or not dustmen should go out in the snow? That is a real industrial relations situation. The position must be made plain, and the undertaking given by the Solicitor-General must be honoured. That disposes of the Amendments on Clauses 32 to 34.
    I pass finally to the main Amendment No. qqqq. I recognise that my argument is incomplete but it is an analogous one. If my argument is accepted for composite unit agreements, we want it accepted for all collective agreements. We are not suggesting inconsistency in the way in which different kinds of agreement are treated. The Amendment summarises our fears about the presumption of legal enforceability of collective agreements. Subsection (3,a) sums up our arguments on Clauses 32–34, that agreements made before the passing of the Bill should not be legally enforceable. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) provide that where an award or decision, or a subsidiary procedure agreement or subsidiary collective agreement, derives from a main and substantial collective agreement which is expressed not to be legally enforceable and not legally binding, the offspring of that agreement which is binding in honour only should also not be binding at law but binding only in honour. For instance, where there is an award or decision of a body set up under a collective agreement which
    1510
    is not legally binding, unless a new agreement, which does not derive from the main agreement, is reached, we say that the legally binding quality of the subsidiary agreement should be decided by reference to its parent. I am sorry that this is a complicated proposition, but this is a complicated Bill.
    It is the responsibility of the Government not to create the chaos and confusion apparent in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House in pressing these Amendments in Committee. I hope that on reflection they will have the courage to vote for them when these matters are put to a Division.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I listened to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) with considerable care. He announced, half way through his remarks, "That disposes of the Amendments", in a grandiloquent style, as if he had produced totally unanswerable arguments and the House should automatically accept them without further discussion. I cannot share his sense of satisfaction that he has abolished the whole case. I will probe a little further, and I may find myself a little in agreement with him, to his surprise.
    The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted to see a more solemn type of binding agreement, a sort of special declaration with an embossed seal on it. One had the impression of legal documents being drawn up and of solicitors' and possibly counsels' advice being taken—
    Mr. John Fraser: The hon. Gentleman should not let his imagination run away with him. This happens in hire-purchase matters, where, if a hire-purchase agreement is to be legally binding, there must be a square box of certain dimensions in certain colours and only if those conditions are satisfied and certain formalities are gone through is the hire purchase agreement legally binding. This is not a far-fetched precedent, it has adequate precedents in other legislation.
    Mr. Mitchell: This does not invalidate my argument. Hon. Gentlemen opposite throughout the debates on the Bill have been saying how important it is not to have an over-legalistic approach. Here we have the hon. Gentleman getting up and inviting us to adopt a far more

    1511
    legalistic approach than the Solicitor-General and the Government are proposing in the Bill. I find some contradiction in the attitude adopted in the hon. Gentleman's speech. I can only say that were sundry of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends below the Gangway present at this stage—I do not see any in their places now—they might not have received his suggestions with great enthusiasm.
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Castle: The hon. Gentleman really is muddying the waters of a Report stage discussion. Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that the Opposition are always in a dilemma when dealing with a Bill with which they profoundly disagree. In Committee we concentrated on the points of profound principle and disagreement. Now we are on Report and this is our last chance to make the Bill less disastrous in detail than it otherwise would be. It is a normal rôle of the Opposition, whilst still retaining their disagreement in principle, at least to try to see that the Bill fulfils sensibly what it states that it is out to fulfil.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am glad that I have stung the right hon. Lady into making that intervention. It seems rather like counsel for somebody who has a tendency to drink too much advising him to get totally drunk as a means of limiting him. To complain, as the right hon. Lady has been complaining, about the over-legalistic approach of the Government and to support her hon. Friend—I praise the right hon. Lady's loyalty—in wishing to have embossed seals on documents—I am not belabouring the point—seems a little out of tune with the Opposition's approach.
    I accept the dilemma on which the hon. Gentleman based his argument. The hon. Gentleman said that in the Ford dispute a year ago the company thought that it had a binding agreement and that when it sued on that agreement it was surprised to discover that it was not binding. I accept that that is a perfectly good premise on which to build one's argument that one must know whether an agreement is binding or not. This is one of the very important reasons which has motivated my
    1512
    right hon. and hon. Friends to draw the Bill in the way that they have. It means that all new written agreements will be binding unless they specifically spell out that they are not.
    That clarifies the position, without the need for any more legalistic mumbo jumbo, and any future Ford agreement will not be in doubt. Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman raised a legitimate point, but it has been met by the Minister drawing the Bill in its present form.
    I do not know why it is suggested that there should be a middle way between a binding and a non-binding agreement—some kind of gentleman's agreement. We are not a sixth-rate banana republic. The standards of integrity, when one shakes on something, should be clear. An Englishman's word is his bond. Trade unionists have always accepted this in the past. For example, no man ever drove a more tough bargain than Ernest Bevin, when he was with the Transport and General Workers Union, but employers knew that he kept his word. That is the standard which the Bill will enforce throughout industry. If that kind of standard had been voluntarily maintained during recent years, I do not believe that there would have been the necessity for the legislation which we are now having to introduce.
    Having said that I deplore the hon. Gentleman's proposal that there should be a halfway house between a binding and a non-binding agreement, reintroducing the areas of doubt and misunderstanding, I should like to agree with him in the concern which he expressed regarding the Committee stage. I think that the Solicitor-General must give hon. Members on both sides of the House a categorical assurance that the hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that an informal oral agreement entered into before the passing of the Bill could result in a party to it being sued for damages and a union having up to £100,000 damages awarded against it. If the hon. Gentleman is correct on this point, then he has my complete agreement in saying that it is an unacceptable position. If that is the position, the Solicitor-General must give the House an assurance that it will be corrected. It would be at variance with the principles which

    1513
    we on this side have stood for throughout this legislation. The idea of making an oral agreement place at risk the funds of a union retrospectively to a period before the Bill got on the Statute Book would be wholly unacceptable to both sides of the House. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can give us the assurance for which we are asking. It not, then I believe that the hon. Gentleman has raised a particularly important and vital point.
    Mr. Sillars: Before coming to the point to which I wish to refer, may I, as a Scotsman, object to the constant reiteration that an Englishman's word is his bond.
    Mr. Murray: Especially on St. Patrick's Day.
    Mr. Sillars: As my hon. and learned Friend says, especially on St. Patrick's Day. One must strike a blow for the Irish as well. It is becoming intolerable to hear hon. Members on both sides go on as though this were the English Parliament. They will have to learn that this is a United Kingdom made up of different nationalities. It is most offensive to have to listen to that nonsense. I am not talking about the nonsense on the Bill, but the other parts.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I can hardly withdraw the expression that an Englishman's word should be his bond, but I happily extend it to the Scots.
    Mr. Sillars: That leads me to ask: if indeed an Englishman's, a Scotsman's, a Welshman's or an Irishman's word is his bond, why do we need legally binding agreements? I put that to an ex-colleague of mine in the Transport and General Workers' Union across the Floor of the House.
    The point on which I should like clarification for my own peace of mind, because tomorrow I have to talk to some people in Glasgow about the Bill, arises on Clause 33. I am concerned about this conclusive presumption that, for example, a works joint council, which has been formed under a procedure agreement, shall be regarded as having already made up its mind, long before the Bill was
    1514
    even in draft form, that it should have powers to conclude legally binding agreements.
    There seems to be an over-anxiety on the part of the Government to rush bodies of that kind into making agreements which immediately, after the commencement of the Act, would become legally binding. Leaving aside my basic objections to the Bill, which are reasonably well known, at least in this House, and taking into account that we are on Report, when we are supposed to be good Committee men arguing on a Bill which has already been agreed to—a point which the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) did not seem to understand—I am very worried that the local joint councils are not being given the opportunity to have another look at how they are established and to consider the remit given to the delegates forming the workers' side of those joint councils, bearing in mind that what they do in future shall be conclusively presumed to be legally binding upon them.
    Amendment No. 155 would provide that no collective agreement entered into before the commencement of the Act shall be legally enforceable. When I go to Glasgow tomorrow, I will suggest to my audience that this is not clear, that there is a distinct possibility that such agreements could be declared by a court to be legally binding. The Solicitor-General must appreciate that it will not be sufficient for a union to brandish copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT before a judge and say that this was what the Government meant or what the Solicitor-General said. A court is bound not by what the Solicitor-General or anyone else said, but merely by the wording of the Act.
    I see nothing wrong and a great deal of merit in the Government accepting Amendment No. 155. This does not mean that the Labour Party agrees with legally binding agreements at all, but, good committee men that we are, we are making this point in the full knowledge that the Government have said that they do not want retrospective legislation. If the Government do not agree with the Amendment, I hope that the hon. Members for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) will vote with us.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Not surprisingly the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) mentioned a speech of mine in Committee. I was surprised that he should say that many firms and trade union leaders would have no idea what was in the Bill. Perhaps I should not be surprised. Perhaps the unions are spending so much time beating the Government with a stick about the Bill that they are not telling their members what is actually in the Bill.
    Mr. John Fraser: I did not slander the trade unions like that. I was saying that if some dustmen at a local depot were trying to reach an agreement, they might not have at the back of their minds the silver words of the Solicitor-General. That could have important consequences. When that kind of an agreement broke down in Lambeth, we were without refuse collection services for some time afterwards. We are talking of humble men and women who might not understand the consequences of the Bill.
    Mr. Lewis: I accept that the hon. Gentleman said that towards the end of his speech, but at the beginning he went a good deal further. He can help here. When the Bill becomes an Act, it is important that he and his hon. Friends and the union leaders should educate the trade union movement about what is in the Bill. It will be in their interests to do so. They will understand the good things in the Bill. I would imagine that when they appreciate that they have to take the bad—as they see it, not as we see it—with the good, they will see that there is so much good in it that, on balance, they will take the Bill as a whole and will want to work it.
    Mr. Sillars: Now that the hon. Gentleman has confessed that there are some bad parts as well as some good parts in the Bill, would he tell us which parts are bad?
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Lewis: I was out of order yesterday, and I should get more out of order today if I tried to develop that theme, I would say to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin), who intervened a little while ago from a sedentary position, that I was kidding. She has been in
    1516
    America for a long time, while we have been having long nights on the Bill—
    Miss Bernadette Devlin: Having just seen the American unions, I know what the Government are trying to do with the working class of this country. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government will get away with it, or that the working class will let them get away with it, you most certainly are kidding.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order.
    Miss Devlin: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the hon. Gentleman most certainly is kidding.
    Mr. Lewis: There are others who have been to America who think that such aspects as are American-based will work better in this country. Many parts of the Bill have nothing to do with the American system.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Would my hon. Friend agree that if the workers in this country got the same standard of living as they have in America, they might have praise for more orderly industrial relations?
    Mr. Lewis: I am sure that that point is very well taken.
    I am in some difficulty about oral agreements, because I have not yet heard the Solicitor-General, but I believe that he will cover the point. I do not want to make his speech for him, but I cannot very well rehearse a speech which I made in Committee when I know that that point has been covered—as has the point made by the hon. Member for Norwood.
    Amendment No. 19 to Clause 34 would limit agreements to those made after the commencement of the Act. This makes it unnecessary to remove the word "oral" and also destroys much of the argument of the Labour Party, in so far as written agreements also which are made before the commencement of the Bill will not apply for the legally enforceable purposes.
    Apart from that consideration, many unions have been insisting for some months that they should not sign agreements which might be legally enforceable until they see exactly what the Bill will provide. I am still not clear why the word "oral" needs to be in at all. In what circumstances is an oral agreement

    1517
    legally enforceable? A number of people can be involved. The only possible circumstances are those in which an oral agreement had been made and had been running for some time; because it had been running it had become accepted as a practice within the works.
    An oral agreement made this week to be implemented next week has always seemed to me to be a concept which is full of loopholes in the sense that there is likely to be a dispute by one of the parties over what was meant in the agreement. After all, nothing is written down, and one of the parties might say, "We do not agree about that now "or" We suggested something different from what you think we had in mind, and we want to discuss the matter again." What is decided in a hot, smokey room one afternoon may be totally impracticable some time later when such an oral agreement is implemented.
    As the word "oral" has been removed from the Bill retrospectively, I take it that nobody will, therefore, be likely to make a legally binding agreement orally. I would have thought that that was 100 per cent. certain. However, many people will make written agreements but will not opt for them to be legally enforceable. At present an agreement to be legally enforceable must be defined. At the commenecent there will be many people who will simply allow an agreement not to be legally enforceable. They will take that option. However, the fact that they must examine it cannot do any harm, and this is the advantage of the provision.
    There is everything to be gained in our industrial relations from unions and employers coming together, locally and nationally, to look more closely at their agreements. Many existing agreements are slipshod, and, though some have a period of time to run, it is frequently the case that one of the parties will say "This agreement is not working. We want to examine it again." There follows much discussion, and the agreement, which is supposed to have been adopted, may give rise to a fresh dispute. If both parties ensure that they make workable agreements, only good can result.
    In the meantime, there is no obligation on them to accept the legal penalties resulting from an agreement becoming
    1518
    legally binding and being broken before it has run out. There will be every opportunity to opt out, and there will probably be much opting out at the beginning.
    Hon. Gentlemen opposite are mistaken, in believing, however, that a great amount of opting out will continue. After the initial period about which I have spoken, more agreements will be accepted as legally binding on the parties because it will be felt by all concerned that better bargaining can be done that way. Unions will say, "We want a good bargain. We are prepared to lay down a period during which this agreement will run and our copper-bottomed guarantee not to break it or allow it to be broken in return for a good bargain."
    If a good bargain is not secured, an enforceable agreement will not be entered into. However, more and more trade unions will gradually accept that, by this means, they can secure from employers something worthwhile for themselves and their members. On the other hand, for a given time employers will have the advantage of knowing that agreements will have a clear run.
    By this means industry will not be troubled by the sporadic strikes from which we have suffered for too long. Figures relating to strikes are frequently bandied across the Chamber. There is usually a great deal of conflict over them. Nevertheless, it will be generally agreed by hon. Members that strikes in Britain happen too frequently, particularly in certain industries. Much trouble arises because agreements do not run sufficiently long.
    The sort of agreement we are discussing offers an opportunity to industry to have a long settled period of working and production, and this will result in stability to the advantage of employers, particularly in export industries, and, therefore, to the nation. There is nothing more disruptive to the economy than for our export industries to fail to meet their delivery times because of factory disruption not once a year but every few months.
    The pessimisms shown by hon. Gentlemen opposite about the working of this part of the Bill is unjustfied. I am sure that in the long run unions will be ready to take advantage of these provisons

    1519
    and will wish to make collective agreements legally enforceable.
    I trust that my hon. and learned Friend will assure me that the Amendment to which I referred meets the point I raised, but I give notice that I shall return to this subject for clarification if need be. As I read it, there is no retrospection, which is what I want, and I hope that he will assure me on that point.
    8.30 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I accept the exposition of the long-term intentions and effects of this part of the Bill given by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) in his lucid analysis of the way in which it will, as he put it, change attitudes gradually and lead to increasingly widespread acceptance of the idea of effective and enforceable collective agreements. I shall come back to the particular points which he raised.
    The Opposition Amendment No. 151 would require anything which was to be regarded as a collective agreement to be
    "in a formally executed deed signed by the parties thereto within the lawful scope of their authority".
    Both my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and Rutland and Stamford explained why that would be quite unacceptable and out of touch with any real desire to move towards a pattern of enforceable agreements in industry.
    The Government believe that many written collective agreements today are intended to be effective. It is right that they should be so effective, but it is further right that it should be assumed that the parties, unless they expressly provide to the contrary, wish such agreements to be supported and upheld by the law. That is the simple change which we seek to make, that written agreements —many of them made today, and intended at the time they were made to be effective, though certainly not made formally executed deeds—should be presumed to be supported by the law unless the parties expressly exclude that. We could not visualise a requirement going as far as Amendment No. 151; that is, requiring such a degree of formality before the presumption should apply.
    1520
    Opposition Amendments Nos. 152 and 153 raise a point in the context of Clause 32 to the effect that a collective agreement must by definition be in writing, and this comes close to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford in Committee.
    The anxiety on both sides of the House, I think, is that by omitting the words "in writing" and including the word "oral" in the general definition in Clause 32(3) we may be attaching retrospective effect to an oral agreement to which the parties never intended enforceability to be attached. The other anxiety is that the presumption contained in Clause 32(1) of legal enforceability could once again attach to an oral agreement. I shall take the last point first.
    The presumption is set out in Clause 32(1), and it is only there and on that particular front that the change is made in respect of the presumed intention of the parties to sign collective agreements. Clause 32(1) applies to a collective agreement made in writing after the commencement of the Bill. In her Bill, the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) sought to deal with that in the opposite sense. One quite understands the difference between the two sides of the House in this. Her intention was to apply to a collective agreement made in writing—made after the commencement of the Bill, I think—the proposition that it should not be legally binding unless the parties declared the opposite intention.
    Our change on presumed intention is set out in Clause 32(1) and applies only to a collective agreement made in writing after the commencement of the Bill, so there is no question of imputing any retrospective intention to the parties as a result of Clause 32.
    There is a point on Clause 34, to which my hon. Friend referred, and in this connection the Government Amendments are important and relevant.
    Mr. Murray: I wish merely to correct the Solicitor-General on a point of fact. We have not suggested that Clause 32(1) would bring retrospective enforceability to oral agreements. That was never suggested.
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman may well be right about that. Hon Members on both sides are anxious that there should be no

    1521
    retrospective alteration of intention. That, I think, is the point. The alteration of intention, or alteration of presumed intention, is contained in Clause 32(1) and applies to future written agreements.
    I come now to the Government Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 to Clause 34. Clause 34(2), the part which is to be amended, is a provision which the Opposition do not regard as attractive but which the Government regard as important, providing that the parties to a collective agreement which is legally enforceable are to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to uphold it.
    Without the Amendments which we have put down, it is right that that obligation, the new obligation to use best endeavours, could be attached to a collective agreement made before the commencement of the Bill and to a future oral agreement. It is for that reason that we include by our Amendment a collective agreement made after the commencement of the Bill, or part of such collective agreement as is a legally enforceable contract, so as to make it plain that there is no transformation retrospectively of the duties attaching to the parties by virtue of Clause 34(2).
    A further point is thought to arise from Clause 34(1), because subsection (1) does not say that that applies only to collective agreements made "after the Act". The explanation is that there are now some collective agreements intended by the parties to be enforceable and legally binding. There is no doubt much discussion as to how far some of them are, in fact, legally binding and about their effectiveness, but there are agreements which the parties believe to be and intend to be effective, legally binding collective agreements.
    As the law stands, those agreements, if they are to be enforced, can be enforced only through the ordinary courts, and I mean those agreements now existing, which the parties intend to be effective at law. As a result of the passage of the Bill—and particularly Clause 116—it is intended that no court other than the Industrial Court should entertain proceedings by a party to the collective agreement about enforcement of that agreement. In other words, the ordinary courts are not hereafter to have jurisdiction over the enforcement of a
    1522
    collective agreement, and jurisdiction of that kind is to be transferred to the Industrial Court.
    The purpose of Clause 34(1) is to make it plain that although the ordinary courts can no longer entertain proceedings about existing enforceable collective agreements, the Industrial Court can, because it could be said before the Industrial Court that a breach of an enforceable collective agreement was an unfair industrial practice. Clause 34(1), linked to Clause 116, is intended only to transfer jurisdiction from the ordinary courts to the Industrial Court.
    It transfers jurisdiction in respect of agreements made before the passing of the Bill if and in so far as those agreements are now intended to be binding at law in the ordinary courts. This is very close to the point raised in correspondence with me by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), with which, I understand, my right hon. Friend has dealt. We do not want, for example, the prospective repeal of Section 4 of the Trade Union Act, 1871, to change the nature of an agreement which before the passing of the Bill was not intended to be binding, so as to translate it or transform it by operation of the law from a non-legally binding into a legally binding agreement.
    In so far as it may be necessary to make clear that the repeal of Section 4 does not have that effect—I do not think that the repeal would have that effect, because one would have to see what the parties intended at the time they made the agreement—if there is any possibility, we certainly wish that there is no transformation of a pre-Act non-legally binding agreement into a post-Act agreement to which the Court could give effect. I think that this is close to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke. He is anxious that nothing in the Bill should transform an agreement made before the passing of the Bill and not intended to be binding into an agreement which after the passing of the Bill would become legally binding. There is nothing in the Bill as drafted to have that effect, and it is not intended that it should have that effect.
    Mr. David Mitchell: My hon. and learned Friend said that he was certain that it did not have that effect. Is he

    1523
    giving an assurance that, having reexamined the matter, he will, if necessary, ensure that Amendments are made in the Lords? How does he propose to carry out that undertaking, if it is an undertaking?
    The Solicitor-General: We have reexamined it specifically for this point in order to make sure that we are not changing an animal of one kind into an animal of another kind, not making an agreement which the parties regard as unenforceable into some different kind of agreement. On that analysis the Amendments moved to Clause 34(2) appear to be the only ones necessary. Certainly Clause 34(2), as it stood, was imposing an additional duty to use best endeavours upon parties who never contracted to do that as they originally drew up the agreement. But there is nothing in Clause 34(1) which changes the nature of a pre-Act agreement into something different after the Act.
    It has been suggested that the repeal of Section 4 of the 1871 Act, which deals with a particular kind of collective agreement—that made between trade unions—might in some way transform the effect of such an agreement. It is difficult to see how it can do that, but we shall certainly look at it and set beyond doubt the fact that no such transformation is intended.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The Solicitor-General may have misunderstood our point. It is not so much the intention of the parties or the effect of the agreements. We are saying on pre-Act collective agreements that, except where the parties have concurred to make them legally enforceable in a situation not covered by the 1871 Act, that is, the individual employer situation, for example, existing agreements which have been assumed not to be open to test in the courts because of the effect of the 1871 Act will be exposed, it seems, to test in the court by the mere act of removal of Section 4 of the 1871 Act in the post-Act situation, notwithstanding anything in the Bill but under the ordinary law relating to contract.
    The Solicitor-General: That is the point I am dealing with. There are agreements between a trade union and an employers' association, which is a
    1524
    trade union under the 1871 Act, which everyone has known cannot be directly enforced because of the provisions of Section 4 of the 1871 Act. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that by removing Section 4 we might inadvertently effect a change in the nature of those agreements which could not have been directly enforced and which, therefore, the parties did not intend to be directly enforced.
    If there is any risk of that happening, we shall certainly see that that possibility is excluded. I can understand hon. Members on both sides of the House saying that we do not want inadvertently to change the nature of a contract which everyone assumed was not enforceable into something which is enforceable. The change that we regard as necessary for that is the change comprised in the Amendments moved to Clause 34(2), and there can be no question of retrospection in that area.
    The other points raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) were those arising on Amendment No. 231 by reference to Clause 33. It is perfectly right that my presentation of the intention of Clause 33 during the Committee stage was not a model of consistent lucidity. I try my best, but I do not always achieve the standards which I set for myself. The intention of Clause 33 has to be considered alongside Clause 32. Collective agreements, industry-wide, perhaps, or company-wide, can be made in one of two ways. They can either be made by a coming together of represntatives for the purpose of hammering out ad hoc and collective agreements—hon. Members opposite will recognise the comparison—or made by reaching collective agreements intended to be comprehensive, procedural and substantive agreements in a different way as a result of the proceedings of a joint body of the kind to which Clause 33 applies.
    There is no essential difference between the object and the nature of a collective agreement of that kind whether it is made by an ad hoc assembly of people or by a joint standing body. It is our intention that the presumption of legal effect should apply, unless expressly disclaimed, to an agreement made in either of those ways, whether by a standing joint body or an ad hoc assembly of people, and that intention is carried into

    1525
    effect in Clauses 32 and 33. It is for that reason that Clause 33(3) requires the joint body which is making an agreement to have recorded in writing a provision relating to each decision saying that it is not to be legally enforceable, and that is why Clause 33(3)(b) is in the form that it is.
    8.45 p.m.
    A collective agreement evolved by a joint body has each time to have a disclaimer attached to it, as required under Clause 33, and it would not be possible to maintain the presumption to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford attaches some importance, that a collective agreement, however produced, has to be legally binding unless the parties expressly disclaim it, unless Clause 33(3)(b) stands. I accept that I misstated the position, and I apologise to the House for it. But our intention is properly embodied in that Clause, though I did not state it accurately in the passage which followed the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray).
    The position remains, therefore that many bodies of a humble or modest kind will decide that they will always be dealing with such routine matters that they do not intend to give legal force to agreements at which they arrive. But they will still have to record their intention with reference to each decision as required by Clause 33(3). It is in that way that we can require people making agreements to concentrate their minds on what they are about.
    One of the shortcomings in our system of industrial relations identified by Donovan and many commentators since is the imperfect, imprecise, unclear terms in which industrial relations are resolved in agreements. More often than not, the responsibility rests on management which is trying to promote an effective procedure agreement. The intention is that the habit of the sloppy resolution of disputes and the sloppy formulation of procedure agreements should be changed and that here, as elsewhere, the parties should intend the law to support the agreements into which they enter.
    It is for those reasons that Clauses 32 and 33 march together. It is for the reasons urged by my hon. Friends that we have tabled our Amendments to
    1526
    Clause 34(2), and that is why we will make sure that nothing in the Bill can translate or transform the nature of a pre-Act agreement into something different after the Act by virtue of the repeal of Section 4.
    Mrs. Castle: Earlier, we had a typical homily from the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis), who said how iniquitous it was of hon. Members on this side of the House to be going round and encouraging the trade union movement to misrepresent the purposes and effect of this legislation. He asked us to drop this wicked habit and to combine with his right hon. and hon. Friends to explain to the ordinary worker and trade unionist that the Measure was benign and that the Government were saying exactly what they meant when they gave their explanations of it.
    We have had in this debate a revelation of how right are our suspicions about the Measure. What the Solicitor-General has just said is perfect corroboration of our complaint about Clause 33. The Government have said to the country and in this House, "What are you all worrying about? We merely intend that written agreements entered into after the commencement of the Bill shall be subject to the Bill's penalties and sanctions. Above all, we intend that this presumption of legal enforceability shall attach only to major agreements made at industry or company level by the major negotiating bodies dealing with major negotiating matters."
    When on Second Reading we pointed out the far-reaching nature of the Clause, the Government pooh-poohed us. When in Committee we pointed out again that we were getting into a ridiculous situation, with the conclusive presumption of intention to have a legally enforceable contract going all the way down the collective bargaining line to the smallest works council or joint committee, the Solicitor-General said that we need not worry. He has now frankly admitted that he misled the House. He assured us that we were exaggerating the position when we said that in future the smallest collective bargaining body would have to put a disclaimer into any agreement it jotted down in writing. He assured us that the meaning of Clause 33 was that that would not be necessary, and that a

    1527
    once-for-all disclaimer could be made by such a body.
    It was only under pressure from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray), who pointed out the words that had been recorded, that the Solicitor-General said, "If I am wrong, I will put it right. I will look at it again." But he has not put it right. He has taken no steps in the Notice Paper to attempt to put it right. The Government have not provided any opportunities for the House once again to have the hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation of the true position.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has just said, it is only by our ingenuity and the cooperation and understanding of Mr. Speaker that we have had this opportunity of clarifying Clause 33 at all. If we had not made that opportunity, what had been said would have remained on record in HANSARD as the Government official word that Clause 33 meant that a general disclaimer could be put in by any works council or other joint body that was entering into negotiations of the kind covered by the Clause. So I suggest to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford that he be a little less lofty, and moralise a little less about our misrepresenting the Bill.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I accept what the right hon. Lady has said. She can have her bit of fun at my expense. I suggested that after the Bill has been amended and passed, she and her hon. Friends should educate the trade union movement in its meaning and how it works.
    Mrs. Castle: That is just what we intend to do. I am trying to educate the hon. Gentleman in what the Bill means. If we had not had this discussion an essential part of the educational process would have been missed. This is our whole case against the Bill. When we go out and warn the country about the Bill it is because we believe that, thanks to its complexities, it does not fulfil the broad generalisations the Government like to put to the country. The real meaning of this Bill lies in the small print and even the Solicitor-General does not understand his own small print. This
    1528
    is why he got up and told us that Clause 33 means something very different from what it does mean.
    We on this side of the House, with our suspicious minds, told the Solicitor-General we thought that when he went back and looked at the wording of Clause 33 he would see that it could not be held to sustain the interpretation he was putting upon it. He has now come back and told us, in rather guarded language, that we were right and he was wrong. Having proved that, what do the Government do? Do they turn round and say, "We entirely agree that it would be absurd for every negotiating body, however small, down the whole chain of collective bargaining, to have to put in a disclaimer whenever they jot an agreement down, to be on the right side of the law"? No, the Government, having found this out do not say that they will amend the Bill. They tell us that we have to stomach the new interpretation which the Solicitor-General now puts on it.
    That interpretation was our interpretation, the kind of interpretation my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) will take to Glasgow tomorrow, and he will be entitled to say to the people, "Do not listen to the broad, moral version of this Government because we have looked at the small print and we do not believe that it sustains the general claims which the Government are making".
    We have had another illustration of this tonight arising out of the argument as to whether agreements have to be in writing and made after the commencement of the Act before they become legally enforceable. These are all vitally important points for the trade union movement and I and several of my hon. Friends have had eminent trade unionists coming to us asking what Clauses 32, 33 and 34 mean. They ask, do they mean that the presumption of legal enforceability will only attach to a written agreement made after the commenment of this Act? We have had to say, "Sorry, at the end of Committee stage we are not very clear".
    This is why we have tabled these Amendments, because the Government tell us that is what they mean and then they go to the country and ask, "What

    1529
    could be more reasonable? We are not trying to get retrospective legislation, we are not trying to trap people into a situation into which they did not know they were being placed at the time the agreement was reached. That would be wrong. Let us have it clear and above board."
    What we say is, "Let us have it clear and above board by drafting these Clauses properly". The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) during one of those rare occasions when he was showing a little independent spirit made a suggestion to his hon. and learned Friend. He said, "Look at Clause 32. It is not clear." How can it be when subsection (1) says that every collective agreement made in writing shall be conclusively presumed to be intended to be a legally enforceable contract, yet subsection (3) says that "collective agreements" means any agreement or arrangement, whether in writing or oral? The Solicitor-General gives us his legal explanations. In Committee he said, "We are putting in subsection (3) the general definition of a collective agreement for the purposes of the whole Measure".
    The hon. Member for Basingstoke very sensibly said, "Because of the confusion, why not take the general definition out of this legal enforceability Clause and put it in the interpretation Clause if that is what is meant?". What are these new Clauses about but a whole range of regroupings and redraftings to make the Bill clearer? If the Government wanted to make this proposition clear, why did they not, in view of the anxieties on both sides of the House about the confusion, seek the opportunity to make some rearrangement? Why must we have the general definition of a collective agreement in the Clause dealing with the presumption of legal enforceability? Is it because the position is not as clear as the Solicitor-General tries to pretend?
    9.0 p.m.
    It is said that a collective agreement can be any agreement or arrangement, whether written or oral. That is the definition which governs Clause 34. If the Minister wanted to make the position clear and to show that he was not trying retrospectively to catch the sort of oral and other agreements to which reference has been made today, he had a simple way out—to accept our Amendment. Instead, we have the interesting and
    1530
    sinister selection by the Government of the place at which they insert the words
    "… made after the commencement of this Act".
    Why do they not appear in line 34 so as to govern subsection (1) of Clause 34 as well as subsection (2)? The Solicitor-General gave the reason. He said it was because there are in existence some collective agreements which were intended by the parties to be legally binding, whether written or oral. He says that because in Clause 116 the Government transfer jurisdiction in these matters from the ordinary courts to the Industrial Court subsection (1) must apply to existing agreements, whether written or oral.
    It is not right for the Solicitor-General to say, as he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker), "We do not intend to transform a pre-Act agreement. It is not our intention to catch people in a way which they did not intend." What he is doing is to attach the new concept of an unfair industrial practice which does not exist in law to existing agreements. If that is not retrospective legislation, I should like to know what is. By attaching an unfair industrial practice to existing agreements, whether written or oral, one is attaching the possibility of prosecution for damages.
    The hon. Member for Basingstoke, the paper warrior in our debates, has gone off for a meal, or something. He asked the Solicitor-General to give him a categorical assurance that an oral agreement entered into before the passing of the Bill could not lead to heavy damages being imposed on unions. But it can unless the Government put
    "… made after the commencement of this Act"
    in line 34 and not in line 40. What does the hon. Member for Basingstoke propose to do about that? He said that he would have to have a categorical assurance or he would be uneasy. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said the same—or perhaps he does not worry about retrospective legislation. Perhaps I am flattering him.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. Lady is making a reasonable point. I said that I would not accept that oral agreements already in existence should be caught by the Bill if they would not

    1531
    normally be subject to the law. I understood my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to say that only written or oral agreements already subject to the law and which have been made on the understanding that they are subject to the law will be dealt with by the new Industrial Court. If that is so, there is no pre-oral agreement which can be affected other than those which may be affected now. I should like to know whether there was an oral agreement affected by the law before this. I do not know whether there are—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Interventions must be brief.
    Mrs. Castle: My reply to the hon. Gentleman is twofold. He is quite right. I do not know of any oral agreement intended to be legally binding to which the Solicitor-General referred in Committee. He told us vaguely that there are oral agreements which were intended to be legally binding and that the Government would hate to think that, in spite of careful wording in the Bill, they escaped the legal net. If we let any bird out of the net, however innocent or small, that is a catastrophe for the Government. They would rather be guilty of bringing a whole host of innocent people into the legal net retrospectively rather than run the risk of that.
    What are these oral agreements which were intended to be legally binding? If they were oral, how do we know that they were intended to be legally binding? The hon. Member for Basingstoke or the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford said that it would be a great tragedy if the courts were to get a lot of oral agreements before them. The Solicitor-General says, "But that is why we must do our complicated drafting in this way. It is because there are oral agreements that were intended to be legally binding". What nonsense! What rot!
    If they were written agreements, the question becomes even more serious.
    Even if they were written agreements, they were made under the old law to be enforced through the old courts, not under the new court, with its definition of an unfair industrial practice and its power to levy damages of up to £100,000 on a union. What right have the Government to transfer the legal enforceability, even of an old agreement that was intended to be legally binding, from the old method of the courts to the new? That is restrospective legislation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster has been hammering away for a long time at the question of what happens when Section 4(4) of the 1871 Act is amended, making it possible to make industry-wide agreements legally enforceable? Will documents like the York Memorandum then be caught in the net? We had from the Solicitor-General the admission that perhaps that was so, that it was very difficult, that he would look at the matter before the Bill went to another place. But he promised to look at Clause 33, and what was the result? He said, "I am very sorry. It means exactly all the awful things you thought it meant, but that is what the Bill is about".
    There is a very simple way out for the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he is being honest with the House he can, first, take the general definition of "collective agreement" right out of Clause 32, and, second, put in words making it clear that only written agreements are legally enforceable. Third, he can add the words, where we suggest they be added,
    "after the commencement of the Act".
    That is a simple thing to do. The Solicitor-General would not be giving anything away but clarity. It is obscurity on which the Government's case has been built throughout the Bill. That is why I ask my hon. Friends to divide the House.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—
    The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 280.

    Division No. 250.]

    AYES

    [9.10 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Barnett, Joel

    Albu,Austen

    Ashley, Jack

    Beaney, Alan

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Ashton, Joe

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Allen, Scholefield

    Atkinson, Norman

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Archer, Peter (Rowely Regis)

    Bagier, Gorden A. T.

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Bishop, E. S.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Ogden, Eric

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Booth, Albert

    Hardy, Peter

    O'Malley, Brian

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Harper, Joseph

    Orbach, Maurice

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Orme, Stanley

    Bradley, Tom

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Oswald, Thomas

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

    Hattersley, Roy

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Buchan, Norman

    Hoosen, Emlyn

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn

    Horam, John

    Pendry, Tom

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Pentland, Norman

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Prescott, John

    Cant, R. B.

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Probert, Arthur

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Hunter, Adam

    Rankin, John

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Irvine, Rt. Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill)

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Janner, Greville

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Concannon, J. D.

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

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    John, Brynmor

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

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

    Cronin, John

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

    Roper, John

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

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

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    Davidson, Arthur

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

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

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Sillars, James

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Silverman, Julius

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Judd, Frank

    Skinner, Dennis

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Small, William

    Deakins, Eric

    Kelley, Richard

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Kerr, Russell

    Spearing, Nigel

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Kinnock, Neil

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Dempsey, James

    Lamond, James

    Stallard, A. W.

    Devlin, Miss Bernadette

    Latham, Arthur

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Doig, Peter

    Lawson, George

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Strang, Gavin

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Leonard, Dick

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Driberg, Tom

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Summerskiil, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Swain, Thomas

    Dunn, James A.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Taverns, Dick

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lomas, Kenneth

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

    Eadie, Alex

    Loughlin, Charles

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Edelman, Maurice

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Tinn, James

    Edwards, William (Merloneth)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Tomney, Frank

    Ellis, Tom

    McBride, Neil

    Torney, Tom

    English, Michael

    McCartney, Hugh

    Tuck, Raphael

    McElhone, Frank

    Varley, Eric G.

    Evans, Fred

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Walnwright, Edwin

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Mackie, John

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

    Wallace, George

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Watkins, David

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Weltzman, David

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Wellbeloved, James

    Foot, Michael

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

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Forrester, John

    Marquand, David

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Whitlock, William

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Meacher, Michael

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Garrett, W. E.

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Mendelson, John

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Ginsburg, David

    Millan, Bruce

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Golding, John

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Woof, Robert

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Mr. William Hamling and

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Moyle, Roland

    Mr. Donald Coleman.

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    NOES

    Adtey, Robert

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Awtiry, Daniel

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Astor, John

    Baker Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    1534

    1535

    Balniel, Lord

    Green, Alan

    Money, Ernle

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Grieve, Percy

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Batsford, Brian

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Monro, Hector

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Grylls, Michael

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Bell, Ronald

    Gummer, Selwyn

    More, Jasper

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Gurden, Harold

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Benyon, W.

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mudd, David

    Biffen, John

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Murton, Oscar

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Blaker, Peter

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Neave, Airey

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Body, Richard

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Normanton, Tom

    Boscawen, Robert

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Nott, John

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Hastings, Stephen

    Onslow, Cranley

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Hawkins, Paul

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Braine, Bernard

    Hay, John

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Bray, Ronald

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Osborn, John

    Brewis, John

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Heseltine, Michael

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hicks, Robert

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Bryan, Paul

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Peel, John

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

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

    Percival, Ian

    Buck, Antony

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Holland, Philip

    Pounder, Rafton

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

    Hordern, Peter

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hornby, Richard

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Chapman, Sydney

    Howe, Hn, Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Quennell, (Miss J. M.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Raison, Timothy

    Churchill, W. S.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    James, David

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Clegg, Walter

    Jessel, Toby

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Cooke, Robert

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Coombs, Derek

    Jopling, Michael

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Cormack, Patrick

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Costain, A. P.

    Kilfedder, James

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Critchley, Julian

    Kimball, Marcus

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Crouch, David

    Roet, Peter

    Crowder, F. P.

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Curran, Charles

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kirk, Peter

    Scott, Nicholas

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj. Gen.

    Kitson, Timothy

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Dean, Paul

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Sharples, Richard

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Knox, David

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

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Lambton, Antony

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Dixon, Piers

    Lane, David

    Simeons, Charles

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Le Marchant, Spencer

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

    Dykes, Hugh

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Soref, Harold

    Eden, Sir John

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

    Spence, John

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Sproat, Iain

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

    Loveridge, John

    Stainton, Keith

    Emery, Peter

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Eyre, Reginald

    MacArthur, Ian

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Farr, John

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Fell, Anthony

    McLaren, Martin

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Stokes, John

    Fidler, Michael

    McMaster, Stanley

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Sutcliffe, John

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Tapsell, Peter

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Maddan, Martin

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Foster, Sir John

    Madel, David

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

    Fowler, Norman

    Maginnis, John E.

    Tebbit, Norman

    Fox, Marcus

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Temple, John M.

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

    Marten, Neil

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Fry, Peter

    Maude, Angus

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Gardner, Edward

    Mawby, Ray

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Trew, Peter

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Goodhart, Philip

    Miscamnbell, Norman

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Goodhew, Victor

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

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Gorst, John

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Gower, Raymond

    Moate, Roger

    Waddington, David

    Gray, Hamish

    Molyneaux, James

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    1536

    1537

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    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

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Mr. Tim Fortescue and

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Mr. Keith Speed.

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes, 283, Noes 244.

    Division No. 251.]

    AYES

    [9.22 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

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

    Kilfedder, James

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Emery, Peter

    Kimball, Marcus

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Eyre, Reginald

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Astor, John

    Farr, John

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Feil, Anthony

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Awdry, Daniel

    Former, Mrs. Peggy

    Kirk, Peter

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Fidler, Michael

    Kitson, Timothy

    Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

    Fineberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Balniel, Lord

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Knox, David

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lambton, Antony

    Batsford, Brian

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Lane, David

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Foster, Sir John

    Langfort-Holt, Sir John

    Bell, Ronald

    Fowler, Norman

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Fox, Marcus

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Benyon, W.

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

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Fry, Peter

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

    Biffen, John

    Gardner, Edward

    Longden, Gilbert

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Loveridge, John

    Blaker, Peter

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Mac Arthur, Ian

    Body, Richard

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Boscawen, Robert

    Goodhatt, Philip

    McLaren, Martin

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Gorst, John

    McMaster, Stanley

    Braine, Bernard

    Gower, Raymond

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Bray, Ronald

    Gray, Hamish

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Brewis, John

    Green, Alan

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Grieve, Percy

    Maddan, Martin

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Madel, David

    Bryan, Paul

    Grimond, Rt, Hn. J.

    Maginnis, John E.

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

    Grylls, Michael

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Buck, Antony

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Marten, Neil

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Gurden, Harold

    Maude, Angus

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Mawby, Ray

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

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Maxwell-Hystop, R. J.

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

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

    Churchill, W. S.

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Hastings, Stephen

    Moats, Roger

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcllffe)

    Hay, John

    Molyneaux, James

    Clegg, Walter

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Money, Ernie

    Cockeram, Eric

    Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Cooke, Robert

    Heseltine, Michael

    Monro, Hector

    Coombs, Derek

    Hicks, Robert

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Cooper, A. E.

    Higgins, Terence L.

    More, Jasper

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Mudd, David

    Costain, A. P.

    Holland, Philip

    Murton, Oscar

    Critchley, Julian

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Crouch, David

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Neave, Airey

    Crowder, F. P.

    Hordern, Peter

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Curran, Charles

    Hornby, Richard

    Normanton, Tom

    Dalkeith, Eart of

    Hornsby-Smithy, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Nott, John

    d'Avigdor-Gotdsmid, Sir Henry

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Onslow, Crarley

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Dean, Paul

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Osborn, John

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Dixon, Piers

    James, David

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Jessel, Toby

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinetead)

    Peel, John

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Percival, Ian

    Dykes, Hugh

    Jopling, Michael

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Eden, Sir John

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Pounder, Rafton

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Sinclair, Sir George

    van Straubenzee, W. R.

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

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

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Soref, Harold

    Waddington, David

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Speed, Keith

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Raison, Timothy

    Spence, John

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Sproat, Iain

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Stainton, Keith

    Wall, Patrick

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Walters, Dennis

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Stokes, John

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Sutcliffe, John

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wilkinson, John

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Sidle)

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Rost, Peter

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Tebbit, Norman

    Woodnutt, Mark

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Temple, John M.

    Worsley, Marcus

    Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Scott, Nicholas

    Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Sharples, Richard

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

    Trew, Peter

    Mr. Paul Hawkins and

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Mr. Tim Fortescue.

    Simeons, Charles

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Albu, Austen

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Dempsey, James

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Allen, Scholefield

    Devlin, Miss Bernadette

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Doig, Peter

    Hunter, Adam

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Dormand, J. D.

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

    Ashley, Jack

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Janner, Greville

    Ashton, Joe

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Atkinson, Norman

    Driberg, Tom

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

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Jenkins, Hugh (putney)

    Barnett, Joel

    Dunn, James A.

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Beaney, Alan

    Dunnett, Jack

    John, Brynmor

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Eadie, Alex

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Edelman, Maurice

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

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Ellis, Tom

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    English, Michael

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

    Booth, Albert

    Evans, Fred

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Fernyhough, E.

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

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

    Judd, Frank

    Bradley, Tom

    Fitch Alan (Wigan)

    Kaufman, Gerald

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

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Kelley, Richard

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

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Kerr, Russell

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Foot Michael

    Kinnock, Neil

    Buchan, Norman

    Lamond, James

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

    Forrester, John

    Latham, Arthur

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Lawson, George

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Freeson, Reginald

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Cant, R. B.

    Garrett, W. E.

    Leonard, Dick

    Carmichael, Neil

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Ginsburg, David

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Golding, John

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Gourlay, Harry

    Loughlin, Charles

    Cohen, Stanley

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Conian, Bernard

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    McBride, Neil

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    McElhone, Frank

    Cronin, John

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Hardy, Peter

    Mackie, John

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Harper, Joseph

    Maclennan, Robert

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

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hatterstey, Roy

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

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Marquand, David

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Horam, John

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Davis, Clinton (Hackny, C.)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Meacher, Michael

    Deakins, Eric

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    1540

    1541

    Mendelson, John

    Rankin, John

    Taverne, Dick

    Millan, Bruce

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

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

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Richard, Ivor

    Tinn, James

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Tomney, Frank

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Torney, Tom

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Tuck, Raphael

    Moyle, Roland

    Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'nR'dnor)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Roper, John

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Murray, Ronald King

    Rose, Paul B.

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Ogden, Eric

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Wallace, George

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Watkins, David

    O'Malley, Brian

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    Weitzman, David

    Oram, Bert

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

    Wellbeloved, James

    Orbach, Maurice

    Sillars, James

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Orme, Stanley

    Silverman, Julius

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Skinner, Dennis

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Palmer, Arthur

    Small, William

    Whitlock, William

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, North)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Stallard, A. W.

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Pendry, Tom

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Pentland Norman

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Woof, Robert

    Prescott, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Mr. William Hamling and

    Probert, Arthur

    Swain, Thomas

    Mr. Donald Coleman.

    Clause accordingly added to the Bill.

  New Clause 6

    APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT FOR REFERENCE AS TO RECOGNITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT
    (1) An application may be made to the Industrial Court for the reference to the Commission, for examination by them, of the following two questions relating to the employees of an employer, or to the employees of two or more associated employers, that is to say—

    5

    (a) whether a specified group of those employees should, as a whole, be recognised (or, if already recognised, should continue to be recognised) by the employer or employers as a bargaining unit, or a part or parts of such a specified group should be so recognised (or should continue to be so recognised) as a separate bargaining unit or separate bargaining units; and

    10

    (b) whether, for any bargaining unit which is or should be so recognised, a sole bargaining agent should be recognised by the employer or employers and, if so, what organisation of workers or what joint negotiating panel (whether already in existence or to be formed for the purpose) should he the sole bargaining agent for that bargaining unit.

    15

    (2) Subject to the next following subsection, an application under this section relating to the employees of one or more employers may be made—

    20

    (a) by one or more trade unions, or

    (b) by the employer or (as the case may be) by any of the employers, or

    (c) by the employer, or (as the case may be) any of the employers, jointly with one or more trade unions, or

    (d) by the Secretary of State.

    (3) Before making an application under this section with respect to a group of employees, the Secretary of State shall consult—

    25

    (a) their employer or employers, and

    (b) any organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel appearing to him to be directly concerned in the matters to which the proposed application would relate.

    30

    (4) The Industrial Court shall not entertain an application made under this section otherwise than by the Secretary of State unless, before the application was made, notice of the proposal to make it had been given to the Secretary of State; and where such a notice has been given—

    (a) the Secretary of State shall offer such advice and assistance to the party or parties giving the notice, and to such other parties as appear to him to be directly concerned, as he may consider appropriate with a view to promoting agreement

    35

    between them with respect to the matters to which the application would relate, and for that purpose may refer any question relating to those matters to the Commission for examination by them, but

    (b) nothing in the preceding paragraph shall prevent the party or parties giving the notice from making an application under this section at any time after the notice has been given.

    40

    (5) In this section and in section 43 of this Act 'group', in relation to an application relating to the employees of an employer or of two or more associated employers, means a group consisting either of all those employees or of such of them as fall within one or more descriptions specified in the application.—[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:I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment rrrr,in line 1, leave out "to the Industrial Court for the reference"; Amendment ssss, in line 5, after "whether", insert "it would be appropriate if"; Amendment tttt, in line 5, leave out "should" and insert "were"; Amendment uuuu, in line 5, after "whole", insert "to"; Amendment wwww, in line 7, leave out "should" and insert "were to"; Amendment yyyy, in line 10, leave out "should" and insert "were to"; and Amendment aaaaa, in line 27, leave out subsection (4). We will also discuss Government Amendments Nos.26 to 57, 228, 229 and 230.
    The Solicitor-General: The consequential Amendments, going as far as Clause 45, are Nos. 27 to 44, with three additional groups—No. 45, Nos. 46 and 47 and Nos. 49 to 51.
    The main object of the new Clause is to make more flexible and appropriate the provisions of Clause 42, which it will replace, and which contains a basic provision, whereby questions about recognition and the scope of a bargaining unit and the identity of a bargaining agent can be referred to the Industrial Court and, if appropriate, from the Court to the C.I.R. These are among the most important parts of the Bill, because they provide a new and peaceful machinery for the resolution of recognition disputes and for the establishment of effective bargaining arrangements and structures.
    Clause 42 specifies rather narrowly the grounds for application, in slightly different form according to whether an application is by a union, an employer or the Secretary of State. I hope that the House will agree that the new Clause covers the same ground much more flexibly and effectively.
    1544
    At the end, the word "group" is defined in this context, relating to the employees of an employer or of two or more associated employers, as meaning a group consisting of all of them or such as are described—in other words, in whatever way as is most appropriate to the particular question to be raised before the Court.
    Subsection (1) is the subject of most of the Labour Party's Amendments. The shape and effect of subsection (1) of the Clause sets out the questions that can be the subject of disputes and that may arise in connection with recognition or bargaining disputes. First we have the question
    "whether a specified group of … employees should … be recognised … as a bargaining unit, or a part or parts of such a specified group should be so recognised"
    and then we have the question
    "whether, for any bargaining unit which is or should be so recognised, a sole bargaining agent should be recognised by the employer"
    The situation with which we are dealing here is where there is a dispute as to the group of employees in respect of whom a union or panel of unions should be recognised or where there is a dispute as to which union or which panel of unions should be recognised to bargain on their behalf.
    Mr. Orme: If this is designed to get rid of friction which exists when difficulties arise between unions, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain what the position will be when there are normal negotiations? Will those involved in those normal negotiations be brought within the ambit of this part of the Bill?
    The Solicitor-General: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question because it raises an important point with which I must deal.
    The object of these proposals about bargaining structure and recognition disputes is to provide a machinery which is

    1545
    to be available when disputes arise. This is not intended to be an all-embracing new solution applied right across the board to disturb existing stable bargaining structures. That is far from being the intention of the Government. This is to provide a machinery by which either a union or employer, or a union and employer in a joint application, or the Secretary of State, can go to the court and, if the court accepts it, through the court to the C.I.R., to get recommendations in respect of the disputes and difficulties. It is not intended to be, and it is hard to see why anybody would want to use it as, a means for upheaving and disturbing existing arrangements which are working well.
    The hon. Gentleman will know from experience that there are situations where there may be a competing recognition conflict—it may be a conflict that more intelligent management could resolve—which is producing strife for everyone concerned. It is, nevertheless, a conflict. There are occasions when a union is simply asserting its right to be recognised and a management is truculently refusing to recognise it, although the majority of people in the plant or factory want it to be recognised. That may not be described as a recognition dispute, but it is a real recognition dispute, though not between unions.
    The House has discussed a number of examples of the kind where all that is necessary is for a union to be given an opportunity of going through the court and establishing its right to be recognised by the employer. That, again, is the sort of conflict with which these provisions are intended to deal. As I say, subsection (1) identifies the questions that can arise, and it refers to whether a group of employees should be a bargaining unit or whether a particular union should be recognised as the agent to bargain on their behalf.
    Subsection (2) sets out the people by whom an application under the new Clause may be made, and it refers to a union or group of unions, an employer or associated employers, or there may be a joint application
    "by the employer, or … any of the employers, jointly with one or more trade unions"
    1546
    and the provision then refers to the Secretary of State. These are repetitions of the qualifying applicants who appeared in the original Clause.
    A union can apply, if it wishes, to obtain its right in this way to be recognised. An employer can apply if he wishes to resolve a dispute. There can be a joint application, and I will come later to the probable circumstances in which a joint application would arise. On the other hand, the Secretary of State could seek to refer the question to the court through this machinery. The Secretary of State would, of course, come in if there was a situation running on critically from bad to worse with neither side apparently taking steps to refer it to the court and, hopefully, from the court to the commission.
    Subsection (3) of the new Clause is a new provision—it was not in the old Clause 42—corresponding to a provision which is to be inserted in Clause 35 as a result of Government Amendment No. 21. Both the Amendment to Clause 35 and this, which is in effect an amendment to old Clause 42, are included as a result of points made by hon. Members opposite in Committee and of an undertaking which I then gave.
    Hon. Members opposite said that it was right that, before the Secretary of State made a reference through this machinery, he should consult with the parties in respect of whom he was making the reference so that they should not, as it were, be taken by surprise by a reference to the Court in that way.
    Mr. Sillars: I am not "nit-picking", as the phrase used by hon. Members opposite goes, but under subsection (3) is not the Secretary of State in duty bound to consult with the trade unions, although the words used are
    "organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel",
    which cover unregistered organisations?
    The Solicitor-General: Yes, that is right, but "organisation of workers" includes a trade union. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is part of the machinery intended here. Although, at the end of this procedure, the right to enforce a recognition order is confined to a registered trade union, we think it right that in the early stages of the procedure the Secretary of State

    1547
    should consult with any organisation of workers, whether registered or not, which appears to be on the scene in a bargaining dispute situation. Moreover, we think it right, as I shall explain later, that the C.I.R. could recommend that the sole bargaining agent should be an unregistered organisation or a panel including an unregistered organisation, but for that to be effectively enforced the organisation should be registered. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the intention here, from his point of view and from ours, is benevolent rather than anything else. An organisation of workers includes a trade union; a trade union is a registered organisation of workers.
    As I say, the Secretary of State will have to consult before making a reference, and the same is true for a Clause 35 reference for enforceability.
    Mr. Murray: I think that what the Solicitor-General has said is helpful, but may I press him a little further? Does he mean by his reply that "any organisation of workers" would cover all organisations or workers, whether trade unions or not? In other words, would the aim be to be comprehensive and interview all the organisations which might be concerned?
    The Solicitor-General: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, an organisation of workers is defined as being any organisation of workers setting out to pursue the regulating of relations between employers and workers.
    Mr. Orme: Staff unions?
    The Solicitor-General: I shall come to that. Certainly, an organisation of workers may include an unregistered or a registered organisation or a company union. I know that hon. Members opposite, or some of them at least, have no enthusiasm for company unions, but they will see when I mention some of the other matters that we have taken account of the points which they made in this respect in certain other Amendments. But they will acknowledge that it is at least right for the Secretary of State, before he makes a reference, to consult any workers' organisation, even a company union, because it is on the ground representing workers and it is entitled to have its views taken into
    1548
    account, like an unregistered organisation. It would be absurd to disregard that kind of organisation in the circumstances.
    Subsection (4) of the new Clause is an inclusion of what was subsection (5) of the old Clause, and the House will recall that subsection (5) of the old Clause was introduced by Amendment in Committee. Again, the intention was to require that any application which was on the way to the Industrial Court be notified first to the Secretary of State for him to have an opportunity to give conciliation, advice and assistance, in other words, to try to resolve the matter by a further attempt at voluntary agreement before it went on to the next stage of the court. That is a provision corresponding to that which appeared in the old Clause.
    9.45 p.m.
    These provisions are more flexible than those which they replace. For example, they allow a claim to be made by unions for inclusion in a joint negotiating panel, a union which had previously been excluded, but which was seeking concurrent bargaining rights. Under the old Clause, it could appear before the courts on that claim only if it were claiming sole rights, and that was an undue restriction. Here the union may seek to be included as part of the panel.
    The Clause is more flexible in that it allows a joint panel to be suggested as a solution to a bargaining dispute even if it were not originally sought when the matter first came before the Court. The application, in other words, need not specify the kind of solution which has to emerge. The C.I.R. will have the maximum discretion, once the question comes before it, to propose any kind of solution which seems sensible.
    Finally, the new provisions require and permit the C.I.R. in any situation of this kind to consider both questions: first, whether it is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining, whether it covers the right group or groups of people, and, secondly, what is the most appropriate bargaining agent to recommend in that situation.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the C.I.R. also has the duty to consult organisations of workers and groups of workers, because there may well be a broad range of workers with a special interest which

    1549
    is different from the others and who ought, therefore, to be included?
    The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. He has followed these provisions with close care. The C.I.R. has an obligation to consult in that kind of way. He will see from Amendment No. 45 that an additional obligation is being imposed upon the C.I.R. in that respect, but that can be discussed later.
    I continue to illustrate the additional flexibility conferred by this formulation of the Clause. It is now possible for a joint application to be made by employer and union for the resolution of a dispute. As I have already explained, the Secretary of State cannot refer an application without first consulting the people or organisations who appear to be concerned. The effect of the joint application provison will meet the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell); perhaps not meet it, because it probably did not need to be met but make rather clearer the answer to the problem which he mentioned.
    He asked earlier whether this procedure would be effective to meet what he called the simple case where the employer and union agreed that there was a bargaining unit and the question was whether that unit was sufficiently organised for the employer to be obliged on any sensible view to recognise a trade union claiming recognition, in other words, where the shape of the unit was agreed and the question in doubt was the support for the union.
    That kind of situation would clearly be a case for a joint application of that kind. It would go in the first instance by way of notification to the Secretary of State under subsection (4) and it would be possible for him, through his Departmental officers, to give such advice and assistance for the resolution of that as was required, and no doubt such advice and assistance could be directed to the organisation of a simple ballot, as is already done in some cases. In that kind of simple way, that kind of simple dispute would be advanced towards resolution.
    Mr. Gower: After an application has been made under the new Clause, at what
    1550
    stage and under what provisions will there be power for another union, or another group of employees, to ask to be associated, to join in?
    The Solicitor-General: I do not think that there is an express provision for another group to arrive, as it were, to ask to be joined, but the C.I.R. has to consider whether there are any other organisations whose members appear to be affected and to consult them. I will give my hon. Friend the precise subsection in a moment. The intention is that there should be a wide-ranging power for the C.I.R. Plainly it would be pointless for the C.I.R. to emerge with a recommendation in ignorance of the existence of another competing union on the scene.
    The two points are those affected by Amendments No. 46 and No. 47. They are Amendments to Clause 45 and, in particular, to Clause 45(3). Hon. Members opposite suggested that Clause 45(3) as it stood enabled the Commission to recommend for recognition an organisation of workers that was not independent. This is the point made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), that the C.I.R. could recommend the dreaded house union, if I may adopt his tone of voice. Clause 45(3) is now being amended, if these Amendments are accepted, so that any organisation that is recommended is an independent organisation of workers. That is the effect of Amendment No. 46. The C.I.R. has to be satisfied that the organisation, or, if it is a joint negotiating panel, every organisation represented on it, is an independent organisation of workers. That point has been met by those two Amendments.
    Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51 are Amendments to Clause 46. Clause 46 states:
    "Where in a report … the Commission have recommended that a particular trade union, or a joint negotiating panel of trade unions, should be recognised by an employer as sole bargaining agent … then, at any time before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which that report is transmitted by the Commission to the Industrial Court, either—
    (a) the employer, or …"
    subject to the following subsection, the organisation of workers, or a joint negotiating panel, as the case may be,
    "… may make an application to the Industrial Court under this section."

    1551
    The subsection which is written in is in Amendment No. 51:
    "No application … shall be made—

    (a) by an organisation of workers, unless at the time of the application it is a trade union, or

    (b) by a joint negotiating panel, unless at that time it is a joint negotiating panel of trade unions."

    The effect of that is to allow the C.I.R. to recommend recognition of an unregistered organisation if it finds one on the scene. It may be that there is some local group which has not acquired registration but which commands the full support of workers in a unit. If the C.I.R. reaches the conclusion that that is the right bargaining agent, and if it is endorsed by the subsequent ballot under these provisions, provided that the organisation seeks registration it can apply to enforce the recognition order against the employer in accordance with the recommendations. Those are the effects of this Clause.
    Mr. Orme: The Solicitor-General has mentioned the joint negotiating panel. He has not told us very much about how this will operate. For instance, in an industry at present where there may be 20 unions working in a works committee but where the unions, for example, the A.S.T.M.S. or the A.U.E.W., want to negotiate separately on conditions affecting themselves, they may negotiate separately though they are in a works committee at present. In a joint negotiating panel, who does the negotiating, and are these separate negotiations possible?
    The Solicitor-General: Suggestions have been made to the effect that we should here create some new magic machinery for resolving the sort of difficult balance which arises in the kind of case that the hon. Gentleman raises so as to produce a single union to sweep the field. That is not the intention. The idea is that the Commission should be able to recommend, if it seemed likely to produce an effective bargaining structure, a joint panel. Plainly such a panel might include the A.U.E.W. and the A.S.T.M.S., to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but it would be effective only if it came into existence by agreement and was to represent all the work people in the unit concerned.
    There is no power here for the Commission or anyone else to persuade two
    1552
    or more unions which are unwilling to make a joint panel negotiate together as one bargaining agent. But no doubt the Commission would try to produce that solution if it seemed likely to make sense. If at the end of the day it was not likely to produce a sensible bargaining structure and the more sensible solution was likely to be the A.U.E.W. for one group of workers and the A.S.T.M.S. for another group, the Commission would recommend those two unions being recognised in respect of those two bargaining units.
    Mr. Orme: So that it would then be possible to have two sole bargaining units within one establishment?
    The Solicitor-General: That is right. This represents the kind of arrangement which exists in some situations now, as hon. Gentlemen will appreciate. It depends to some extent on the traditional bargaining structure. There may be places where one union in effect has sole bargaining rights for process workers, another union for maintenance workers, and so on. There may be a dispute about the border, about where a category of workers comes. The Commission might well propose the reallocation or redistribution of the border to try to arrive at an acceptable solution. It may be that the best solution would be the construction of a joint panel whereby the border territory disppeared. But the intention is that the Commission, as it does already on references of this kind, should try to produce the most effective solutions for the problems in that plant. Those solutions should be capable of being enforced against the employer and of being supported by the restraining of what has been described previously as coercive action to disturb a recommended solution
    Although we may differ on a number of other points, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will accept that this formulation of these matters at least provides a sensible foundation for the reference of this kind of question through the court to the Commission.
    Mr. Heffer: I find myself in some difficulty because the list of Amendments which I have been given is not completely accurate. My list reads, "Government Amendments 26–57". In preparing for this debate, I referred to Amendments 26, 57, 228, 229 and 230, and discovered, meantime, that apparently I had missed a

    1553
    group of Amendments to which I should have referred. However, it does not alter what I am about to say very much. It merely puts me at a slight disadvantage in replying to the points that the Solicitor-General has made.
    10.0 p.m.
    It is quite obvious that although the Government, by substituting this new Clause for Clause 42, have made a number of concessions—and I am the first to accept that they have made a number of genuine concessions—they have not conceded the principle, and we are now discussing the same principle as we debated in Committee. Before dealing with specific points I want to repeat one or two arguments against the whole idea of the sole bargaining agency.
    The Solicitor-General in an interesting speech said that the objective of the proposal was to sort out what might be called the overlapping situation that might arise even within the existing structure, where tension or competition arises between unions in respect of membership and bargaining rights. The hon. and learned Gentleman has completely ignored the whole policy now adopted by the Trades Union Congress and embodied in the Bridlington Agreement. We recognise that in our complex industrial society from time to time there is competition between unions for membership.
    These conflicts arise particularly in respect of whether white collar workers—foremen and so on—should be in industrial workers' unions or in a union of their own. Many hon. Members opposite preach industrial unionism, but if we have industrial unionism we very largely eliminate the white collar workers, who end up in the same union as the industrial workers. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) should not shake his head, because in the United States, which we are told he has visited, the automobile workers had precisely this problem, and overcame it by creating a special section for white collar workers within the same union.
    The Solicitor-General has completely ignored how these problems are sorted out nowadays. The trade union movement itself solves them by applying the Bridlington Agreement. We argue that the Government's proposals do not help to solve this competition between unions
    1554
    but have the opposite effect. They will lead to competition between unions where it does not now exist. That is our basic argument.
    The other point is that it must inevitably lead to unstable industrial relations. Union will be set against union—or could be. The experience of the United States proves beyond doubt that a tremendous amount of competition grows up between trade union organisations to enrol members into their own unions. That is why, for example, the Teamsters, outside the C.I.O. and the A.F.F.L., became the fastest-growing trade union in the United States for a time. Why? Because under the scheme there, similar to that proposed here, the Teamsters moved into all sorts of activities which had absolutely nothing to do with their industry. The same sort of thing could develop in this country.
    Mr. Orme: It is happening now.
    Mr. Heffer: It may be, but when there is any difficulty it is sorted out by the trade union movement. In America they go to the courts, and it creates great problems, many more than it solves. That is the basic difference between what is proposed by the Government and what happens now.
    The other point is that this will lead to immense fragmentation of bargaining—
    Mr. David Mitchell indicated dissent.
    Mr. Heffer: The hon. Gentleman keeps looking up and shaking his head. His head will come off if he keeps on doing it, with that expression of surprise on his face. The facts—he ought to know this if he has just been to the United States—prove this.
    Take the post office industry, if it can be called that. In this country there are three Post Office unions catering for three or four different grades. In the United States, because of the sole bargaining agency system, there is practically a different union in every town. If there was a situation there when there was a great struggle over wages and conditions similar to that which took place here there would not be a complete turn-out of workers at one stage and a complete return at another. There would be a

    1555
    guerrilla warfare over the whole of the industry.
    So when hon. Gentlemen opposite say, as they do so often, that this Bill will lead to strikes which are less fragmented, what they are looking for really is bigger and better strikes—not so frequent, but bigger when they do take place. With these proposals there is the possibility of more fragmented strikes through a whole series of unions being involved as sole bargaining agents when at present only one union caters for an industry. These facts have to be taken into consideration. This proposal is no panacea for achieving industrial peace and could be the very reverse.
    The Solicitor-General said that he was much persuaded by the blandishments of this side on the question of the concept of consultation between the parties and the Secretary of State. I wish that he had been persuaded on other things, too. He went only part of the way. The argument we put in Committee was that consultations should be on the basis of an application to the C.I.R. and that the Industrial Court would be eliminated entirely, and application to the C.I.R. should be made only when there were recognition problems. The Solicitor-General says, "We have been persuaded by what the Opposition have said." The Government have not been persuaded. If they had been, they would have dropped the whole concept of the Industrial Court and would have accepted the principle that the matter could go to the C.I.R., as matters do now when there are recognition problems, to be looked at voluntarily by the Commission with recommendations to the parties concerned. I cannot accept the Solicitor-General's statement that we have persuaded him to accept our doctrine. I wish that he had been persuaded. If he had been, we could have accepted the new Clause because it would have been along the lines we have proposed.
    The Solicitor-General said that the machinery would be used only when disputes arose and that it would not disturb stable arrangements. We constantly hear this said. In other words, all this paraphernalia of legal machinery is only a longstop. If it is to be only rarely used, why have it at all? Why not retain the existing trusted machinery which the trade union movement has to
    1556
    solve problems of internal competition; namely, the Bridlington Agreement? What is the object of the machinery? We have had no answer to that.
    It is said that the Government have made another concession relating to the joint application. It is a concession in certain circumstances. The other day it was said that it was not possible to have an approved closed shop unless there was a joint application. On this occasion it is said that it is possible to have a joint application, but we can also have individual applications. The union can apply, but when it comes to the approved closed shop it cannot apply on its own; there must be a joint application.
    When we say that the machinery is tilted in favour of the employers, that is precisely what we mean. Every proposition is definitely tilted in their favour.
    The Solicitor-General stressed that in certain circumstances there would be consultation, not necessarily with trade unions but with what we call company unions. He said that Amendment No. 46 covered the point. I cannot understand what he means. The principle is this. The Secretary of State might have consultations with a company union. The matter could then be referred to the C.I.R. In certain circumstances, especially if there are no trade unionists on the C.I.R.—and there is none at the moment except the ex-chairman of the T.U.C.; others have left, and it might well be that in certain circumstances they will all leave—the C.I.R. could recommend that that body, after a ballot and if it got a majority, could become the sole bargaining agent if it was prepared to become a registered trade union.
    But suppose that the majority of workers were in a bona fide trade union affiliated to the T.U.C. and said, "We are not prepared to continue to work alongside these people who may register and become a trade union under this Act but are still a company union."
    10.15 p.m.
    The Solicitor-General: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that such an organisation can register and become a trade union under the Bill only if it shows that it is independent and is not subject to employer domination or control? The object of Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 is

    1557
    to ensure that only an independent organisation — one which is not dominated and is not a company union —can be recommended. The hon. Gentleman must not look a gift horse in the mouth. We have met the point and made it clear that the house union which remains employer dominated cannot be recommended; to be recommended it must be registered and independent.
    Mr. Heffer: The point I am making is that the hon. and learned Gentleman contradicted himself. He talked about the company union which the Secretary of State could consult, but on the other hand said that once the C.I.R. had looked at it, there had been a ballot and it registered, it could be a trade union in the accepted sense under the Bill.
    1558
    I do not want to refuse a gift horse. Any crumb of comfort will be gladly accepted. A minor concession is better than none. I said in opening that there were concessions here that we gladly accepted, but we did not consider that they in any way altered the principle, and I argued against the principle. I hope that this matter will be cleared up in the reply to the debate.
    We are opposed to the whole principle of the sole bargaining agency. Although there are a number of concessions in the Clause and the Amendments, the basic principle remains. The concessions in no way change it. They will not assist the industrial relations scene. Therefore, we cannot give the Clause a Second Reading.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I was delighted by the frankness of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) when he explained that he had been misled as to what was on the Orden Paper, that he had not had an opportunity to examine the Government's Amendments, but that that would make no difference to his speech. Clearly, it has not done so.
    The hon. Gentleman started by explaining the dangers of industrial trade unionism and accusing me of being an advocate of it, which I certainly have not been. He then complained of the dangers of fragmentation. I find it difficult to understand how in the same speech he can expect the House to agree with him in attacking both those allegedly opposite evils at the same time.
    Like the hon. Gentleman, when I was in the United States I noticed the dangers of industrial trade unionism. But in the case of the United Automobile Workers there was a pressure group of skilled men who felt that they did not have sufficient differential, that they were being lost in the mass of votes in support of the unskilled. They therefore put pressure on the union to give them a special separate part of the agreement. They were able to do that only because they had the power under the U.S. legislation to go to the N.L.R.B. and ask to be treated as a separate union, to seek separate representation. It was the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends who opposed the Government when they provided a right for a new union to appear. They vigorously attacked the idea of democracy operating in trade unionism to the extent that new unions could break in.
    Mr. Alex Eadie: I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he arguing that he is perfectly happy with the situation in America, which results from legislation similar to that which the Government are introducing, where there are more than 24,000 unions dealing with the post office structure? Does he want to see that position in this country?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because I was coming to it next. In preparing the Bill my hon. and learned Friend has recognised that danger and,
    1560
    therefore, has not provided for the straight industrial democracy that there is in the United States, where any union has the right to put itself in for a ballot. Having shown that one-fifth of the workers in an area want it to appear on the ballot, it has an absolute right on a knock-out ballot, winner takes all, to secure representation.
    But here, under the Bill, there must be a recommendation from the C.I.R. By putting in managed democracy, putting in the C.I.R. as a buffer, we ensure that we do not get 24,000 post office unions, one for each separate post office. The Government have taken into account the danger that the United States system could bring to this country, and have inserted the C.I.R. as a deciding factor to recommend which union should secure representation. That ensures that the danger foreseen by the hon. Gentleman does not arise.
    I am glad that the Government have accepted the case for a simple resolution of a straight recognition claim. But I wish that the machinery were a little simpler than it appears on reading through the text of the Bill. I am most grateful that my right hon. Friend accepts my case that groups of workers with different interests should have the right to be excluded from a bargaining unit and to be heard in the decision as to what the bargaining unit should cover.
    What is the exact meaning of
    "associated employers"
    in subsection (5)? Must they be companies associated financially, or can they be companies engaged in the same trade, in competition with each other but in the same locality? In the case of the Birmingham transport drivers there was an overwhelming problem of a union picking on individual small employers one by one. Had they been in a bargaining unit together, the employers would have been strong enough to stand up to the union there on more equal terms. I would be very anxious to see that nothing is done by the Bill to prevent small employers from getting together to ensure that a powerful union does not blackmail them by taking them one at a time. So I put that question to the Solicitor-General.
    The second question that I wish to put to him is whether there will now be a

    1561
    right of an application for the defining of the bargaining unit and the defining of the sole bargaining agent to be withdrawn. I ask because I think the Solicitor-General will recognise that there may be circumstances in which once a competing union has started the machinery for the Bill it achieves a situation in which it is clear from the way the boundaries, the constituencies, have been drawn by the C.I.R. that the union is going to win. It may then be better that the parties should accept the status quo than agree under threat of what would happen if there were a ballot. It would be a more peaceful solution for that situation than if there were a ballot and one union which has many members is the sole agent. I should like an assurance that it will then be possible, even though the machinery has started, for an approach to be made to the C.I.R. to allow the matter to drop on the basis of its initial recommendation without going through the legally binding provisions in which the sole bargaining agent has been appointed and, with it, the danger that the aggrieved party will lose out.
    Mr. Hugh McCartney: I want to raise a specific point which, so far as I am aware, has not been referred to at any time during the discussions on the Bill, on Second Reading or since. It is about the bargaining unit as referred to in the new Clause.
    I wonder whether the Government have taken into account those industries in which large numbers of part-time employees are engaged. I wonder—for there is nothing that I can see about it, nor has there been anything which I have heard said about it—whether there is anything to indicate that there is any differentiation between part-time and full-time workers.
    I am thinking of what happens, for instance, in the licensed catering industry and other sections of the catering industry where there are large numbers of part-time employees who are drawn from other industries and who look upon this occupation, their second occupation, as a means of getting pin money or extra earnings from which they can buy tobacco or cigarettes, or take their wives to the cinema, or, perhaps, improve the amenities of their homes to some extent.
    1562
    Are these people to be allowed to decide the future and welfare of the permanent workers in the industry? Some of these part-time workers are trade unionists, members of other trade unions, but most of them do not in any way have any influence on or interest in the catering trade, and some of them may be non-unionists. Is it being said by the Government that these people, either individually or as trade unionists in one union, even though not having a direct interest in the catering industry, are to be allowed to influence decisions in relation to that industry?
    The same applies to the transport industry, to both the public and the commercial sectors. The same applies, to some extent, to the building trades. Consider what happens at weekends at department stores like Woolworth's, where schoolgirls go for a few hours on Saturdays for pocket money. Is it suggested by the Government that these young people, in mini-skirts or hot pants, should be allowed to determine the well being or otherwise of the people permanently employed in department stores?
    These are things which are worrying people who have full-time engagements in these occupations, and I should like to hear from the Government, before the end of the debate, what their intention is in relation to this group of workers.
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Gower: In this matter, as in other aspects of this legislation, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) like a latter-day King Canute, seems to think that all is well and disregards all the danger signs—
    Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend is a little unfair to King Canute. He was quite aware that he could not send the sea back, but he had bad courtiers, and that may be the trouble on the hon. Gentleman's side.
    Mr. Gower: The matter under discussion is analogous to our earlier discussion on new Clause 5. We are all concerned about industrial strife, whatever its causation, but we recognise that there is some which is inevitable. We merely want to make less likely industrial strife which can be easily avoided,

    1563
    and this is one danger which can be minimised.
    I hope the hon. Member for Walton will accept that, as the Solicitor-General said, this procedure is not designed to disturb existing bargaining arrangements. Rather is it designed to provide adequate machinery for dealing with disputes. The hon. Gentleman says, rather blithely, that we have the Bridlington agreement, but can he assert that this has always been perfect? From the hon. Gentleman's remarks one would imagine that our procedures are infinitely better than those of any other country, but anyone who thinks that must be very short-sighted. There are good features in our system, but there are also deficiencies.
    Mr. Heffer: When we discussed Clause 43 I said—and it is worth reiterating—that in the past 30 years the T.U.C. had dealt successfully with more than 1,000 inter-union disputes through the application of the Bridlington Agreement.
    Mr. Gower: Nevertheless, disputes may arise and, after careful consideration of the points made by the Opposition in Committee, the Government have produced machinery for the determination of recognition disputes. This is not lined up, as the hon. Member for Walton suggested, against the employee. Application can be made by a trade union, by other bodies of employees, by the employer, by employers jointly or by the Secretary of State. How he can describe it as biased I cannot imagine. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will look at it in that light and reconsider their attitude.
    Mr. R. Carr: I shall try to answer some of the points which have been raised. First, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), an associated employer is indeed one who is associated in the financial sense. I believe that this is right.
    Secondly, employers can join together in an employers' association for the purposes of collective bargaining. But what we are talking about is the use of special machinery to solve a demarcation or, rather, a recognition dispute. I do not believe that a recognition dispute can be solved across an employers' association
    1564
    consisting of entirely separate companies. So, concerning the use of this machinery, we envisage that it must be done either through an individual company or through associated companies, using the term "associated" in what I might call the Companies Acts sense. I shall certainly give further thought to my hon. Friend's point; but it would be wrong to say that and leave him feeling that I had much hope of meeting it.
    My hon. Friend also asked whether it would be possible to stop a reference to the C.I.R. once it was under way. In the procedures which we envisage, the C.I.R., if it obtains the agreement of the parties to a particular course, can and would, I imagine, not make a report. I think that that is the most likely event in circumstances where the parties went to the C.I.R. and said, "We have agreed that this is what we would like to do." Since the whole purpose of the machinery is to solve a dispute, if the dispute were to cease to exist because the parties had reached agreement there would be no point in the C.I.R. going ahead with it.
    The parties cannot force a withdrawal, but the C.I.R. can take the initiative in refusing to go ahead on its own. In the circumstances postulated by my hon. Friend, I think that the most likely course where there was agreement would be that the C.I.R. simply would not proceed.
    If the C.I.R. proceeded, the parties could refrain from going to the court and seeking an order to enforce the C.I.R.'s recommendation. I do not think that my hon. Friend need have much fear of anything coming from the C.I.R., least of all being enforced, which the parties themselves do not wish to have. If the parties reach agreement the need to resolve their dispute ceases because, almost by definition, the matter has been solved.
    The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney) raised a point which has considerable force. Throughout the Bill in all these matters we have asked that the C.I.R. should be responsible, if not for actual supervision of the voting, at least for the ballot. We believe that there will need to be careful investigation not only in defining the area of the bargaining unit but in defining the workers eligible to vote. The best answer which I can give is that eligibility to vote

    1565
    is a matter which the C.I.R. will take into account in every case. However, I shall give the matter further consideration and write to the hon. Gentleman, because he has raised a point to which I am not prepared at this moment to give a categorical answer for permanent record.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the Minister aware that the Opposition have some Amendments down relating to the hours worked by part-time workers which we think should be taken into consideration when considering eligibility to vote? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will look at that as well?
    Mr. Carr: I shall certainly look at that. There is a difficulty here if transient workers could come in and swamp the vote. On the other hand, where there are part-time workers with some real permanency and stake in the industry, if a ballot is provided it would be wrong to rule them out automatically.
    Mr. McCartney: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer and I appreciate his difficulty. But, assuming that he decided that there is need for a change in legislation, how will he promote this? What machinery is left for him now to do this?
    Mr. Carr: If we decided that an Amendment was needed, it is oven not only for the Government but also—as I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite are well aware—for the Opposition to move Amendments in another place. I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps it would be convenient to send a copy to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
    The hon. Member for Walton mentioned the company union. I believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General made this clear, but let me try again. We say in the new Clause that, initially, it is right that any organisation of workers, including a company union, can be brought in and consulted. Whatever one may think of company unions, they are real live organisations of workers, and we believe that their views should be heard. But we say—I should have thought that this would satisfy hon. Gentlemen—that an employer-dominated union cannot be recommended by the C.I.R. It would have to prove its independence, and if it could not do so, it could not be recommended.
    Mr. Ted Fletcher: Why is it necessary to consult company unions or staff associations in the first place, when from what the right hon. Gentleman said it appears that they would in no circumstances get sole bargaining rights?
    Mr. Carr: There are two reasons. First, such a staff association might decide to change its constitution and become independent and even registered: it may then satisfy the C.I.R. and the Registrar that it is independent and, therefore, put itself in the field for recommendation. But if it did not choose to do that, it could not be recommended.
    The second reason is twofold. First, however much people may dislike staff associations, they will not get up and go away: they are a factor in the situation. So far as I know, the C.I.R. with its present procedures, would be prepared and able to take their existence into account. Second, the C.I.R. may decide, as the Bill allows, to make no recommendation about a sole bargaining agent if it cannot see a suitable agent to recommend.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Heffer: How will one decide that it is not a company union and whether it is employer-dominated? The term "company union" means, in the trade union accepted sense, a union inside a company which receives financial assistance from that company. To that extent it is dominated by the company. If there is a union of that kind and it is obviously not independent, why consult it in the first place?
    Mr. Carr: I thought I had dealt with the final part of that intervention, but I shall obviously have to repeat my remarks.
    Such an organisation is a factor to be taken into account. Whether or not one likes it, if there is a staff association with a membership, then it is a reality. Its members are real live people working in the undertaking involved. Whether or not one agrees with their point of view, those people must be taken into account.
    It is extraordinary to suggest that just because here is an organisation which one does not like the look of, it should be of no account and its views should not be considered. It is proper, and it meets a proper point made by hon. Gentlemen

    1567
    opposite, to say that if such an organisation chooses not to change its status and if the C.I.R. cannot see a more suitable body to recommend as a sole bargaining agent, then that body may be recommended.
    The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that the meaning of "independent" is already defined in the Bill. In the normal circumstance when a union wishes to register, the registrar will have to determine whether it is independent, and in the case in point the C.I.R. will have to satisfy itself. If anybody is doubting the bona fides of a union which is claiming to be independent, then I cannot believe that its status as an independent will go unchallenged.
    At some point one must trust somebody to be able to judge the circumstances of the case, and that is the whole principle of this combination of an adjudicating authority like the Court and an investigating and recommending authority like the C.I.R., both of which are industrially sophisticated and experienced bodies by virtue of their membership.
    We believe that the C.I.R. will in this case be able to determine satisfactorily whether an organisation of workers is independent and whether it is employer-dominated, because if there is any doubt about it I am sure that those who wish to challenge it will not be backward in coming forward to put their point. I can only repeat that we are making it absolutely clear that an employer-dominated union cannot be recommended under this procedure as a sole agent.
    Mr. John Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the C.I.R. will decide this point. It is relatively easy to see what an employer-dominated union is, particularly if it is a staff organisation, but of the many organisations some are more militant than others. The employer will have a clear preference for one type of organisation over another, and while a union may seem to be independent—certainly independent enough to meet the requirements about which the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking—it may not be so independent, and some such organisations may be more willing to meet the employers' demands than the more militant unions.
    Mr. Carr: That could be the very nature of a dispute that requires a solution. We are here discussing the means of resolving disputes. If one type of solution has failed, we come on to the C.I.R., which will look into the matter not only with integrity but with knowledge and skill. I believe that one can trust a body like the C.I.R. to do that job faithfully and well, and certainly as faithfully and as well as any other institution of which one can think in this sphere. It will be not for the employer but for the C.I.R. to decide. The C.I.R. will, no doubt, have to listen to what the employer's preferences may be but it will have to listen also to what other people's preferences are, form its own independent opinion, and make its recommendation accordingly. That is the proper place to leave it.
    Coming to the basic principle here, the hon. Member for Walton felt that the matter should be left entirely to the T.U.C. and the associated T.U.C. machinery. I believe that the T.U.C. and the machinery associated with it can, and, I hope, will, solve the great majority of problems about recognition when the recognition dispute is of an inter-union character. But I doubt that we can say with certainty, that it is capable of solving all of them.
    The hon. Gentleman will recall, for example, that there was great difficulty a year or two ago in solving the recognition problems of the white-collar workers in the steel industry. Although that was eventually settled in an uneasy way, after a lot of batting to and fro, it certainly was not settled with ease or, I should say, with a real feeling of satisfaction on the part of at least one or two of the main white-collar workers' unions involved.
    I do not want to do it in the way that, perhaps, it is sometimes done in our debates, but I feel that I must quote the views of the Labour Government when they were considering this matter. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) recognised, and said quite clearly in "In Place of Strife", that certain machinery would be needed, and that there might be cases in which the T.U.C. could not persuade the parties, within a reasonable time, to accept a settlement. In such cases, she said
    "the Secretary of State will refer the dispute to the C.I.R. In some cases the C.I.R. may

    1569
    only be able to produce a durable solution by recommending the exclusion of one or more unions from recognition. In such a situation the Government will look to all the parties involved to accept the recommendations of the C.I.R. If they do not, the Industrial Relations Bill will propose a power for the Secretary of State where necessary to give effect by Order to the C.I.R.'s recommendations."
    So at least we can claim, without, I hope, going into controversy about method, that the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends realised, however keen they were to leave these sorts of dispute for resolution by the normal T.U.C. machinery, that there might be cases which failed to be resolved, or failed to be resolved in a reasonable time, by that machinery and there must be some additional machinery as well. We have put forward ours. She put forward hers. It is a matter of judgment between them. Naturally, we prefer our machinery. We have put it forward only after a great deal of thought. In our judgment, ours is the best machinery available which we can think of for dealing with this sort of matter.
    I was very surprised to hear the hon. Member for Walton say—I think I heard him aright—that he was opposed to the whole principle of the sole bargaining agent. I thought that this was part of the analysis—not the prescription but the analysis—of the Donovan Commission about the desirability of moving towards
    a situation in which there was one negotiating authority for each homogeneous and identifiable group of workers.
    Surely, if one is to have good, effective and stable collective bargaining, we should move towards a situation in which there is one bargaining authority for one group of workers. We do not believe in, and have not tried to impose, the idea that the bargaining authority should always be a single union, because we consider that multi-unionism is so firmly established in this country that to try to reach a situation in which a number of established unions had to withdraw in favour of one would cause a great deal of strife.
    We admit, therefore, the correctness and satisfactory nature of the possibility of having a single bargaining authority but as a joint panel of a number of unions. We believe that the ideal at which we must aim is one negotiating authority for one group of workers, and I find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman should oppose that principle, although I understand that we can have differing views about how to arrive at it.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:
    The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 243.

    Division No. 252.]

    AYES

    [10.55 p.m.

    Adley, Robert

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

    Dixon, Piers

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Buck, Antony

    Dodds-Parker, Dougias

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Astor, John

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

    Dykes, Hugh

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Carlisle, Mark

    Eden, Sir John

    Awdry, Daniel

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Chapman, Sydney

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

    Balniel, Lord

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Eyre, Reginald

    Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Farr, John

    Batsford, Brian

    Churchill, W. S.

    Felt, Anthony

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Bell, Ronald

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffre)

    Fidler, Michael

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Clegg, Walter

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Benyon, w.

    Cockeram, Eric

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Cooke, Robert

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Biffen, John

    Coombs, Derek

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Cooper, A. E.

    Foster, Sir John

    Blaker, Peter

    Corfleld, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Fowler, Norman

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Fox, Marcus

    Body, Richard

    Costain, A. P.

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

    Boscawen, Robert

    Critchley, Julian

    Fry, Peter

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Crouch, David

    Gardner, Edward

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Crowder, F. P.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Braine, Bernard

    Curran, Charles

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Bray, Ronald

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Brewis, John

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

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

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Dean, Paul

    Goodhart, Philip

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Goodhew, Victor

    Bryan, Paul

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Gorst, John

    Gower, Raymond

    McLaren, Martin

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Gray, Hamish

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Green, Alan

    McMaster, Stanley

    Sandys, Rt. Hn, D.

    Grieve, Percy

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Sharples, Richard

    Grylts, Michael

    Maddan, Martin

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

    Glimmer, Selwyn

    Madel, David

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Gurden, Harold

    Maginnis, John E.

    Simeons, Charles

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Marten, Neil

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Maude, Angus

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

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mawby, Ray

    Soref, Harold

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Speed, Keith

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Spence, John

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Sproat, Ian

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Stainton, Keith

    Hastings, Steven

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Hawkins, Paul

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

    Steel, David

    Hay, John

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Moate, Roger

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Heseltine, Michael

    Molyneaux, James

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Hicks, Robert

    Money, Ernle

    Stokes, John

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

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

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Stuttaord, Dr. Tom

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    More, Jasper

    Sutcliffe, John

    Holland, Philip

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Tayiur, sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Mudd, David

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Hordern, Peter

    Murton, Oscar

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Hornby, Richard

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Tebbit, Norman

    Hernsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Neave, Airey

    Temple, John M.

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Normanton, Tom

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Nott, John

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Onslow, Cranley

    Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Tilney, John

    James, David

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Osborn, John

    Trew, Peter

    Jessel, Toby

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Joplin, Michael

    Peel, John

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Percival, Ian

    Waddington, David

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Kilfedder, James

    Pounder, Rafton

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Kimball, Marcus

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Wall, Patrick

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Walters, Dennis

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Kirk, Peter

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Kitson, Timothy

    Raison, Timothy

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Knox, David

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Lambton, Antony

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Wilkinson, John

    Lane, David

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Renton, Rt. Kn. Sir David

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Worsley, Marcus

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

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, M.)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Loveridge, John

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    MacArthur, Ian

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Mr. Hector Monro and

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Rost, Peter

    Mr. Tim Fortescue.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Albu, Austen

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Cant, R. B.

    Allen, Scholefield

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Carmichael, Neil

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Booth, Albert

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Ashley, Jack

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Ashton, Joe

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Bradley, Tom

    Cohen, Stanley

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

    Coleman, Donald

    Barnes, Michael

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Barnett, Joel

    Buchan, Norman

    Conlan, Bernard

    Beaney, Alan

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

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    1572

    1573

    Crawshaw, Richard

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

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Pendry, Tom

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Pentland, Norman

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

    John, Brynmror

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Dalyell, Tam

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Prescott, John

    Davidson, Arthur

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

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Probert, Arthur

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rankin, John

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

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

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Deakins, Eric

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Delargy, H.J.

    Judd, Frank

    Richard, Ivor

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Dempsey, James

    Kerr, Russell

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Doig, Peter

    Kinnock, Neil

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Lamond, James

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

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Latham, Arthur

    Roper, John

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Lawson, George

    Rose, Paul B.

    Driberg, Tom

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Duffy, A. E, P.

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Dunn, James A.

    Leonard, Dick

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N' c' tle-u-Tyne)

    Eadie, Alex

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

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

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Silverman, Julius

    Ellis, Tom

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Skinner, Dennis

    English, Michael

    Loughlin, Charles

    Small, William

    Evans, Fred

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Spearing, Nigel

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

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    McBride, Neil

    Stallard, A. W.

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    McCartney, Hugh

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    McElhone, Frank

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Foot, Michael

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Forrester, John

    Mackie, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Freeson, Reginald

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Swain, Thomas

    Garrett, W. E.

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Taverne, Dick

    Gilbert, Dr. John

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

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

    Ginsburg, David

    Marquand, David

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Golding, John

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Meacher, Michael

    Tinn, James

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Torney, Tom

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Mendelson, John

    Tuck, Raphael

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Varley, Eric G.

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Molloy, William

    Wallace, George

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Watkins, David

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Weitzman, David

    Hardy, Peter

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Moyle, Roland

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Murray, Ronald King

    Whitlock, William

    Heffer, Erie S.

    Ogden, Eric

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Horam, John

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Huckfietd, Leslie

    Oram, Bert

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Orme, Stanley

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Woof, Robert

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Hunter, Adam

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

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

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Mr. Joseph Harper and

    Janner, Greville

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Mr. William Hamling.

    Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

    Mr. Heffer: On a point of order. As you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are labouring under a guillotine. The debate which has just concluded lasted 1 hour and 25 minutes. Of that time, Government spokesmen took 27 minutes and 24 minutes to open and close the debate, and, with the speeches of two hon. Members on the back benches opposite, the Government side took 1 hour and
    1574
    1 minute of the total of 1 hour and 25 minutes. In view of that, I appeal through you to the Front Bench opposite—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the House will be aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. He will be aware that it is not a point of order for the Chair. I am sure that his point will be taken.
    Mr. R. Carr: Since the hon. Gentleman was allowed to get as far as he did, perhaps I might be allowed to remind the House that, in my reply, I did nothing but answer specific questions which had been raised in the debate. It took a long time, because I was interrupted on several occasions, and I thought that it was courteous to give way to hon. Members who wished to interrupt me.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. All this goes to prove that leniency on the part of the Chair always results in delay. Mr. Orme.
    Mr. Orme: I beg to move Amendment (vvvv) to the proposed Clause, in line 6, leave out
    '(or, if already recognised, should continue to be recognised)'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it is the wish of the House to discuss with it Amendment (xxxx), in line 8, leave out '(or should continue to be so recognised)'; and Amendment (zzzz), in line 17, after 'unions', insert or one or more independent organisations of workers'.
    Mr. Orme: This Amendment carries a stage further the debate that we have just concluded. In effect, it removes the right of the Secretary of State, an ememployer or a union to make an application to the Industrial Court to recognise a sole bargaining agent if an agreement on it exists at the present time.
    As I understood the Consultative Document and the speeches made at the time here and elsewhere, the Government's original intention was to work towards a sole bargaining agent in a plant. That was their idealistic approach. The purpose was to cut down the number of unions with bargaining power. The Government have found that, although many parts of the Bill are contradictory, this provision really is unworkable.
    We have already pointed out that in a single engineering plant there can be the A.U.E.W. with skilled engineering workers, the Transport and General Workers' Union with semi-skilled or unskilled workers, and the A.S.T.M.S. with a membership of technical and supervisory staff. The original idea was that for all those unions, and perhaps others,
    1576
    there should be a sole bargaining agent. That is now recognised to be not possible and, as the Minister said, we shall be able to have two or more "sole" bargaining agents. All this is to be governed through the Industrial Court and administered by the Commission on Industrial Relations.
    We as trade unionists say that this is absolute nonsense, and that the issue of collective bargaining and consultation in industry is a matter for discussion and voluntary agreement between unions and employers. We believe that it is quite ridiculous to have a situation in which, when there is an agreement between unions and the employer in a plant, the employer can himself, or jointly with a union which was not then a party to that agreement, seek in the Industrial Court to overturn the current agreement and create an entirely different sole bargaining agent.
    There was a good deal of discussion between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about the company union. It is worth noting that the Minister said: "We have tried to close this door. The company union would be consulted though the C.I.R. would not have to take it into account, because of the Amendments made to Clause 46." The Minister tells us, "It does not matter whether the union is an organisation of workers, or a registered independent union or a company union; it must be taken into account. It cannot go away; we must recognise it."
    11.15 p.m.
    It is odd that the Government should take this attitude, because if we look at subsection (2) it says:
    "Subject to the next following subsection, an application under this section relating to the employees of one or more employers may be made—(a) by one or more trade unions".
    That does not say "organisation of workers." We come back to what is a registered trade union? This is very important. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government deliberately left this open so that an organisation of workers could be consulted and that that was justifiable, whether it be a registered trade union, an independent organisation or a company union.
    When we look at Clause 52 we see that where it suits the Government only

    1577
    registered trade unions are to be consulted. There are different standards in different parts of the Bill to suit the Government's philosophy. It is absolutely contradictory; if they want a registered trade union they put that in; when they want to give preference to a non-registered union they leave others out, and if they want to bring in a company union they give power for that union to be consulted.
    There will be conflict, with unions striving for recognition, and employers will try to get sole bargaining agencies from the militant union to the quasi-company union or the non-militant union. We all know of the problems there have been over recognition in the trade union movement. We know of the recent difficulties in the steel industry, and we recall the demarcation dispute in the shipbuilding industry some years ago. These have been ironed out without any industrial court, not by compulsion but by the good sense of the trade unions which, in ironing them out, have brought about better industrial relations, removing many of the frictions within industry. At the same time the T.U.C. has reduced the number of affiliated unions, through amalgamations, from something like 184 to 150, with amalgamations still going on.
    I can remember the Secretary of State when he was in Opposition time and again criticising the proliferation of unions, saying that we needed fewer unions so that negotiations could be conducted in a more organised way. I could quote chapter and verse from HANSARD if necessary. When he gets into office he produces a Bill which will create strife on the factory floor and increase competitiveness. It will assist those unions bargaining on militancy, and in other cases it will assist those unions which will try to get recognition and which will be less militant.
    These Amendments seek to delete the worst aspects, but we do not accept any of this Clause or its philosophy. It would be absolutely outrageous to allow unions which have come to proper collective bargaining arrangements on a freely negotiated basis to be dragged before the Industrial Court because a dispute may have arisen in a factory and a small group of workers in a small union are in a position, collectively with the employer, to ask the C.I.R. to rewrite the
    1578
    collective bargaining arrangements in that plant. Will that lead to good industrial relations? Is that the sort of situation which the Secretary of State wants?
    Today at the Dorchester lunch the Secretary of State talked about misrepresentation and the industrial action taking place at the moment. Does he think that the proposals in the Bill will improve industrial relations? No. He hopes that by all this paraphernalia and all the obstacles and hoops which people w 11 be forced to jump through he will deter trade unionism, shop stewards and organisation on the shop floor.
    This Clause, rather than improving the situation, makes it worse. To try to rewrite a bad Clause and a bad policy in the way proposed by the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State does not help the situation. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to support the principles behind the Amendments.
    Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has enlarged the moving of his Amendments into one more speech of general principle and, by implication, has once more invited me to reply. This is the difficulty in which I constantly find myself. The hon. Gentleman knows that he has raised a number of points which call for a long speech in reply. If I make a long speech I am in trouble, and if I do not I am accused of not replying to the debate.
    A point which the hon. Gentleman seems constantly to forget is that we are talking about machinery to resolve disputes. We are not talking about machinery for the general conduct of good industrial relations day by day. Let the general conduct of good relations day by day take place in the way recommended by the hon. Gentleman. If it does not throw up insoluble disputes, this machinery need never be used. Its purpose is to deal with disputes which fail to be resolved by the type of procedures and methods which the hon. Member advocates. As long as the methods he advocates continue to produce the results and do not throw up disputes which cannot be resolved, all will be fine and we shall all be happy.
    Two of the Amendments have the same purpose. They seek to prevent the C.I.R., when looking into a recognition dispute, from considering whether any of

    1579
    the unions already recognised should continue to be recognised. It would be nonsense to get the Commission to look into a situation in which by definition there is a dispute or there is not harmony and to prevent it from looking at unions which are there already. Would the white-collar workers dispute in the steel industry have been resolved by tying the hands of the Commission and saying, "The one thing you cannot do is to consider the position of any union which is recognised?"
    Nobody knew that better than the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who said clearly in her White Paper:
    "In some cases the C.I.R. may only be able to produce a durable solution by recommending the exclusion of one or more unions from recognition."
    That is what she felt when she was in my position. The overwhelming majority of hon. Members opposite—I except those who did not agree with their Government on this matter—have no right to vote for the Amendment, as presumably they will.
    The second separate Amendment concerns subsection (2). It wishes the privilege of application for this machinery to be granted to an independent organisation of workers as well as to registered trade unions. In spite of what has been said, this is a principle on which we have been completely consistent throughout, that the principle of access to the new machineries and procedures which we are providing is only for trade unions, for registered bodies. When it comes to the question of who should be consulted, whose views should be taken into account, then an unregistered body should certainly be considered, and we have said so. But as for the right to use the machinery, it is our consistent view that this and the other machineries should he limited to a registered trade union, and I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Orme: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Carr: I am afraid not, after the previous criticism. I ask the House to reject the Amendments.
    Mr. Ted Fletcher: The Secretary of State's reply was most unsatisfactory. He has not answered directly the points raised by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Orme: He has not answered any points.
    Mr. Fletcher: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the position that will arise where agreements on recognition already exist. Let us get away from legal jargon and look at the situation in a factory where there is a company union or staff association, with 50 per cent. of the clerical staff being its members and the other half being in a trade union that has an agreement with the employers. It is possible under the Clause for a trade union—which would not in this case make an application—the employers or the Secretary of State to ask for bargaining rights for the company union or staff association. That cannot be denied. When we questioned the right hon. Gentleman closely about this he agreed that the Secretary of State would consult the staff association or the company union, but they would not be recognised in the last analysis unless they severed their connection with management—that is, there was no direct financial contribution. But at a time when he suggests that we have too many unions he is creating a situation in which new unions could arise. Our point with reference to the American system was that we are likely to have unions arising in dozens of establishments if the provision goes through. It seems to me inconceivable that in this situation the Government can press the Clause.
    The Secretary of State says that it is a more flexible way of rewriting Clause 42. But the matter becomes more complex every time we listen to him or his hon. and learned Friend.
    The trade union movement has resolved thousands of disputes on recognition between unions through its own Bridlington Agreement. This is done in an entirely voluntary way. The decisions are not agreeable to some unions, but they recognise that they belong to the trade union movement and accept any advice given them by the T.U.C.
    11.30 p.m.
    We may have a situation—I want the Secretary of State to listen to this, because this is another weakness in his new Clause—where there is a joint negotiating committee in a factory, a joint negotiating committee composed of a dozen individual unions, and this joint negotiating committee may negotiate on

    1581
    questions which have an overall effect on the employees, on questions affecting holidays, overtime payments, general working conditions, safety in the factory, and so on. Moreover, there may be 12 different procedural agreements affecting each individual union.
    So we ask, what does the Secretary of State mean by "bargaining rights"? Under this new Clause we may have a situation where staff unions are given opportunities of becoming bargaining units, and those staff associations may evolve into trade unions in competition with existing trade unions but will not be affilated to the T.U.C. because the T.U.C. will not take them under its umbrella because it is catering for the same type of employees as the existing unions. In consequence, we shall find a proliferation of unions.
    Mr. R. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that these are all matters for the C.I.R. to consider and to take into account and to make recommendations about. These are exactly the points which the C.I.R. is there to consider and to make sensible recommendations about in the interests of good, orderly, voluntary industrial relations.
    Mr. Fletcher: I am quite aware of that. I am saying that the application must be initiated either by the Secretary of State or a trade union or an employer, and I am saying that this machinery and this new Clause will be utilised by the employers for starting their own company trade unions. That is the point I am making. The Secretary of States does not seem to be convinced that this could possibly happen, but I know from my own experience that this does actually happen. There are many industries in which employers encourage staff associations, and unscrupulous employers do all they can to encourage staffs—clerical workers, foremen, and executives—to make breakaway unions, and they encourage their staffs to join company unions. I am saying that under this new Clause which the Secretary of State is proposing those employers will encourage their staff associations to get the same status as trade unions.
    In these circumstances I hope that the House will accept the Amendment or reject the new Clause.
    Mr. Heffer: Before we proceed any further, let me say that the admonition from this side of the House in relation to length of speeches in the last debate should not have led the right hon. Gentleman to be so brief as not to answer any of the points which were made by my hon. Friends.
    Mr. Waddington: What points? There was nothing new to reply to.
    Mr. Heffer: All we ask is that Government Front Bench speakers, particularly when making opening speeches, should keep their speeches to reasonable length. That is all. If they will look through the OFFICIAL REPORT of the speeches on this Bill they will find that the Opposition Front Bench speakers have consistently kept to a reasonable time [Interruption.] I am not filibustering, I am just getting the record straight. We are under the guillotine, and we have been restricted because of this guillotine situation. We have not been able to have a proper discussion on some of the most fundamental Clauses because of the guillotine. Yet today the right hon. Gentleman wonders why workers go on strike. I can tell him. It is the actions of the Government which are responsible for the outburst of industrial activity by the workers. If there is an upsurge of industrial activity, the responsibility lies firmly at the door of the Government and in particular of the right hon. Gentleman—
    The Solicitor-General: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge one fact and answer one question? If he is talking about the length and frequency of speeches, he may recollect that he made 22 speeches in Committee—more than any other hon. Member on the Opposition side save the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—at an average length of 23 column-inches per speech. Since the hon. Gentleman is accusing my right hon. Friend of being responsible for the industrial action now taking place, and in particular that taking place tomorrow, I ask the hon. Gentleman to say, one way or the other, whether he endorses the somewhat equivocal repudiation of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition of tomorrow's strike. Where does the hon. Gentleman stand?
    Mr. Heffer: The first point I should like to make is on the length of the hon.

    1583
    and learned Gentleman's intervention—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Every-one knows that in replying to or opening a debate I have spoken for only five or seven minutes, quite deliberately, so that my hon. Friends may make a contribution.
    My main argument is that it is all very well the right hon. Gentleman going out into the country and being concerned about the strike, but the full responsibility for that strike rests on the Government and on the right hon. Gentleman—
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to be orderly.
    Mr. Heffer: It is the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who, by curtailing democratic discussion on the Bill, are basically responsible for the frustration of the workers about the Bill. Do not let us have any hypocritical statements by the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. As I said yesterday, by the mere introduction of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman has created an industrial relations situation not known since before the second world war, and that is basically the responsibility of the Government.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. R. Carr: Since the hon. Gentleman accuses me of a number of things, above all of being the cause of tomorrow's strike, will he say whether or not he agrees with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in condemning it, or does he support it? Let us have a clear "Yes" or "No" answer to that.
    Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is not in the dock; the right hon. Gentleman is.
    Mr. Heffer: Exactly. The right hon. Gentleman is in the dock, not myself. The position is quite clear—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Would it not be a good idea if the House got back to the Amendment?
    Mr. Orme: It has nothing to do with the Amendment.
    Mr. Heffer: Exactly. But it has something to do with the Amendment in the
    1584
    sense that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, by their proopsals, are basically responsible, I repeat, for the present industrial unrest.
    Mr. Waddington: Does the hon. Gentleman support it?
    Mr. Heffer: I am now going to reply to the points which have been raised in the debate.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Chicken.
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Mr. Heffer: I should not make statements of that kind if I were the hon. and learned Gentleman, especially to me. The basic point is that right hon. Gentlemen will go out into the country constantly attacking workers who take industrial action and never accepting responsibility for it. It is the old trick, the old smear tactic, which we are not prepared to accept.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree with myself and the majority of hon. Members on this side of the House that we shall, like good democrats, endorse whatever decision is taken by the T.U.C. tomorrow?
    Mr. Heffer: I understand that tomorrow's dispute is official. It has been called by the Amalgamated Engineering Union and by the shipbuilding unions. It is also officially backed by the lay executive of the Transport and General Workers' Union. These decisions were arrived at, as I understand it, on the basis of democratic action—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and democratic machinery within the trade union movement.
    I do not expect right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept a position with which they do not agree. That is understandable. But I repeat my charge that if there is an outburst of activity by workers in this country the right hon. Gentleman is basically responsible for it. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is no use the right hon. Gentleman trying to duck it or get away from it. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible, his hon. Friend is responsible, and his hon. Friend is responsible, and his supporters are responsible for the present industrial unrest.

    1585
    It is interesting to note that when people who support the Conservative Party take what might be considered political action there is no criticism by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I did not hear any hon. Gentleman opposite complain about the blocking of the roads by the farmers when they were involved in their dispute. No one said that that was irresponsible action and ought not to have taken place. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have a double standard in these matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am now going to deal with the points which have been raised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] My hon. Friend, in his excellent opening speech, made it quite clear that the Amendment is designed to do two things. First, it is designed to ensure that those trade unions which already have a bargaining agency, or are themselves the bargaining agents, should continue and that there is no necessity for them to come within the Clause. As my hon. Friend put it, our
    object is to delete the worst aspects of the Clause.
    The second important point is that trade unions which are not registered should have the right to make an application. Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, members of the T.U.C. will be deciding tomorrow whether to register under the Bill. Possibly the majority, perhaps all, will refuse to register. These bona fide unions, to which the working men and women of this country belong, have the right to continue to be the bargaining agents in their industries. But the hon. Gentleman said that they could have the so-called privileges of the Bill only if they register. On that basis, I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to support these Amendments.
    Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 283.

    Division No. 253.]

    AYES

    [11.46 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Dalyell, Tam

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Albu, Austen

    Davidson, Arthur

    Hardy, Peter

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Davies, Dcnzil (Llanelly)

    Harper, Joseph

    Allen, Scholefield

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, B.)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Ashton, Joe

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Atkinson, Norman

    Dsakins, Eric

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Barnes, Michael

    Delargy, H. J.

    Horam, John

    Barnett, Joel

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Beaney, Alan

    Dempsey, Junes

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Doig, Peter

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Blenldnsop, Arthur

    Driberg, Tom

    Hunter, Adam

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Duffy A. E. P.

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

    Booth, Albert

    Dunn James A

    Janner, Greville

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Dunnett, Jack

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Eadie, Alex

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

    Bradley, Tom

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

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

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

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

    Ellis, Tom

    John, Brynmor

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    English, Michael

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Buchan, Norman

    Evans, Fred

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

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

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

    Cant, R. B

    Foot, Michael

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Forrester, John

    Jones, T. Alee (Rhondda, W.)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Judd, Frank

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Freeson, Reginald

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Kerr, Russell

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Kinnock, Nell

    Cohen, Stanley

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Lamond, James

    Coleman, Donald

    Ginsburg, David

    Latham, Arthur

    Concannon, J. D.

    Golding, John

    Lawson, George

    Conlan, Bernard

    Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Gourlay, Harry

    Leonard, Dick

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Gram, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Cronin, John

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Lomas, Kenneth

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

    Hamling, William

    Louglin, Charles

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    McBride, Neil

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Strang, Gavin

    McCartney, Hugh

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    McElhone, Frank

    Pendry, Tom

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Pentland, Norman

    Swain, Thomas

    Mackie, John

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Taverne, Dick

    Maclennan, Robert

    Prescott, John

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

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Price, William (Rugby)

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

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

    Probert, Arthur

    Tinn, James

    Marquand, David

    Rankin, John

    Torney, Tom

    Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Tuck, Raphael

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Meacher, Michael

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Richard, Ivor

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mendelson, John

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Wallace, George

    Millan, Bruce

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Watkins, David

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Weitzman, David

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

    Wellbeloved, James

    Molloy, William

    Roper, John

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Rose, Paul B.

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Whitlock, William

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Moyle, Roland

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Ogden, Eric

    Silverman, Julius

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Small, William

    Woof, Robert

    Oram, Bert

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Spearing, Nigel

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Orme, Stanley

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Mr. Alan Fitch and

    Oswald, Thomas

    Stallard, A. W.

    Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Cooke, Robert

    Goodhart, Philip

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Coombs, Derek

    Goodhew, Victor

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Cooper, A. E.

    Gorst, John

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Gower, Raymond

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Cormack, Patrick

    Gray, Hamish

    Astor, John

    Costain, A. P.

    Green, Alan

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Critchley, Julian

    Grieve, Percy

    Awdry, Daniel

    Crouch, David

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Crowder, F. P.

    Grylls, Michael

    Balniel, Lord

    Curran, Charles

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Batsford, Brian

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Gurden, Harold

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Bell, Ronald

    di'Avigdor-Goldemid, Maj.-Gen. James

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Dean, Paul

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Benyon, W.

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Hamilton, Michael (Satisbury)

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Biffen, John

    Dlxon, Piers

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Blaker, Peter

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Hasting, Stephen

    Body, Richard

    Dykes, Hugh

    Hawkins, Paul

    Boscawen, Robert

    Eden, Sir John

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Heseltine, Michael

    Boyd-Carpenter Rt. Hn. John

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

    Hicks, Robert

    Braine, Bernard

    Emery, Peter

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Bray, Ronald

    Eyre, Reginald

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

    Brewis, John

    Farr, John

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Holland, Philip

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Fidler, Michael

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Hooson, Emiyn.

    Bryan, Paul

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Hordern, Peter

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

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Hornby, Richard

    Buck, Antony

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Fortescue, Tim

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Foster, Sir John

    Howell, David (Guildford)

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

    Fowler, Norman

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Carlisle, Mark

    Fox, Marcus

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Carr, Rt Hn. Robert

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

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Chapman, Sydney

    Fry, Peter

    James, David

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Gardner, Edward

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Jessel, Toby

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Clegg, Walter

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Jopling, Michael

    Cockeram, Eric

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    1588

    1589

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Spence, John

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Sproat, Iain

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Mudd, David

    Stainton, Keith

    Kilfedder, James

    Murton, Oscar

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Kimball, Marcus

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Steel, David

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Neave, Airey

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Normanton, Tom

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Kirk, Peter

    Nott, John

    Stokes, John

    Kitson, Timothy

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Osborn, John

    Sutcliffe, John

    Knox, David

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Tapsell, Peter

    Lambton, Antony

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Lane, David

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Peel, John

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Percival, Ian

    Tebbit, Norman

    Le Merchant, Spencer

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Temple, John M.

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

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

    Pounder, Rafton

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Loveridge, John

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Tilney, John

    MacArthur, Ian

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Trew, Peter

    McLaren, Martin

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Raison, Timothy

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    McMaster, Stanley

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Waddington, David

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Maddan, Martin

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Madel, David

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Maginnis, John E.

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Wall, Patrick

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Walters, Dennis

    Marten, Neil

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Maude, Angus

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Mawby, Ray

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Rost, Peter

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Wilkinson, John

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Scott, Nicholas

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

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

    Sharples, Richard

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

    Worsley, Marcus

    Moats, Roger

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Wylic, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Molyneaux, James

    Simeons, Charles

    Younger, Hn. George

    Money, Ernie

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Monro, Hector

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

    Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Soref, Harold

    Mr. Keith Speed.

    More, Jasper

    Amendment (zzzz) proposed to the proposed Clause, in line 17, after 'unions' insert:
    'or one or more independent organizations of workers'.—[Mrs. Castle.]
    Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—
    The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 282.

    Division No. 254.]

    AYES

    [11.58 p.m.

    Abse, Leo

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Albu, Austen

    Buchan, Norman

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

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

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

    Dalyell, Tam

    Allen, Scholefield

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Davidson, Arthur

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Ashton, Joe

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Cant, R. B.

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Carmichael, Neil

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, G.)

    Barnes, Michael

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Deakins, Eric

    Barnett, Joel

    Castle, Rt. Hn, Barbara

    de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Cohen, Stanley

    Dempsey, James

    Bishop, E. S.

    Coleman, Donald

    Doig, Peter

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Concannon, J. D.

    Dormand, J. D.

    Booth, Albert

    Conian, Bernard

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Bottomiey, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Driberg, Tom

    Bradley, Tom

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Duffy, A. E. P.

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

    Cronin, John

    Dunnett, Jack

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

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Eadle, Alex

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Lamond, James

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Ellis, Tom

    Latham, Arthur

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    English, Michael

    Lawson, George

    Richard, Ivor

    Evans, Fred

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Leonard, Dick

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

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

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

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

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Foot, Michael

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Roper, John

    Forrester, John

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Rose, Paul B.

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Freeson, Reginald

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    McBride, Neil

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

    Ginsburg, David

    McCartney, Hugh

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Golding, John

    McElhone, Frank

    Silverman, Julius

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Skinner, Dennis

    Gourlay, Harry

    Mackie, John

    Small, William

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Maclennan, Robert

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire)

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Spearing, Nigel

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Macpherson, Malcolm

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Griffiths, Wiff (Exchange)

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

    Stalfard, A. W.

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Marquand, David

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Hamling, William

    Meacher, Michael

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Strang, Gavin

    Hardy, Peter

    Mendelson, John

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Harper, Joseph

    Millan, Bruce

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Swain, Thomas

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judit

    Molloy, William

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

    Hattersley, Roy

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

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

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Tinn, James

    Horam, John

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Torney, Tom

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Moyle, Roland

    Tuck, Raphael

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Varley, Eric G.

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Murray, Ronald King

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Ogden, Eric

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Wallace, George

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Watkins, David

    Hunter, Adam

    Oram, Bert

    Weinman, David

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

    Janner, Greville

    Orbach, Maurice

    Wellbeloved, James

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Orme, Stanley

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

    Oswald, Thomas

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Whitlock, William

    John, Brynmor

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Pendry, Tom

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Pentland, Norman

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

    Prescott, John

    Woof, Robert

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Judd, Frank

    Probert, Arthur

    Mr. Alan Fitch and

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Rankin, John

    Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

    Kerr, Russell

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Body, Richard

    Churchill, W. S.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Boscawen, Robert

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Allason, James (Heme) Hempstead)

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Cockeram, Eric

    Archer, Jeffry (Louth)

    Braine, Bernard

    Cooke, Robert

    Astor, John

    Bray, Ronald

    Coombs, Derek

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Brewis, John

    Cooper, A. E.

    Awdry, Daniel

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Cormack, Patrick

    Balniel, Lord

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Costain, A. P.

    Batsford, Brian

    Bryan, Paul

    Critchley, Julian

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

    Crouch, David

    Bell, Ronald

    Buck, Antony

    Crowder, F. P.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Curran, Charles

    Benyon, W.

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Biffen, John

    Carlisle, Mark

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. James

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Dean, Paul

    Blaker, Peter

    Chapman, Sydney

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    1592

    1593

    Dixon, Piers

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    Kilfedder, James

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Kimball, Marcus

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Dykes, Hugh

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Eden, Sir John

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Kirk, Peter

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

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

    Kitson, Timothy

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Emery, Peter

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    Eyre, Reginald

    Knox, David

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Farr, John

    Lambton, Antony

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Lane, David

    Rost, Peter

    Fidler, Michael

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Scott, Nicholas

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Fookes, Miss Janet

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

    Sharples, Richard

    Fortescue, Tim

    Longden, Gilbert

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

    Foster, Sir John

    Loveridge, John

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Fowler, Norman

    MacArthur, Ian

    Simeon, Charles

    Fox, Marcus

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Sinclair, Sir George

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

    McLaren, Martin

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Fry, Peter

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

    Gardner, Edward

    McMaster, Stanley

    Soref, Harold

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Spence, John

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Sproat, Iain

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Stainton, Keith

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Madel, David

    Steel, David

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Maginnis, John E.

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Marten, Neil

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Gorst, John

    Maude, Angus

    Stokes, John

    Gower, Raymond

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Stokes, John

    Gray Hamish

    Mawby, Ray

    Sutcliffe, John

    Green, Alan

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Grieve, Percy

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Grylls, Michael

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Gurden, Harold

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Tebbit, Norman

    Half, Miss Joan (Keighley)

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

    Temple, John M.

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Moats, Roger

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Molyneaux, James

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Money, Ernie

    Tilney, John

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Monro, Hector

    Trew, Peter

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Hastings, Stephen

    More, Jasper

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Hawkins, Paul

    Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Heseltine Michael

    Mudd, David

    Waddington, David

    Hicks, Robert

    Murton, Oscar

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

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

    Neave, Airey

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Wall Patrick

    Holland, Philip

    Normanton, Tom

    Walters, Dennis

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Nott, John

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Hcoson, Emlyn

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Hordern, Peter

    Osborn, John

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Hornby, Richard

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. DamePatricia

    Page John, (Harrow, W.)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Peel, John

    Wilkinson, John

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Percival, Ian

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    James, David

    Pounder, Rafton

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Worstey, Marcus

    Jcssel, Toby

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Younger, Hn. George

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Jopling, Michael

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Raison, Timothy

    Mr. Walter Clegg and

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Mr. Keith Speed.

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    It being after Twelve o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th January and 15th March], to put forthwith the Question
    1594
    necessary to complete the proceedings on the new Clause (Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent).
    Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 239.

    Division No. 255.]

    AYES

    [12.8 a.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Fowler, Norman

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Fox, Marcus

    McMaster, Stanley

    Allison, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

    Fry, Peter

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Gardner, Edward

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

    Astor, John

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maddan, Martin

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Madel, David

    Awdry, Daniel

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Batsford, Brian

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J, B.

    Marten, Neil

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tuftcn

    Goodhart, Philip

    Maude, Angus

    Bell, Ronald

    Goodhew, Victor

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Gorst, John

    Mawby, Ray

    Benyon, W.

    Gower, Raymond

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Gray, Hamish

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Biffen, John

    Green, Alan

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Grieve, Percy

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Blaker, Peter

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

    Grylls, Michael

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

    Body, Richard

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Boecawen, Robert

    Gurden, Harold

    Moate, Roger

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Molyneaux, James

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Money, Ernle

    Braine, Bernard

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Bray, Ronald

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Monro, Hector

    Brewis, John

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    More, Jasper

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Bryan, Paul

    Hastings, Stephen

    Mudd, David

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

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Murton, Oscar

    Buck, Antony

    Heseltine, Michael

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hicks, Robert

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Neave, Airey

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

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

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Carlisle, Mark

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Normanton, Tom

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Holland, Philip

    Nott, John

    Chapman, Sydney

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Churchill, W. S.

    Hordern, Peter

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Hornby, Richard

    ParKinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Peel, John

    Cockeram, Eric

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Percival, Ian

    Cooke, Robert

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Coombs, Derek

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Pounder, Rafton

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Cormack, Patrick

    James, David

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Costain, A. P.

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Critchiey, Julian

    Jessel, Toby

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Crouch, David

    Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Crowder, F. P.

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Raison, Timothy

    Curran, Charles

    Jopling, Michael

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Ma).-Gen. James

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Dean, Paul

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Kilfedder, James

    Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Kimball, Marcus

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Dixon, Piers

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    du Carni, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Kirk, Peter

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kitson, Timothy

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Eden, Sir John

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Rost, Peter

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Knox, David

    Russell, Sir Ronald

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

    Lambton, Antony

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

    Emery, Peter

    Lane, David

    Scott, Nicholas

    Eyre, Reginald

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Fair, John

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Sharples, Richard

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Le Marchant, Spencer

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

    Fldler, Michael

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

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

    Simeons, Charles

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Loveridge, John

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    MacArthur, Ian

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

    Fortescue, Tim

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Soref, Harold

    Foster, Sir John

    McLaren, Martin

    Speed, Keith

    Spence, John

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Sproat, Iain

    Thomas, John Strading (Monmouth)

    wells, John (Maidstone)

    Stainton, Keith

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Tilney, John

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Steel, David

    Traftord, Or. Anthony

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Stewart-Smith, O. G. (Belper)

    Trew, Peter

    Wilkinson, John

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, w.)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Wood, At. Hn. Richard

    Stokes, John

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Sutcliffe, John

    Waddington, David

    Worsley, Marcus

    Tapsell, Peter

    Walder, David (Clithcroe)

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Wall, Patrick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Tebbit, Norman

    waiters, Dennis

    Mr. Walter Clegg and

    Temple, John M.

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Mr. Paul Hawkins.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lawson, George

    Albu, Austen

    Eadie, Alex

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Leonard, Dick

    Allen, Scholefield

    Edwards, William Merioneth)

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Ellis, Tom

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Armstrong, Ernest

    English, Michael

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Ashton, Joe

    Evans, Fred.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Atkinson, Norman

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

    Loughlin, Charles

    Barnes, Michael

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Barnett, Joel

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Beaney, Alan

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

    Foot, Michael

    McBride, Neil

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Forrester, John

    McCartney, Hugh

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    McElhone, Frank

    Bishop, E. S.

    Freeson, Reginald

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Mackie, John

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Maclennan, Robert

    Booth, Albert

    Ginsburg, David

    McNamara, J. Kevin

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Gourfay, Harry

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

    Bradley, Tom

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    Marquand, David

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

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Meacher, Michael

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Buchan, Norman

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mendelson, John

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

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Hardy, Peter

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Harper, Joseph

    Molloy, William

    Cant, R. B.

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Ecoles)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Castle, Rt Hn. Barbara

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Clark, David (Colne Valley)

    Heifer, Erie S.

    Moyle, Roland

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Horam, John

    Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Cohen, Stanley

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Murray, R. K.

    Coleman, Donald

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Ogden, Eric

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oram, Bert

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Orbach, Maurice

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hunter, Adam

    Orme, Stanley

    Cronin, John

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

    Oswald, Thomas

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Janner, Greville

    Palmer, Arthur

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

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

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

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Davidson, Arthur

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Davies, Detail (Llanelly)

    John, Brynmor

    Pendry, Tom

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Pentland, Norman

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Prescott, John

    Deakins, Eric

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    de Freitas Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Delargy, H. J.

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

    Probert, Arthur

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Rankin, John

    Dempaey, James

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Doig, Peter

    Judd, Frank

    Reee, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    Dormand, J. D.

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Kerr, Russell

    Richard, Ivor

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Kinnock, Neil

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Driberg, Tom

    Lamond, James

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Latham, Arthur

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    1598

    1599

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

    Stewart, Rt. Hn, Michael (Fulham)

    Weitzman, David

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Roper, John

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Rose, Paul B.

    Strang, Gavin

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Swain, Thomas

    Whitlock, William

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

    Taverns, Dick

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

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

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Silverman, Julius

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

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Tinn, James

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

    Small, William

    Torney, Tom

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

    Tuck, Raphael

    Woof, Robert

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Varley, Eric G.

    Spearing, Nigel

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Wallace, George

    Mr. William Hamling and

    Stallard, A. W.

    Watkins, David

    Mr. John Golding.

    Clause added to the Bill.
    Mr. Orme: On a point of order. I voted in the Division Lobby and my name was recorded but the Tellers had gone when I came out through the Lobby.
    Mr. Speaker: I will direct that the hon. Member's name be added and the numbers corrected in the last Division.
    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 7

    UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES RELATING TO PENDING QUESTIONS AS TO RECOGNITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT
    (1) Where notice of a proposal to make an application to the Industrial Court under section (Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent) of this Act has been given in pursuance of subsection (4) of that section, any question which—

    (a) in accordance with that notice would be one of the questions proposed to be referred to the Commission, or

    (b) on an application made in pursuance of that notice is one of the questions proposed to be so referred, or

    (c) is referred to the Commission on such an application, or by virtue of section 44 of this Act is included in a reference made to the Commission on such an application,

    shall be a question to which this section applies.
    (2) Any question to which this section applies and which falls within paragraph (b) or para
    1600
    graph (c) of the preceding subsection shall for the purposes of this section be taken to be pending at any time before whichever of the following events first occurs, that is to say—

    (a) the Industrial Court determines not to refer any question to the Commission on the application mentioned in those paragraphs;

    (b) a reference made to the Commission on that application is withdrawn;

    (c) the peroid of six months, beginning with the date on which the report of the Commission on such a reference is transmitted to the Industrial Court, expires.

    (3) A question to which this section applies, and which falls within paragraph (a) but neither within paragraph (b) nor within paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of this section, shall for the purposes of this section be taken to be pending at any time before such date as may be certified by the Secretary of State to be either—

    (a) the date on which agreement was reached as to the matters to which the proposed application would have related, or

    (b) the date on which, whether in consequence of a refusal of his offer of advice and assistance or otherwise, it became apparent that no such agreement was likely to be reached without an application to the Industrial Court.

    (4) At any time when a question to which this section applies is pending in accordance with subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section it shall be an unfair industrial practice—

    (a) for an employer directly concerned in a dispute relating to that question to institute, carry on, organise, procure or finance a lock-out in furtherance of that dispute, or to threaten to do so, or

    (b) 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 call, organise, procure or finance a strike, or organise, procure or finance any irregular industrial action short of a strike, in furtherance of such a dispute, or to threaten to do so.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

    Brought up, and read the first time.
    Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 240.

    Division No. 256.]

    AYES

    [12.20 a.m.

    Adley, Robert

    Fookcs, Miss Janet

    MacArthur, Ian

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Fortescue, Tim

    McCrindle, R. A.

    Allsson, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Foster, Sir John

    McLaren, Martin

    Amery, Fit. Hn. Julian

    Fowler, Norman

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

    Fox, Marcus

    McMaster, Stanley

    Astor, John

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

    Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

    Atkins, Humphrey

    Fry, Peter

    McNair-Wilson, Michael

    Awdry, Daniel

    Gardner, Edward

    McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

    Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Maddan, Martin

    Balniel, Lord

    Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

    Madel, David

    Batsford, Brian

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Marples, Rt Hn. Ernest

    Bell, Ronald

    Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

    Marten, Neil

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

    Goodhart, Philip

    Maude, Angus

    Benyon, W.

    Coodhew, Victor

    Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

    Berry, Hn. Anthony

    Gorst, John

    Mawby, Ray

    Biffen, John

    Gower, Raymond

    Maxweil-Hyslop, R. J.

    Biggs-Davison, John

    Gray, Hamish

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Blaker, Peter

    Green, Alan

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

    Grieve, Percy

    Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

    Body, Richard

    Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Boscawen, Robert

    Grylls, Michael

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

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Gummer, Selwyn

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Gurden, Harold

    Moate, Roger

    Braine, Bernard

    Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

    Molyneaux, James

    Bray, Ronald

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Money, Ernie

    Brewis, John

    Hail-Davis, A. G. F.

    Monks, Mrs. Connie

    Brinton, Sir Tatton

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Monro, Hector

    Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

    Hannam, John (Exeter)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Brown, sir Edward (Bath)

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

    More, Jasper

    Bryan, Paul

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera

    Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Buck, Antony

    Hastings, Stephen

    Mudd, David

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Murton, Oscar

    Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

    Heseltine, Michael

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

    Hicks, Robert

    Neave, Airey

    Carlisle, Mark

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

    Normanton, Tom

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

    Nott, John

    Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

    Holland, Philip

    Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

    Churchill, W. S.

    Holt, Miss Mary

    Osborn, John

    Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

    Hordirn, Peter

    Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

    Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Hornby, Richard

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Clegg, Walter

    Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

    Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

    Cockeram, Eric

    Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

    Peel, John

    Cooke, Robert

    Howell, David (Guildford)

    Percival, Ian

    Coombs, Derek

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

    Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

    Cooper, A. E.

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Pink, R, Bonner

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pounder, Rafton

    Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

    Cormack, Patrick

    James, David

    Price, David (Eastleigh)

    Costain, A. P.

    Jcnkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Proudfoot, Wilfred

    Critchley, Julian

    Jessel, Toby

    Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

    Crouch, David

    Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)

    Quennell, Miss J. M.

    Crowder, F. P.

    Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

    Raison, Timothy

    Curran, Charles

    Jopling, Michael

    Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

    Dalkeith, Earl of

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. 8ir Keith

    Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, MaJ.-Gen. Jack

    Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

    Rees, Peter (Dover)

    Dean, Paul

    Kershaw, Anthony

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

    Kifedder, James

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Digby, Simon Wingfield

    Kimball, Marcus

    Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

    Dixon, Piers

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Dodds-Parker, Douglas

    King, Tom (Bridgwater)

    Ridsdale, Julian

    Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

    Kinsey, J. R.

    Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

    tin Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

    Kirk, Peter

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Kitson, Timothy

    Rost, Peter

    Eden, Sir John

    Knight, Mrs. Jill

    Russel, Sir Ronald

    Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

    Knox, David

    St. John-Stevas, Norman

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

    Lambton, Antony

    Scott, Nicholas

    Emery, Peter

    Lane, David

    Scott-Hopkins, James

    Eyre, Reginald

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Sharples, Richard

    Farr, John

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Le Marchant, Spencer

    Shelton, William (Clapham)

    Fidier, Michael

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Simeons, Charles

    Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

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

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Fisher, Nigel (Surbrton)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

    Loveridge, John

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

    Soref, Harold

    Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

    Weatherill, Bernard

    Speed, Keith

    Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Spence, John

    Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

    White, Roger (Gravesend)

    Sproat, Iain

    Tilney, John

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Stainton, Keith

    Trafford, Dr. Anthony

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Trew, Peter

    Wilkinson, John

    Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

    Tugendhat, Christopher

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

    Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

    Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

    Woodhouse, Hn. Chdistopher

    Stokes, John

    Vickers, Dame Joan

    Woodnutt, Mark

    Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

    Waddington, David

    Worsley, Marcus

    Sutcliffe, John

    Walder, David (Clitheroe)

    Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

    Tapsell, Peter

    Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

    Younger, Hn. George

    Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

    Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Wall, Patrick

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

    Walters, Dennis

    Mr. Paul Hawkins and

    Tebbit, Norman

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Mr. Hugh Rossi.

    Temple, John M.

    NOES

    Abss, Leo

    Driberg, Tom

    Kerr, Russell

    Albu, Austen

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Kinnock, Neil

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Dunnett, Jack

    Lamond, James

    Allen, Scholefield

    Eadie, Alex

    Latham, Arthur

    Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

    Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

    Lawson, George

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Ashton, Joe

    Ellis, Tom

    Leonard, Dick

    Atkinson, Norman

    English, Michael

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Evans, Fred

    Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

    Barnes, Michael

    Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

    Barnett, Joel

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

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Beaney, Alan

    Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgewood

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Foot, Michael

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Forrester, John

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Blenkinsop, Arthur

    Fraser, John (Norwood)

    McBride, Neil

    Boardman, H. (Leigh)

    Freeson, Reginald

    McCartney, Hugh

    Booth, Albert

    Galpem, Sir Myer

    McElhone, Frank

    Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

    Gilbert, Dr. John

    Mackenzie, Gregor

    Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

    Ginsburg, David

    Mackie, John

    Bradley, Tom

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Maclennan, Robert

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

    Gourlay, Harry

    McNamara, J. Kevin

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

    Grant, George (Morpeth)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

    Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

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

    Buchan, Norman

    Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

    Marquand, David

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

    Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

    Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Meacher, Michael

    Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Hannan, william (G'gow, Maryhill)

    Mendelson, John

    Cant, R. B.

    Hardy, Peter

    Millan, Bruce

    Carmichael, Neil

    Harper, Joseph

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

    Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

    Molloy, William

    Clarke, David (Colne Valley)

    Hattersley, Roy

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

    Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

    Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

    Cohen, Stanley

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    Coleman, Donald

    Horam, John

    Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

    Moyle, Roland

    Concannon, J. D.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Mulley Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Conlan, Bernard

    Huckfield, Leslie

    Murray, Ronald King

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Ogden, Eric

    Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    O'Halloran, Michael

    Crawshaw, Richard

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Cronin, John

    Hughes, Roy (Newport)

    Oram, Bert

    Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Hunter, Adam

    Orbach, Maurice

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur(Edge Hill)

    Orme, Stanley

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

    Janner, Greville

    Oswald, Thomas

    Daryell, Tam

    Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Palmer, Arthur

    Davidson, Arthur

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

    Parker, John (Dagenham)

    Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

    Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

    Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    John, Brynmor

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Pendry, Tom

    DeaKins, Eric

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

    Pentland, Norman

    De Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

    Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

    Perry, Ernest G.

    Delargy, H.J.

    Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

    Prescott, John

    Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

    Dempsey, James

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

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Doig, Peter

    Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

    Probert, Arthur

    Dormand, J. D.

    Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

    Rankin, John

    Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

    Judd, Frank

    Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

    Douglas-Mann, Bruce

    Kaufman, Gerald

    Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

    1604

    1605

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Spearing, Nigel

    Wallace, George

    Richard, Ivor

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Watkine, David

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Stallard, A. W.

    Weitzman, David

    Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

    Wellbeloved, James

    Robertson, John (Paisley)

    Stoddart, David (Swindon)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

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

    Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

    White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

    Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

    Strang, Gavin

    Whitehead, Phillip

    Roper, John

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Whitlock, William

    Rose, Paul B.

    Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

    Swain, Thomas

    Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

    Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

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

    Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

    Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

    Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

    Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

    Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

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

    Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

    Tinn, James

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Torney, Tom

    Woof, Robert

    Silverman, Julius

    Tuck, Raphael

    Skinner, Dennis

    Varley, Eric G.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Small, William

    Wainwright, Edwin

    Mr. William Hamling and

    Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Mr. John Golding.

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

  CHESTERFIELD (ECONOMIC SITUATION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
  12.30 a.m.
  Mr. Eric G. Varley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of the economic circumstances of Chesterfield. In calling for intermediate area status, I should like to explain that by "Chesterfield" I mean the complete travel-to-work area of the employment exchanges of Chesterfield. This includes not only the whole of my constituency but a substantial part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) and a proportion of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East here. He has been consistent over the years in pursuing the matter, with other hon. Members from the North Derbyshire area.
  Chesterfield, along with other parts of the Derbyshire coalfield area, has for a number of years faced difficulties not common to the rest of the East Midlands region. Many of these problems have been getting worse. Two basic statistics highlight this trend. In February, 1963, the last time the country faced unemployment of the dimensions now current,
  1606
  Chesterfield's unemployment was 13 per cent. above the national average. In February this year it was 42 per cent. above the national average, and the figures to be published tomorrow will show that it has since risen by about 14 per cent. That is a token of the gathering momentum of the problem.
  The position in the Chesterfield exchange area on 8th March was as follows: there were 3,201 men unemployed, and 408 women, making a total of 3,609. The provisional figures given to me on Monday by the Under-Secretary of State for Employment were even worse. They may be more up-to-date than the figures I have just quoted. The male unemployment rate on that basis is 6·5 per cent., and the overall rate is 5 per cent. It is equivalent to the February rates of the Merseyside and Welsh development areas, and worse than the rate in the Yorkshire Coalfield and Plymouth intermediate areas.
  The Minister for Industry will probably refer in reply to previous representations to Governments on this matter. I have some knowledge of those representations. On the evidence available, we have a rapidly deteriorating situation. That is why I feel fully justified in asking for intermediate area status.
  By its very nature the economic component of regional policies must be discriminatory—it must be, to make sense. There are areas which clearly have, and will continue to have, persistently difficult economic circumstances and need to be helped. On the other hand, there are areas in which no financial inducements to enter are necessary. Their locational advantages and industrial diversity, generally speaking, are adequate. But there are other areas which need

  1607
  periodic examination to determine whether the Government need to take action. Chesterfield is one of those areas. The situation there has deteriorated to one where help must be given. The Government must step in not only to arrest the trend but to reverse it.
  It may help if I set out the facts. It it well known to the Department of the Minister for Industry that pit closures have taken place in North Derbyshire over the last few years. While, happily, at least, in the foreseeable future, no colliery closure is in prospect in North Derbyshire—and, indeed, the National Coal Board is conducting a modest recruiting programme—we know that, on any sensible manpower projection, the men required in North Derbyshire pits will be fewer by the end of this decade. There are, however, some new and some immediate factors which have occurred over the past few months and weeks which have made the position worse.
  First, 65 men at the Sheepbridge Equipment Company were sacked. Sheepbridge Equipment makes stone-crushing plant among other things, and customers have told the company that they have to cancel orders, and they blame the Government's decision to end investment grants as the cause. I do not want to go into that now; we have already made the Minister aware of this claim made on behalf of the company, and I think he is investigating that.
  Secondly, Sheepbridge Rolling Mills sacked 130 men, and, as there are no other rolling mills within the area, the prospects for these men are bleak, too. Thirdly, we had a Rolls-Royce drawing and design office in Chesterfield employing 165 highly-skilled men. On the instructions of the Receiver, for reasons about which we all know, the office has been closed; 80 men have been sacked and the others moved to other parts of Derbyshire. Fourthly, the Stanton and Staveley works, part of British Steel Corporation's tube division, have 1,800 men on short-time working at Staveley, and in the present climate in British Steel it would be a very brave man who predicted the future of any of the Steel Corporation's enterprises. We shall be debating that tomorrow.
  I have tried to outline the rapidly deteriorating position, and to sum up
  1608
  this part of my remarks the facts, very briefly, are as follows: on 8th March, 2,201 men unemployed; 408 women registered as unemployed, and probably more women out of work who have not registered; a male unemployment rate of 6.5 per cent.; an overall rate of 5 per cent.; redundancy over the past few weeks totalling 275; 1,800 on short-time working with an uncertain future; projected manpower requirements in coal mining going down by anything up to 3,000 over the next 10 years.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: My hon. Friend is not aware of this fact, of course, but there are a further 125 redundancies at Bramah's electrical components manufactory at Halfway, and every one of them is in the Chesterfield travel-to-work area.
  Mr. Varley: I am grateful for that information. I was not aware of it, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend has drawn this to the attention of the Minister. It adds to the seriousness of the situation.
  It is fashionable in some quarters to talk about self-help and standing on one's own feet, and there may be a suggestion that Chesterfield has not tried self-help or tried to stand on its own feet. I absolutely refute any suggestion that the people and local organisations in Chesterfield have not been doing all they can to improve the position. Staveley Urban District Council, the area in which I live, has had success with a small industrial estate, and I think the councillors and officers of that authority deserve to be congratulated. Similarly, commencing in 1965, Chesterfield Borough Council, the largest authority in my constituency, has spent £160,000 of ratepayers' money in acquiring land and laying out an industrial estate. In co-operation with Arrowhead Investments Ltd., the estate developer, £7,000 has been spent, with all-party support, with the support of the Conservative and Labour Parties on Chesterfield Borough Council, on a campaign of promotion since April, 1970.
  Although 19 firms have responded to the campaign, not a single firm has decided to come to Chesterfield. The Chesterfield Rural District Council has also been determined and vigorous in acquiring land and taking action to promote industrial expansion. In spite of all this local effort the results have not been sufficient to meet the problem.

  1609
  This brings me back to the need for Government help. I should like to give a few more facts acquired from Government sources by way of Parliamentary Questions which emphasise this deteriorating position. In the first six months of 1970, 15 industrial development certificates were issued for Chesterfield, and 370 jobs were expected to arise upon the completion of these projects. In the last six months of 1970 only seven industrial development certificates were issued and 100 jobs were expected. In the first two months of 1971 only the other day the Under-Secretary admitted that industrial development certificates for only 80 jobs have been issued. I do not know whether these 80 jobs are for men or for women. This is with 762 more people out of work this month than a year ago.
  The House will recall that on 18th February the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the setting up of new intermediate areas, and prefaced the naming of the areas with these words:
  "I should also mention that the Government are designating seven … areas as intermediate areas. The reason for this is that, because they have been excluded from assisted status, they have experienced increasing economic difficulties.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 2163.]
  I said to the hon. Member sitting next to me. "Surely he will include Chesterfield in that list", and I was utterly amazed when he failed to do so.
  We had been told that the Government were having a review, and they must surely have known that Chesterfield's position had sharply deteriorated. What of the areas the Chancellor of the Exchequer named? I do not deny the problems of Bridlington, Filey, Okehampton, Tavistock or Oswestry—five out of the seven intermediate areas—but their total male unemployment is 1,776, whereas that of Chesterfield alone is 3,206. Edinburgh and Portobello, the sixth and seventh new intermediate areas, have a percentage unemployment rate, again on February figures, less that that of Chesterfield. How Chesterfield's case can be denied I do not know.
  We have been told that the Government have had a review of regional policy. I expressed doubts about the nature and scope of that review from the Opposition Front Bench last Friday, and
  1610
  it would not be appropriate for me to go into the matter again. What I want to do tonight is to plead the case for the Chesterfield area as a back bench constituency Member.
  When, along with my hon. Friends and representatives from the Chesterfield area, I met the Minister for Industry on 1st March, the most disappointing aspect of the encounter was the Minister's refusal to look at the matter immediately, which was what we wanted. He contended that the review was complete. He expressed the view that the present boundaries of the assisted areas were now fixed and that no changes were to be made.
  I know only too well that the Minister for Industry will not tonight give me an answer on Chesterfield's need, namely, that intermediate area status should be granted immediately. It seems that the Government have taken an inflexible decision to let the boundaries and assistance stand without any change. Despite this, I cannot bring myself to believe that no further action is contemplated in a case or such obvious need. On any objective criteria the needs of Chesterfield are compelling. I believe, my hon. Friends believe, and the local authorities in the area believe that the case is unanswerable.
  I hope that the Minister will say tonight that he will at least talk to his Secretary of State and put to him the case which I have made. I hope that the Secretary of State in his turn will recommend to his colleagues the designation of Chesterfield as an intermediate area. If he will do that, it will go some way to help to restore much-needed confidence to those not only in my constituency but throughout North Derbyshire.
  12.45 a.m.
  The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) has on many occasions shown his concern for the employment or unemployment statistics in Chesterfield. The House knows that the hon. Gentleman has a most intimate knowledge of the area.
  At the outset I should say that I fully understand the disappointment of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that the Government were unable to include Chesterfield in the list of additional intermediate areas announced last month.

  1611
  The hon. Gentleman drew attention to what he described as "the rapidly deteriorating situation." The rise in unemployment in March has gone to the figure of 5 per cent. in the Chesterfield travel-to-work area. The hon. Gentleman put it in somewhat more lurid terms, but it is probably better, for reasons which I shall deploy later, to keep to the figure of 5 per cent. However, we should be clear what that figure is about. These are the total register figures. The increase since February has been largely due to short-time working in the steel industry. The figure for wholly unemployed was 4.6 per cent., and I think that that is the key figure to watch.
  While I fully understand the reasons that the hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to deploy in his case tonight, I think there is a danger that one can take too gloomy a view. The prospects for Chesterfield are much brighter than the deployment of the case by the hon. Gentleman would lead people to believe.
  Mr. Swain: Before the Minister leaves that matter, perhaps he will allow me to make one point which my hon. Friend did not have time to develop. The Minister will be aware that the Chesterfield travel-to-work area is sandwiched between the Alfreton, South Yorkshire and Worksop intermediate areas, which makes it 100 per cent. more difficult for us in that area to encourage industry to come in.
  Sir J. Eden: But there is no evidence, to answer that point directly, that the existence of the neighbouring intermediate areas has detracted from the natural attractions of Chesterfield itself. In some areas this may have been the case and it may be so now, but this does not apply to Chesterfield. The point I am making is that one can easily overdo the gloom in trying to state the case.
  The hon. Member for Chesterfield is aware of the problems which confront the Government in trying to select areas for this special type of treatment. When the hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the Ministry of Technology he came up against just these problems. I have fairly good reason to believe that if the hon. Gentleman had found himself in my place tonight he would be giving much the same kind of reply as I am giving. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was the Minis-
  1612
  ter in the previous Administration who had some responsibility for bringing in the Local Employment Act, 1970. The hon. Gentleman piloted that Measure through the House. The hon. Gentleman was associated then with the selection of areas designated under that Act—and that was only a year ago. He had the unenviable and difficult job, which falls to any Minister in this field of responsibilities, of explaining to deputations from disappointed areas why they had been excluded.
  I think that, at about that time, he had to receive a deputation from Chesterfield, and he and his right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Technology found it necessary to reject its claim for intermediate area status.
  Mr. Varley: This is fair comment, which I had expected, but my case is that, when the intermediate areas were set up, Chesterfield was a borderline case, but that the position has rapidly deteriorated since that time The Government have had a review. By any yardstick now, on the basis of the new intermediate areas, Chesterfield should have been included.
  Sir J. Eden: I fully understood the hon. Member's point, but it is right to emphasise that all Governments in operating this type of policy are to some extent in a dilemma. I do not seek to hide from that fact, and this is one which the hon. Gentleman himself should fairly recognise. In Standing Committee A on the Local Employment Bill on 20th November, 1969, he said, in respect of another area:
  "… it is a question of priorities and we believe that to spread assistance to industry and thereby to widen it must lessen the impact in the areas of greatest need."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1969, Standing Committee A; c. 61–2.]
  That is just the point.
  I have no wish to embarrass the hon. Gentleman. I understand why he has made the case as he has. I respect the difficulties of his position, but I ask him to accept that it is impossible to draw boundaries of assisted areas which will satisfy everyone. He will remember the arguments for excluding Chesterfield in the first place and I think that many of those arguments still apply, despite the points which he made about the deteriorating situation.

  1613
  First, there is no dispute that unemployment in Chesterfield is undesirably high. I said that clearly to both hon. Gentlemen when they came to see me in a deputation not so many days ago. On the other hand, the area has tremendous local advantages, and they should be emphasising the positive points here. It is heavily dependent on coal mining but that position is much better. It has no reason to fear from the cuts in the manpower requirements of the National Coal Board such as took place during a period of coal surplus. For example, since the designation of the Erewash Valley, a substantial number of I.D.Cs. have been approved in the area.
  But it does not seem to me that the area is currently suffering from major structural deficiencies. It is certainly not a remote area. Nor does it appear to be losing out to any marked degree to the competitive pull of any nearby intermediate areas—
  Mr. Swain: Only because there is no footloose industry.
  Sir J. Eden: This may be so, but the deterioration which has taken place is a reflection of the state of the national economy and for this the present Government do not take responsibility. The hon. Member knows as well as anyone that the real threat to employment is the erosion of jobs which comes about because of wage-led inflation, and it is to do battle against this inflation that we are firmly pledged. We are determined to bring it under control, and in doing so we shall lay the foundations for sound industrial expansion.
  There is every reason to believe that unemloyment levels in Chesterfield would quickly respond in an expanding economy and that the Government's policies for restoring conditions to a national economy in which growth can occur are much more relevant to Chesterfield's immediate problem than whether it should be given special assistance in the form to which the hon. Member for Chesterfield referred.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite are absolutely right in observing that the biggest single restraint to progress in restoring economic prosperity to areas of need is the shortage of mobile—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr.
  1614
  Swain) called it "footloose"—industry. When it is not expanding, then obviously the less prosperous areas lose out because their own indigenous firms are unable to expand and fewer firms are able to respond to the inducements to move into them.
  These constraints were the biggest single factor in our minds in the course of our review, and the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 18th February showed that it has been our determination to give first priority to the older industrial areas in Central Scotland, the North-East and South Wales. We have made some additions, albeit modest ones, to the intermediate areas, but it is clear that these have demonstrably special problems, both as regards unemployment rates and, in some cases, remoteness.
  I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite recognise that Ministers of this, like Ministers of the last, Government are equally sensitive to the difficulties of the special areas of rising unemployment. Nobody has a monopoly of concern in these matters, and we are just as anxious to try to even out, through the operation of these policies, the effects of regional disparities.
  The hon. Member for Chesterfield had some strong words to say last Friday, but I will not go over that debate, which was replied to so effectively by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. We have made it clear, both on taking office and subsequently, that we had major reservations about the regional policy of the Labour Government and that we recognised that it was important that industry should know as quickly as possible our decisions, both on the measures and on the coverage of assisted areas, and that is why we went ahead to make the announcement which we made.
  I said at the outset that it is possible—this is a point which the hon. Member for Chesterfield should note—to be too alarmist over these matters. He rightly drew attention to the amount of self-help of the Chesterfield people, and I applaud that. They have made a tremendous effort and I see no reason why, if not immediately then within a short time rather than in a long time, those efforts should not yield additional dividends.

  1615
  The hon. Gentleman argued for the designation of Chesterfield as a special area. One of the difficulties which he has obviously found arises from the fact that he is arguing the case in isolation from the totality of the national situation. I am certain that he recognises, from his experience of these issues, the difficulty of treating an individual area without regard to the overall situation. Any addition to the list of assisted areas, especially another area in the Midlands, would only be at the expense of areas where the problems are of the greatest severity. I make no apology for saying that the Government believe that there must be no unnecessary dilution of the priority of Scotland, Wales and the Northern Region by the designation of areas which, by comparison, offer soft options to mobile industry.
  Chesterfield has strong locational advantages. It is close to the M1, giving easy access to the large markets of the
  1616
  Midlands and the South. Its short-term prospects are not unfavourable. No further pit closures are likely during the period of coal shortage. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, the area is trying to recruit miners. Estimated additional employment from I.D.Cs. approved since mid-1969 is encouraging.
  I promised, when I saw the hon. Member for Chesterfield and also when I wrote to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East, that I would consider sympathetically I.D.C. applications for projects suited to the needs and resources of the area. I undertake that we shall continue to keep a close watch on the situation and that we shall be ready to take action should the circumstances justify a change in priorities as between areas. At present I do not believe they do.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at One o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Population (Increase)
  Population (Increase)
  Glasgow (Passenger Transport Authority)
  Glasgow (Passenger Transport Authority)
  Lord Advocate (Sheriff Courts)
  Lord Advocate (Sheriff Courts)
  Further Education (Charges)
  Further Education (Charges)
  T.U.C. (Consultation)
  T.U.C. (Consultation)
  West of Scotland (Industrial Development)
  West of Scotland (Industrial Development)
  Primary Education
  Primary Education
  Courts (Not Proven Verdict)
  Courts (Not Proven Verdict)
  Regional Development Policy
  Regional Development Policy
  School Milk
  School Milk
  Housing (Rents and Subsidies)
  Housing (Rents and Subsidies)
  Fishermen, North-East (Training)
  Fishermen, North-East (Training)
  Tayside Study
  Tayside Study
  Cremations and Burials
  Cremations and Burials
  Pre-School Playgroups
  Pre-School Playgroups
  Horticulture
  Horticulture
  National Health Service (General Practitioner Sector)
  National Health Service (General Practitioner Sector)
  New Town Development, Stonehouse
  New Town Development, Stonehouse
  Disabled Persons (Local Authority Expenditure)
  Disabled Persons (Local Authority Expenditure)
  Motorway Construction
  Motorway Construction
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Expenditure)
  Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Expenditure)
  Rural Buses and Ferries and Sea Transport Services (Expenditure)
  Rural Buses and Ferries and Sea Transport Services (Expenditure)
  Scottish Convention
  Scottish Convention
  School Meal Charges
  School Meal Charges
  Infant Mortality Rates
  Infant Mortality Rates
  Primary School Building Programme
  Primary School Building Programme
  Cheap Welfare Milk
  Cheap Welfare Milk
  Young Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Special Hospital Unit)
  Young Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Special Hospital Unit)
  Private School, Thornton
  Private School, Thornton
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Compulsory Powers)
  Highlands and Islands Development Board (Compulsory Powers)
  Afforestation Programme (Crofting Counties)
  Afforestation Programme (Crofting Counties)
  Housing (White Paper)
  Housing (White Paper)
  Glenrothes
  Glenrothes
  House Building Approvals
  House Building Approvals
  Local Authority Housing Programme
  Local Authority Housing Programme
CIVIL SERVICE
  Calendar Dates
  Calendar Dates
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
  Civil Servants (Numbers)
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
ENVIRONMENT
  National Bus Company (Children's Fares)
  National Bus Company (Children's Fares)
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Bus Fares (The Highlands)
  Bus Fares (The Highlands)
  Lead Pollution
  Lead Pollution
  Derelict Land Reclamation
  Derelict Land Reclamation
  Rugby Football Clubs (Grants)
  Rugby Football Clubs (Grants)
  Wath-upon-Dearne—Doncaster Road
  Wath-upon-Dearne—Doncaster Road
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Disabled Persons (Access to Buildings)
  Refuse Disposal (Report)
  Refuse Disposal (Report)
  Mineral Hereditaments (Rating)
  Mineral Hereditaments (Rating)
  Wells
  Wells
  Local Authority Members' Allowances (Decimalisation)
  Local Authority Members' Allowances (Decimalisation)
  M4 (Tormarton-Maidenhead Section)
  M4 (Tormarton-Maidenhead Section)
  M6
  M6
  Empty Bottles and Cans (Collection)
  Empty Bottles and Cans (Collection)
  M1 (Cafeterias and Garages)
  M1 (Cafeterias and Garages)
  Severnside Study (Report)
  Severnside Study (Report)
  Road Links (South Wales— South-East)
  Road Links (South Wales— South-East)
  Town and Country Planning Act, 1968
  Town and Country Planning Act, 1968
  Alkali and Works Act
  Alkali and Works Act
  Property, Walsall (Compulsory Purchase)
  Property, Walsall (Compulsory Purchase)
  Central Lancashire New Town Development Corporation
  Central Lancashire New Town Development Corporation
TRADE
  Buckhaven and Methil
  Buckhaven and Methil
  Dunfermline and Central West Fife Area
  Dunfermline and Central West Fife Area
  Vehicle and General Insurance Company Limited
  Vehicle and General Insurance Company Limited
  Prices and Costs
  Prices and Costs
  B.O.A.C. (West African Routes)
  B.O.A.C. (West African Routes)
  Rare Animal Furs (Imports)
  Rare Animal Furs (Imports)
  New Heliport (Noise)
  New Heliport (Noise)
  New Towns, Scotland (Development Status)
  New Towns, Scotland (Development Status)
  Job Prospects (Scotland)
  Job Prospects (Scotland)
  Butter
  Butter
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Wage Stop
  Wage Stop
  Social Security Benefits (Purchasing Power)
  Social Security Benefits (Purchasing Power)
  Private Patients (N.H.S. Facilities)
  Private Patients (N.H.S. Facilities)
  Medicines Act
  Medicines Act
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Criminal Records
  Criminal Records
  Displaced Persons and Political Refugees
  Displaced Persons and Political Refugees
  Deportation
  Deportation
  MAGISTRATES
  MAGISTRATES
  COMMONS COMMISSIONERS
  COMMONS COMMISSIONERS
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Members' Salaries
  Members' Salaries
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Eggs (Import Prices)
  Eggs (Import Prices)
  Cheese (Imports)
  Cheese (Imports)
  Eggs Authority (Levy)
  Eggs Authority (Levy)
  Milk (Guaranteed Price)
  Milk (Guaranteed Price)
DEFENCE
  R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve
  R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve
  Northern Ireland (Off-Duty Troops)
  Northern Ireland (Off-Duty Troops)
EMPLOYMENT
  Sizewell Power Station, Suffolk
  Sizewell Power Station, Suffolk
  Industrial Training Centres, Wales
  Industrial Training Centres, Wales
  Scotland (Unemployment)
  Scotland (Unemployment)
  Glasgow
  Glasgow
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Ocean Space
  Ocean Space
WALES
  Secondary Comprehensive School, Aberystwyth
  Secondary Comprehensive School, Aberystwyth
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Foreign Capital
  Foreign Capital
  Government Departments (Newspaper Advertising)
  Government Departments (Newspaper Advertising)
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)
  Statutory Bodies (Reports)
  Decimalisation (Newspaper Advertisements)
  Decimalisation (Newspaper Advertisements)

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

PERSONAL STATEMENT
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a personal statement. On March 11, during the debate on the Welfare Food (Extension of Definition) Order 1971, I told the House that the Government gave notice to British Honduras and Jamaica in October, 1970, that we should not require further supplies of orange juice concentrate. I very much regret that I should have said December, and not October, 1970, and I apologise to the House for this error.

PEERS AND PARLIAMENTARY VOTING RIGHTS
LORD RATHCAVAN: 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 it is their intention to promote legislation to enable Peers to vote at Elections for Members of the House of Commons.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the Government have no plans at present for such legislation.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware that so far as I can ascertain this is the only Second Chamber in the world whose Members are not entitled to vote at Elections for Members of the Lower Chamber? Secondly, is he further aware that in the proposals for House of Lords
436
Reform last year, subsequently dropped, there was a clause giving Peers the right to vote at Elections?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that I can with truth reply in the affirmative to both my noble friend's supplementary questions.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that under the present law only lunatics, criminals and Peers cannot vote; and does he not think that we ought to occupy a better and more dignified position than that?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am also aware of that.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is also a third class—lunatics?

MEDIATOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM
2.40 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have received from the British Air Line Pilots' Association about the introduction of the Mediator air traffic control system, and what steps have been taken to meet the representations that have been made.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, in the year before the first phase of the Mediator system of air traffic control was introduced on February 1, 1971, there was correspondence with the British Air Line Pilots' Association on a number of features of the system, and one meeting took place in June, 1970, at which the Department gave a full presentation of the system. A letter received from the Association since the introduction of Mediator dealt mainly with the notification of flight level clearances of aircraft and proposed a meeting.. The Department's reply described the clearance procedure used and suggested a visit to the London Air Traffic Control Centre for a general system demonstration.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I first thank him for clearing up the fact that BALPA have made representations? A good deal of criticism arose because of a statement made by his colleague in another place to the effect that there were no representations. Secondly, in view of the fact that there are still many snags in some aspects of the Mediator system, would it not be a good idea to have a meeting with these men who know something about air traffic control, so that there could be a get-together round a table to discuss those snags?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, but according to my information BALPA have been invited to pay a visit to the London Air Traffic Control Centre for a general demonstration of the Mediator system in operation. I am sure that at the same time there could be a useful exchange of views.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is one thing to invite someone to go along and look at equipment, but it is quite another to get people round a table to have a proper three-cornered consultation. Would the noble Lord see if he can bring influence to bear to get these people round a table in order to see whether anything can be done to improve the system more quickly?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, willingly.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that among those who are actually doing the job of flying aircraft there are grave misgivings arising from the working of this system? Yesterday, in the precincts of this House, I met about twenty B.O.A.C. captains and first officers who expressed to me grave misgivings that those responsible for the theoretical aspects of the system had not realised the practical difficulties that those who fly the aircraft will have to face. Could he not consider having a "teach-in" at London Airport, where those who do the actual job every day of flying noble Lords and others round the world could meet the theoretical scientists and discuss whether the misgivings are justified or, alternatively, whether reassurances can be given to the pilots?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that would be a good idea. I have said that I will willingly look into this suggestion and ask my right honourable friend to see whether this can be arranged. I should say, in fairness, that the system is being reviewed periodically, in addition to the continuous review which is going on the whole time. The first review indicated that the snags envisaged by BALPA had not materialised, whereas the benefits expected from the scheme had. I think it would be a good idea if the misgivings, if misgivings they are, were to be removed in the way that the noble Lord has suggested.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, while not seeking to disagree in any way with what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and by my noble friend Lord Beswick, would the noble Lord not agree that it is a little unfair to suggest that the many people in the Services, in the Civil Service and elsewhere who are working on this system are merely theoreticians? There are many practical people among them.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord has restored the balance, and I entirely agree with him.

"ART IN REVOLUTION" EXHIBITION
LORD KENNET: 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 who is paying for the current exhibition "Art in Revolution" at the Hayward Gallery, and in what circumstances exhibits were withdrawn from it and a room closed.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, the costs of this exhibition are being met by the Arts Council who are responsible for all the arrangements. The subject of exhibitions is dealt with in general terms in the Anglo/Soviet Cultural Agreements and the details are a matter for the organisations responsible for the exhibitions. I understand that a small number of exhibits which had been obtained from outside

439
the Soviet Union were withdrawn at the request of the Soviet authorities. Since the exhibition was arranged by the Arts Council in conjunction with the Soviet authorities, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it was reasonable for the request to be met.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, were the exhibits withdrawn under threat of closure of the entire Soviet part of the exhibition or not?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, so far as I understand it, yes. Experience shows that the Soviet Government carries out scrupulously any agreement it makes, but that if extraneous matter is introduced their agreement is very seldom obtained. In this case the exhibition is a very good exhibition and well worth having as it is.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree that this must have been an extremely difficult decision for the Arts Council? Did the Arts Council consult him on what they ought to do?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I was told of the state of affairs and I asked only one question: "Have you got a written agreement that you can include in this exhibition objects not on the Soviet list?" The answer was, "No". That being the case, I felt sure that they were right to go on with it on the terms that the Soviet Government had laid down.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, seeking information and not in any sense of criticism, may I ask my noble friend what, approximately, is the cost of putting on an exhibition of this kind?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, the cost is £38,000. I think that they will now recover more than they had expected, by reason of the publicity.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, at the risk of adding to it the publicity, may I ask the noble Viscount the Paymaster General whether it is not unusual to speak of an exhibition, the cost of which was borne on British public funds, but yet in respect of which the Soviet Government—and I use his own words—laid down terms?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I should not have thought so. Obviously, the negotiations with a foreign Government for sending to this country material
440
which belongs to them are difficult and if they wish to define the list of objects for the exhibition we must either accept it or not.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether the Arts Council gave the Soviet Government any idea that they were planning to include other material from Western sources in this exhibition when the original arrangements were made?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I am sorry, but I cannot answer that supplementary question without notice.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I ask one further supplementary question? May I inquire from the noble Viscount the Paymaster General whether the Soviet Government gave the Arts Council any idea that they were not going to bring the list of exhibits which was verbally agreed between them, but another one?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I understand that there were a certain number of objects which were on their list, but when the packing cases were opened they were not there; I think that is true.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is is proposed to have an exhibition of the objects excluded?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, speaking for myself, I think it would be very interesting indeed to see the other branch of Soviet art which had developed contemporaneously with what one might call the official art.

DERBY DAY AND HOUSE OF LORDS BUSINESS
2.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will return to the old and excellent custom of not meeting for business in the Upper House on Derby Day.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, although I can make no commitment for the future, I can assure your Lordships that this year the House will stand adjourned on Derby day.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I am very grateful for the Answer from my noble friend. As Derby Day happens to fall this year during the Whitsun Recess, like the bookmakers he is giving very little away. May I ask whether he does not think that this would be an extremely good custom to return to, at any rate during the period of this present Government?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think that when the old custom was in regular use there were probably more of your Lordships who were apt to attend the racing at Epsom than there are to-day, and I should not like to commit myself to even suggesting to Her Majesty's Government that they should.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is there any reason why this House should follow the fashionable custom of going on a one-day strike?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he accepts the implication of his noble friend's Question; namely, whereas the rest of the people are encouraged to work, the nobility are not expected to do so?
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that it this request were acceded to, it might be regarded outside your Lordships' House as the equivalent of a one-day strike?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, would my noble friend anyhow try to avoid the old, but not at all good, custom of putting down all Scottish business on Derby day?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, in reply to that last supplementary question, there are I believe certainly as many, if not more, of your Lordships from England who are interested in Derby day as there are from Scotland, and therefore I have to keep a very careful balance on this. Another year I will endeavour to have a small selection of both.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, as the noble Earl is aware, the Government are inclined to sack impartial arbitrators. May I ask him whether he has considered that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, might arbitrate on this matter?
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does not the noble Earl think that Questions like this bring the House of Lords into ridicule?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, one might possibly look on this as a slightly frivolous Question, but on the other hand a little humour in this House at times is not altogether a bad thing.

ANNUAL FARM PRICE REVIEW
EARL, ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that, with leave, I will make a Statement on the Annual Farm Price Review shortly after 3.30.
AUSTRALIAN, MERCANTILE, LAND AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
JOHN HOLLIS TRUST FOR EMPLOYEES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee on House of Lords Offices be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. DOCUMENTARY FILM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
The Committee considered an application by Lord Kelburn to produce a documentary film of the House of Lords.
The Committee referred the question for detailed consideration to the Administration Committee.
2. SECURITY
A memorandum by Black Rod regarding security was considered by the Committee.
The Committee noted with approval the recommendations made including the issue of passes to staff and the steps already taken to improve security.
3. LIBRARY
A Report with recommendations from the Sub-Committee on the Library for the year 1970 was laid before the Committee. The Committee noted the Report and agreed to a recommendation to remove the telephones from the Queens Room to the corridor outside. The Committee also agreed to a recommendation that the rules governing the borrowing of books from the Library should be circulated to Peers.
4. YEOMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD
The Committee were informed of the appointment of Colonel Charles Lorne Sayers, C.B.E., as Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms on 1st January, 1971.
The Committee authorised the payment of allowances to the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and the Yeoman Usher until such time as the accommodation to be provided under the terms of their appointments becomes available for their occupation.
5. PARLIAMENT OFFICE
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee that Mr. J. M. Davies, a Senior Clerk in the Public Bill Office had succeeded Mr. David Dewar as Private Secretary to the Leader of the House and Government Chief Whip.
The Committee authorised:—

(i) the appointment of an additional Personal Secretary on the staff of Department of the Clerk of the Parliaments as Secretary to the Lord Chairman of Committees; and

(ii) the appointment of a Personal Secretary in the place of a part-time Shorthand-Typist in the Judicial Office.

6. HANSARD REPORTING STAFF
The Committee were informed of the increasing pressure of work on the Hansard Reporting Staff and authorised:—

(a) the appointments of an additional Sub-Editor and an additional Reporter, subject to review on each future vacancy; and

(b) the employment of up to two temporary Reporters at the discretion of the Clerk of the Parliaments to meet an emergency.

6. DOORKEEPERS
The Committee authorised the appointment of an additional Doorkeeper on the staff of the Department of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod and Serjeant-at-Arms.
The Committee also sanctioned additional provision for dress clothes for Doorkeepers.
7. SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE 1970–71
The Committee were informed of the presentation of a Supplementary Estimate for the year 1970–71.
8. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee sanctioned the payment of the following Superannuation awards under the Superannuation Act 1965:—

(a) Pension and Additional Allowance to Sir Kenneth Lachlan Mackintosh, K.C.V.O., Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain, Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod and Serjeant-at-Arms who retires on 1st April, 1971;

(b) Gratuity to Miss Lena Blanche Potts, part-time Shorthand-Typist, who retires on 8th April, 1971;

(cGratuity to Mrs. Ada Elizabeth Borham, Housemaid, who retired on 20th February, 1971.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be approved.
Moved, That the Report be approved.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SMOKING AND HEALTH
2.57 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the recent Report of the Royal College of Physicians entitled, Smoking and Health Now; and to move for Papers. In 1962 the Royal College of Physicians published its first Report on Smoking and Health. The evidence that cigarette smoking was the main cause—almost the sole cause—of cancer of the lung, and also the cause of a large number of premature deaths from coronary heart disease and chronic bronchitis, had been building up for a number of years. The Reports of Doll and Hill in this country, and of Wynder and Graham in the United States, were published in 1950, and were I think the first to present strong evidence of the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
Since then the evidence has become stronger and stronger; it has stood up to every conceivable test and criticism, and has proved in my opinion to be one of the greatest medical discoveries of our time. For the commonest type of cancer in the male, which now causes about 32,000 deaths every year in the United Kingdom alone, has proved itself to be the only common internal cancer which is preventable.
Warnings had already been given many times by the Ministry of Health and by the Medical Research Council; but the Royal College of Physicians, of which I

445
then had the honour to be President, felt that the evidence should be put together in a form readily available to the public, and which the public could read and understand. The idea that we should do this came to me from Dr. Charles Fletcher, and we called together a strong committee which met under my chairmanship for about two and a half years. In order that we should not be a committee of total abstainers or, worse still, of reformed addicts, we had two very heavy cigarette smokers on the committee, one of them a chest Physician and the other a medical officer of health; and both gave up smoking before we had finished our deliberations.
The Report of that committee was debated in your Lordships' House on March 22, 1962 (col. 635 of Hansard), which was before I had the privilege of being a Member of your Lordships' House. The debate was opened by the noble Earl, Lord Arran; a notable speech was made, among many others, by the noble Lord, Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, and the debate was wound up by the noble Viscount (as he then was), Lord Hailsham, in a brilliant speech in which he rapidly demolished the arguments of the cigarette manufacturers, calling upon them
"to drop the escapist propaganda which at the present time they are putting out, which personally I … find both distasteful and lacking in scientific courage and integrity … the first-class man is the man who recognises and accepts compelling evidence, not one that fights against it".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 238. cols. 754–5.]
Although a good deal has happened since then, the problem still remains with us, and I hope to show your Lordships in a few minutes how serious it really is. Far too little has been done, and so the Royal College, now under the presidency of the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, whose maiden speech we look forward to during this debate, has issued its second Report entitled, Smoking and Health Now.
Before giving your Lordships some of the latest figures, I should like briefly to say something about the nature of the cigarette addiction—although this may not be a popular subject with some of your Lordships. In the first place, there is no doubt whatever that it is by any possible standards, an addiction, and a very strong one, in that a comparatively
446
short exposure to cigarette smoking rapidly produces a craving for the drug which many people find it very difficult or even impossible to overcome. As with heroin and other drugs of addiction, young people seem to be particularly easily hooked, and a young person in his teens who has started to smoke cigarettes regularly usually becomes a victim for life. The addiction is of course widespread. In preparing the first College Report of 1962 we found that 75 per cent. of males in this country smoked an average of 19 cigarettes per day.
As with other addictions, there are some people, especially women, who can take the drug in moderation and who seem to enjoy it. But whereas with alcohol the great majority can take it in moderation, and there are millions of people who drink only at week-ends or on a Festive occasion, with the cigarette the majority become true addicts, smoking about 20 or more cigarettes per day, which means, if you discount mealtimes and sleep, that they satisfy their craving for nicotine about once in every 40 minutes of their waking lives. This, I may say, costs them at least 31p per day, or well over £2 per week.
As in other addictions, withdrawal of the drug causes unpleasant symptoms. In the case of tobacco these usually take the form of restlessness, lack of concentration, general ill-humour and, above all, a compelling craving for the drug, which you know will almost immediately put you right again, a craving which many people find overwhelming Having been through this twice myself after having smoked for 35 years, I could offer some good advice to those of your Lordships who would like it. But I think that my noble friend Lord Rosenheim may be dealing with, inter alia, the subject of giving up smoking.
Opinions differ as to the advantages of smoking. The fact that when you give it up you crave to go back to it is no evidence at all that it has been doing you any good. The biggest craving of all, of course, is the craving of the heroin addict for his next shot in the arm. Like the cigarette addict, he feels himself again only when his craving has been satisfied. Fortunately, on the credit side it can be said that cigarette smoking, unlike some other addictions, does not noticeably alter

447
a man's personality. But for the smell, which is very noticeable to those who do not smoke, I would not be able to tell which of your Lordships was a cigarette smoker whereas if your blood alcohol were 100 milligrams or more per 100 millilitres I think I should notice a difference in behaviour quite readily; and if you were addicted to the taking of LSD or heroin you would soon become incapable of maintaining normal social contacts and serious pursuits altogether.
The chemical composition of cigarette smoke is very complex and there is a good deal we do not know about it. But it appears that nicotine is the fraction which causes the addiction, and nicotine is very readily absorbed into the bloodstream when cigarettes are inhaled. Thus nearly all regular and addicted smokers are also inhalers of cigarettes. In addition to being responsible for the addiction, and probably for any soothing or other effect which cigarettes may have, nicotine is probably also the factor which renders the smoker more liable than nonsmokers to coronary heart disease. On the other hand, the tar which results from the burning of the tobacco leaf is probably the fraction which contains both the cancer-producing substances and the irritants which cause chronic bronchitis.
In the rest of my speech I shall be drawing heavily on the new Report of the Royal College of Physicians, but I shall try not to draw too heavily on figures. Your Lordships can read the Report for yourselves, and I hope that many of you have already done so. First of all, I want you to be in no doubt as to the seriousness and size of the problem. Let us first take lung cancer: first, because it is a horrible disease which is nearly always fatal and by the time it is diagnosed it is usually too late; secondly, because it is almost entirely due to cigarette smoking, and the lung cancer rate varies almost perfectly with the number of cigarettes smoked; thirdly, because lung cancer is the only form of cancer in which the death rate is still steadily rising, although in males it has flattened out a little in the past few years, whereas cancers from other causes have become fewer; fourthly, because cancer of the lung as I have already said, now causes about 32,000 deaths a year of people in the United Kingdom alone;
448
fifthly, because at least 90 per cent. of those deaths are preventable; and, finally, because half of those deaths are of people under the age of 65. Indeed, the mortality in lung cancer rises sharply in heavy smokers between the ages of 40 and 50.
The death rate, at any age, is about five times as high in men as in women, and there is little doubt that this is largely, though probably not wholly, due to the different smoking habits of the two sexes. Women, on the whole, start smoking later, smoke fewer cigarettes and inhale less than men. But cigarette smoking in women has increased in the last twenty years, and their death rate from cancer is now going up, while the male death rate is flattening off. Your Lordships will have realised from these figures that the smoking addiction among males is already so high that it is not likely to rise much higher, whereas in women a similar saturations point has not been reached.
Supposing that your sole interest was to increase the sales of cigarettes, regardless of the fact that you would be increasing deaths from lung cancer still further, you would switch your advertising at this stage to women, and especially to young women, because they are more easily hooked. My Lords, you have only to look in the Sunday papers, the daily papers and some of the evening papers, and in the displayed advertisements, to see that this is precisely what is being done. Coloured pictures of glamorous young ladies lighting the after-dinner cigarette, or the slim cigarette or some other kind of cigarette surround us nearly everywhere. Do not misunderstand me: I cast no blame whatever on the cigarete manufacturers for continuing to manufacture and sell their wares. But their attempts to increase the lung cancer rate in women until it catches up with that of men—which is precisely what they are now doing—are to me so contemptible that I can find no words to describe them which I could use without incurring your Lordships' displease on the ground of asperity in speech. I am guided here by the Standing Order of June, 1626.
But, my Lords, men who act in this way will stop at nothing. I had not intended to deal with action to be taken,

449
as I hope my noble friend Lord Rosenheim will deal with that; but I must say that although in many ways I welcome the Statement by the right honourable Gentleman the Secretary of State for Health and Social Services I am profoundly disquieted by some of its implications as I read them. It seems to me that in return for the voluntary action of tobacco manufacturers to label cigarettes, "may be dangerous to health", the tobacco manufacturers are to be allowed to continue to spend £50 million a year on advertising their wares. There is to be no curb on advertising to young people, except a notice on the advertisement, "may be dangerous" which may attract rather than deter some teenagers; no abolition of coin machines, and, worst of all, a possible attempt to drop the Bill now being promoted by Sir Gerald Nabarro.
My Lords, I was in the other place yesterday when the Secretary of State made his Statement with its tribute to the responsible and helpful action of the manufacturers. The word "responsible" can be used in more than one way, and these same men are responsible for the displayed advertisements advertising smoking to young women—the very section of the population which it is our duty to protect at the present time. I thought that the Secretary of State was somewhat embarrassed regarding some of the questions which were asked him, and I should like an assurance, possibly from the Government, that no bargain has been made with the cigarette manufacturers that Sir Gerald's Bill will be dropped. And I hope that the Government remain free, if necessary, and if they so wish, to compel the manufacturers to abandon their pernicious sales promotion. I know that a great deal of money is involved in this matter, and if this question is raised I will deal with it in my closing speech.
Let us turn now to chronic bronchitis and coronary heart disease. The total number of deaths from chronic bronchitis is similar to the number of deaths from lung cancer, but they are apt to occur at a somewhat later age, as we might predict; because chronic bronchitis causes years of invalidism, whereas lung cancer is often over in twelve months or less. The connection between chronic bronchitis and cigarette smoking
450
is not quite so direct or so strong as the connection between smoking and lung cancer, and we must say the same of coronary heart disease. In other words, these diseases occur not infrequently in the non-smoker, though very much more frequently in the cigarette smoker. Of the three diseases, coronary heart disease claims by far the greatest number of deaths; namely, over 30,000 per annum in the United Kingdom of males under the age of 64. I will not go into other conditions which are to a less extent related to the smoking habit, but I will just call your Lordships' attention to recent evidence that cigarette smoking during pregnancy may retard the growth of the unborn child, and that spontaneous miscarriage is more common in the pregnancies of mothers who smoke.
I will now turn briefly to an examination of the nature of the evidence, dealing mainly with lung cancer because its connection with cigarette smoking is so very direct. The evidence is just about as strong as any scientific evidence can ever be. It is both experimental and statistical, but one cannot really make a distinction between the two because the results of scientific experiment are nearly always statistically judged and assessed. Analysis of cigarette smoke and the tar which results from the burning of tobacco shows that both contain cancer-producing chemicals, and applied to the skin of an animal they will produce cancerous growths. It is difficult to reproduce the human experiment more closely as animals cannot readily be made to smoke cigarettes. Nevertheless, this has been done in some rather unpleasant experiments on dogs in the United Slates, and lung cancer has been produced.
But the most important experiment of all has been done on the human subject. Doll and Hill in this country have done a large experiment extending over some twenty years on British doctors. This is what we call a prospective experiment. A large number of doctors, 31,000 or so, were persuaded to record their smoking habits in 1951. They have been followed ever since, and the death certificates of those who have died have been examined. The deaths from lung cancer almost perfectly co-relate with the number of cigarettes smoked. Similar experiments have been done on a vast scale in the United States, so that now more than a

451
million people have been followed in this way, and the evidence stands up to every possible kind of analysis.
I hope that none of the speakers in this debate will tell me that he has an aunt who smoked all her life and is now 90 years old. The only thing that this kind of statement proves is that the speaker has a total ignorance of statistical or scientific method. As it says in the College Report, not all racing motorists are killed in car crashes, but their risk is much greater than it is for the ordinary motorist. Similarly, cigarette smokers do not all die prematurely from diseases relating to smoking, but their chances of doing so are much greater than those of non-smokers.
People who have an addiction as strong as the addiction for nicotine are, of course, loath to accept evidence which condemns what is to them a pleasant habit, and among their many excuses one is that the deaths occur mainly in old people, and "You've got to die of something anyway." I have already shown your Lordships that a very large number of the deaths occur in people at the prime of life, but people also say, "I've smoked for 20, 30 or more years, and it is too late to give up now". I am glad to tell you that this has been totally disproved by the experience of the British doctors, and this allows me to end on a more cheerful note. The doctors who have been so carefully followed by Doll and Hill, since the evidence became so clear, have radically changed their smoking habits. In the years between 1951 and 1965, half of all the doctors included in the study who used to smoke cigarettes, stopped smoking. Over this period, while lung cancer death rates among all men aged 35 to 64 in England and Wales rose by 7 per cent., they fell by 38 per cent. among male doctors of the same age. This finding not only confirms that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer but also indicates that general discontinuance of the habit would enormously lower the number of deaths from this disease.
Actually, since 1961 the percentage of men of all ages smoking cigarettes has fallen slightly in this country, and very much more so in the United States. This decrease, in this country at any rate, has occurred mainly in men of the professional
452
and skilled occupations. There has been no change in the smoking habits of the partially skilled and unskilled occupations of social classes IV and V. That seems to me to be a good note on which to end a speech in your Lordships' House, and I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Rosenheim to deal with some of the other aspects of the problem and, above all, with what we ought to be trying to do about it. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.14 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the House and the wider public will be deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, for his initiative in providing us with this opportunity to consider and debate the Report and the recommendations of the Royal College of Physicians at a time when it is still relatively fresh in the public's mind and when it is of imperative importance that we should maintain and, if possible, increase the immediate drop in cigarette smoking that followed the publication of the Report. Moreover, it follows hard on the heels of the very important statement which was made in another place yesterday by the Secretary of State for Social Services and the full reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to Lord Platt's Written Question on the subject of warnings on cigarette packets.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, has presented the findings of the Report so lucidly and in such detail that I feel there is certainly no need for me to speak at great length and rehearse once again all the arguments that he has put before us. We all listened to his careful analysis of those arguments with the closest interest and, perhaps most particularly of all, to his views on the nature of the evidence on which the recommendations of the Report were based. The House is also greatly looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, who preceded over the committee of the Royal College which produced the Report and who will bring such experience and distinction to our deliberations generally and to this debate in particular. I should, however, like to take the opportunity of thanking him and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, who chaired the first committee of the Royal College in 1962, and the Royal College itself, supported by so many British

453
doctors, for the great public service they have rendered in producing such an authoritative Report in the highest traditions of the medical profession. I only hope that the Royal College's dispassionate and objective treatment of this emotional subject will be followed through as we proceed in our debate to-day.
Unfortunately debates on smoking all too often degenerate into a rather useless and unproductive wrangle between those who smoke and feel they have to defend the habit, and those who do not and are therefore somewhat smug and priggish about the good, clean life that they lead. The fact that some of these non-smokers may regularly enjoy the pleasures of alcohol—whether in moderation or not is a matter of opinion—is always conveniently forgotten on these occasions, although we know that dependence on alcohol, like dependence on nicotine, is just another form of behavioural disease which, in the last resort, can also be self-destructive and cause great suffering to friends and relatives who are left behind.
Once again we find ourselves, as we did so often in our recent debates on the Misuse of Drugs Bill, being concerned with the very difficult and delicate problem of achieving the right balance between individual behaviour and freedom of choice in personal consumption in a free society such as ours, and the wider responsibility of the community as a whole, which has to bear the medical, social and economic consequences of the damage caused. I had little doubt, particularly as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that if to-day we were considering the use of tobacco for the first time, in the light of what this Report and its 1962 predecessor now proves beyond question to be its terrible effects, we should certainly be adopting much stricter controls than many may now consider it feasible to adopt, with the use of tobacco so widespread and so deeply ingrained, not only in this country but throughout the world. I do not think any noble Lord speaking in the debate to-day will question the validity of the evidence of the harmful effects of cigarette smoking and the clear, quantitative relationship between the number of cigarettes smoked and lung cancer. The facts are no longer in dispute.
454
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, also detailed to us the appalling toll of life which the Report describes, quite apart from the incidence of chronic bronchitis and other disabling diseases to which smokers are far more prone than nonsmokers. I join him in his concern about the still rising number of deaths among women smokers and the recent emphasis in cigarette advertising towards increasing the consumption of cigarettes by women. It would be clearly unrealistic to design a public policy based on everyone's stopping smoking immediately—that, even the most ardent advocate of abolition would agree, would not be a realistic objective. But I hope the House would agree that our overall objective should be for the community as a whole—that is, Government, all health and educational agencies, national and local, statutory and voluntary—to aim at developing a physical environment and a social climate in which positive measures are taken to promote good health and prevent disease and in which, in time, smoking is no longer regarded as a socially acceptable habit.
Logically, in view of the very clear scientific evidence set out in the Report, we should aim at achieving a situation in which attitudes are so changed that smoking is acceptable only in private and between consenting adults. Your Lordships may laugh, but, if one thinks back, this was almost the position in Victorian times when the men, dressed in special and rather beautiful velvet jackets, withdrew into special rooms (women of course did not smoke in those days, except perhaps secretly) and smoked in private by mutual consent. In addition, we need, I believe, to concentrate more of our resources on devising more effective techniques to reduce the incidence of the disease by assisting habitual smokers to smoke less and to smoke less harmfully, as the Royal College has suggested.
It is against this background that I welcome the national lead given by the Government yesterday in their statement, through a range of measures to discourage cigarette smoking, although I regard those measures as only the first, and in some cases very tentative, steps towards the general objectives I have outlined. They must be vigorously followed up if the momentum of the initial reaction to the Royal College's Report is not to be lost, as the public memory of its finding

455
dims. The voluntary agreement which the Government successfully reached with the tobacco industry to print warning notices on all cigarette packages, and for statements referring to these warning notices to appear on advertisements, is certainly an advance on our present practice in this country. But I personally do not necessarily at this stage rule out the need for a statutory basis as a next step, particularly as I find the form of words suggested for the warning notice much too mild.
In the United States, where cigarette packets have been labelled since 1964, the original notice read:
"Caution. Cigarette smoking may be hazardous to your health."
But this was changed only a year ago to the following:
"Warning. The Surgeon General has determined that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health."
I would therefore strongly urge the Government in the discussions they are to have with the tobacco manufacturers on the detailed code of practice that is to be drawn up, to delete "can" from the proposed notice, so that the notice will clearly state that "Smoking damages your health." I very much hope that I shall be supported in this view by other noble Lords who are to speak in this debate, and that the Government will listen to our views on this matter.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, could tell the House, either when he speaks in a few moments' time or when he replies at the end of the debate, what the Government's views are on the recommendation of the Royal College which advocates abolition of gift coupon schemes, which surely are designed solely to encourage the purchase of cigarettes. This point was not mentioned either in the noble Lord's Written Answer or in the statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. I suggest my noble friend Lady Birk might apply the great talents and ingenuity of the Health Education Council to devising a non-smoking gift coupon scheme which would positively encourage people to save the considerable sums of money they spend weekly on cigarettes for other, less harmful purposes. I know there might well be practical difficulties about such a suggestion, but I hope she
456
will try to work out a positive scheme of this kind which would act as a financial disincentive to smoking.
With regard to the very welcome initiative which the Government are taking in tackling the problem of smoking in public places, I suggest to them that it is not sufficient at this moment in our history to invite cinemas, theatres or the public transport authorities—certainly not hospitals and clinics—to set aside more accommodation for non-smokers. Surely the boot is on the other foot, if there is to be any smoking at all in public places. Smoking is already prohibited in many of our theatres and concert halls; and many people, including regular smokers, still attend them and enjoy the performance in spite of the fact that they may not smoke. Surely the restriction should be placed on smokers rather than on non-smokers. We know that, for example, in the Underground in New York, Paris and Moscow, smoking is prohibited; yet the trains are still full.
The Report reminded us of the finding of the Social Survey that only a minority of the public would object if smoking was banned in trains and buses. I believe that since the survey was conducted, even more people, particularly smokers, would positively welcome the existence of such "smokeless zones". It would control the tobacco consumption of smokers, rather as the existence of the breathalyser enables one to refuse to drink before driving. I therefore hope that the Minister and his right honourable friend, in the discussions they are shortly to have with the interests concerned, will reverse the emphasis in their present policy statement and seek to reduce, if not totally to abolish, the amount of accommodation that is set aside for smokers in public places, cinemas and public transport in particular.
While I agree with the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, about the apparent failure to achieve any diminution in the level of cigarette advertising, I must welcome the action of the Government in their move to redress the balance between the £52 million spent on cigarette sales promotion and the £100,000 spent by the Health Education Council, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Birk. I am delighted that the additional money will enable them to mount this specific television campaign, and I very much hope that it will be the first of

457
many such projects, and not just a one-off job. I also hope, as I am sure will be so if it is in the hands of the Health Education Council, that the results of the programme will be carefully monitored, as we still know all too little about the influences which really affect attitudes and behaviour in this particular field.
Finally, in agreeing wholeheartedly with the Royal College that there are undoubtedly tremendous social and economic dividends to be gained for the nation as a whole from a drastic reduction in cigarette smoking; and, perhaps most important of all, that we need to develop better ways of educating our children and young people on the dangers of cigarette smoking, which I am sure will be a matter of prime concern to many noble Lords who are going to take part in the debate, I think it is quite unrealistic to ignore the fact that a drastic reduction in tobacco consumption will inevitably have a major impact on fiscal policy and on the employment situation in the tobacco manufacturing and distributing trades. I would conclude, my Lords, by warmly supporting the recommendations of the Report, and I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will be able to tell us that the Government are prepared to set up an official inquiry into the economic consequences of a decrease in cigarette smoking, so that we may have a full and authoritative account of the balance of benefit and loss involved, and prepare methodically for what I believe to be the necessary changes that a successful and concerted public and private effort to reduce smoking as a generally accepted habit will undoubtedly entail.
3.30 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships are indeed most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, for giving us this opportunity to have a debate on the subject of cigarette smoking—a habit which has been rightly called the "greatest preventable cause of illness, disability and premature death". No one is better qualified than the noble Lord, a most distinguished ex-President of the Royal College of Physicians, to introduce this particular debate, and if I may say so with humility he did it in a most telling and wide-ranging speech.
It is now 21 years since the association of cigarette smoking with cancer of the lung was first demonstrated. Since then
458
there has been a growing accumulation of evidence of its association, not only with lung cancer but also with chronic bronchitis, emphysema and coronary heart disease and, more recently, with retardation of the growth of unborn children of women who smoke during pregnancy. In the face of the mass of evidence now available there cannot be the slightest doubt of the serious health risks being run by those people who continue to smoke cigarettes. Cigarette smoking is the biggest single known cause of lung cancer from which nearly 30,000 people died in England and Wales alone in 1969, and the number of premature deaths all told that can be attributed to smoking must be reaching what has aptly been described as epidemic proportions. But premature death is only one of the consequences of cigarette smoking: another is illness. It is not easy to measure the amount of sickness for which smoking is responsible, but it must be held accountable for a substantial part of the 38,600,000 days of absence certified as due to bronchitis in 1969, quite apart from the amount of other illnesses which it causes.
The second Report of the Royal College of Physicians, Smoking and Health Now, reaffirms and gives added weight to the evidence that incriminates cigarete smoking as a major health hazard and cause of premature death, and perhaps I may quote just one forceful ilustration from the Report to bring this home. Forty per cent. of men aged 35 who are heavy smokers will die before reaching the age of 65 compared with only 18 per cent. of non-smokers, and those smokers who do reach that age can in general expect fewer years of retirement and a greater chance of disablement by chronic heart or lung disease. That is indeed strong evidence of the dangers of cigarette smoking, and we owe a debt of gratitude to the Royal College of Physicians for their excellent Report. It is very fitting that their distinguished President, the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, should be here to-day to make his maiden speech, and like all the rest of your Lordships, I very much look forward to hearing from him.
Last year saw the publication of another report from the World Health

459
Organisation and this provides further corroboration of the harmful effects of smoking—if further corroboration were needed. The comparisons in the Report of studies carried out in this country, America and Canada show a remarkable similarity in their findings and demonstrate dramatically how mortality from lung cancer has risen with the consumption of cigarettes. Few people can now be unaware that they take risks with their health when they smoke cigarettes, but this state of public awareness is no new thing, as the health consequences of smoking have been known and publicised for many years. Yet the evidence about cigarette consumption shows that (with the significant exception, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, of the medical profession) people have not on the whole reacted logically to the facts of the situation. For although in the last decade there has been a slight overall fall in the proportion of men in the United Kingdom who smoke manufactured cigarettes, from 58 per cent. in 1958 to 54 per cent. in 1969, this has been offset by an increase in the proportion of women who smoke—from 40 per cent. in 1958 to 44 per cent. in 1969.
The Government took stock of the situation last year and concluded that more needed to be done. In December, therefore, we entered into discussions with the tobacco manufacturers to see whether a satisfactory voluntary agreement could be concluded with them on the placing of warning notices on cigarette packets and advertisements. In our view, there are distinct advantages in voluntary agreement with the manufacturers rather than legislation. Speed is one advantage—another is that a voluntary agreement is more likely to be observed in the spirit as well as in the letter. It is a matter of considerable satisfaction that, as my right honourable friend announced yesterday, a voluntary agreement has in fact been reached, with the result that all packets will carry in bold print the notice
"WARNING by H.M. Government SMOKING CAN DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH."
The noble Baroness, Lady Serota—and may I say how grateful I was to her for her general welcome of the announcement made yesterday by my right honourable friend—suggested a slight alteration
460
of the wording. I expect a great many of your Lordships will have suggestions to make of alternative words. They can be varied infinitely, from some such phrase as "Please be careful. You never know—you might harm your health by smoking a hundred cigarettes a day", to, for example, "Fags are fatal". But we came to the conclusion that the words we have agreed with the manufacturers are absolutely accurate and are a reasonable statement of the case. Had we adopted the wording suggested by the noble Baroness, "Smoking damages your health", I think we might have been held by some to have been misleading especially perhaps by some of your Lordships who have in fact survived the ordeal unscathed, and perhaps by some of those of your noble aunts who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Platt. The words that we have agreed, "Smoking can damage your health", are strictly accurate.
This notice will appear on both sides of the packet, or on one side with a frame round it to make the warning more eye-catching. I have a packet here which your Lordships may like to see, but I will not pass it round because I see it contains cigarettes. Every Press advertisement and poster will carry a notice referring to the warning on the packets. Eventually, this notice will be in the form "Every packet carries a Government health warning"; but until every packet does, it may have to be slightly different. The notices on the packets and on the advertisements will go further than in any other country, and I think it is right to acknowledge the co-operative spirit with which the manufacturers approached the negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, was highly critical of the cigarette manufacturers. I am sure they can best defend themselves against his strictures. All I would say so far as the Government are concerned is that we see distinct advantages in a voluntary agreement—and on the two specific points that he made to me, advertisements of course are already banned on television. So far as advertisements in the Press and on posters are concerned we are not banning advertising at present. It is part of the voluntary agreement with the manufacturers that there should be a warning notice on each packet of cigarettes. I would suggest to your Lordships that in some degree this means that

461
advertisments are working for us in drawing to the attention of the general public the health hazards involved. The noble Lord also asked me about legislation with particular reference to the Bill of Sir Gerald Nabarro. Again this agreement with the manufacturers is of its essence a voluntary one, and we consider legislation unnecessary and even prejudicial to the early achievement of our object. We intend to review the situation when this Bill reaches its Report stage in another place, but naturally we cannot expect manufacturers to implement a voluntary agreement while a threat of legislation is hanging over their heads.
This is a free society, my Lords, and whether a person smokes or not is some-think which ultimately only he can decide. What we can do is to help him take an informed decision by making him fully aware of the effects, and the warning notices to which I have referred will give him a constant reminder that cigarette smoking is dangerous. But this will not be enough in itself, and the warning notices need to be complemented by publicity campaigns carried out both nationally and locally. A number of national campaigns have been conducted over the years, first by the Ministry of Health, as it then was, and then from 1968 by the Health Education Council, which was set up to take over the whole education activities of the Department. I am delighted that the Chairman of the Health Education Council, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is speaking in this debate and I know that I can safely leave it to her to elaborate on her publicity plans; I will only say that, because of the seriousness of the health problem caused by smoking, the Government have decided to make extra funds available to the Health Education Council for work in this field. My right honourable friend has asked the Council to carry out a television campaign to coincide with the appearance in the shops of cigarette packets bearing the new warning notices, and these two measures should reinforce each other and ensure that the maximum value is extracted from each.
An important part of educational activity must be concerned with the young. Studies have shown that, as in so many other important matters, it is the individual's response to pressures felt during adolescence that largely determine whether he or she will take up smoking.
462
Recent research suggests that more than four-fifths of young people who smoke no more than half a dozen cigarettes by the age of 20 will become regular smokers, and that more than three-fifths of these will continue smoking for the whole of the rest of their fires. Conversely, if a person is a non-smoker at 20 he is likely to remain so for the rest of his life. "Prevention is better than cure", but in the case of smoking it is probably also true to say that prevention is much easier than cure. To this end the Department of Education and Science has helped schools to make known the hazards of smoking to schoolchildren both by the production of guidance for teachers and through visits to local education and schools by Her Majesty's Inspectorate and the Department's medical officers. A new pamphlet of advice is being prepared for distribution to local education authorities, colleges of education and schools.
Since force of example is clearly important—and not only where the young are concerned—my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is hoping to obtain the co-operation of the television authorities in reducing the amount of smoking shown on the screen. This is a point I remember the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, making in a Question and Answer we had the other day. He is also proposing to send guidance to hospitals and local authorities about the discouragement of smoking on their premises and the need for health service staff to set an example to the public. The Chief Medical Officer of my Department is writing to all doctors sending them copies of the World Health Organisation report to which I referred earlier. My right honourable friend also proposes to seek the co-operation of those responsible for public tranport, cinemas and theatres, et cetera, in setting aside more accommodation for non-smokers—and I certainly take the point that was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, on that subject. He will be drawing the attention of the life insurance companies to the evidence about the health consequences of smoking and asking them to consider offering lower premiums for non-smokers.
The Government hope that the measures I have referred to will have a significant effect on this serious health problem, but

463
we of course have to recognise that, whatever steps we may take, a substantial number of people will continue to smoke. For them we must hope for safer cigarettes—not, I emphasise, cigarettes that are entirely safe, because there is no expectation, so far as I am aware, of such products ever becoming available—but cigarettes that are not so harmful as those at present available. To help in this my right honourable friend and the tobacco manufacturers have agreed that a joint scientific committee should be set up to consider what research is needed in the smoking field and the adequacy of systems for testing the relative safety of different smoking materials. One of the first responsibilities of this committee will be to consider the measurement of the tar and nicotine yields of different brands of cigarettes, and in the recent discussions the manufacturers have agreed in principle that these figures should be made available to the public.
This is a brief account of some of the steps that the Government are taking, and I hope that the House will agree that they amount to a satisfactory immediate response to the Report of the Royal College. The Government have acted or are acting in one way or another on the recommendations in the Report for increased education of the public (including the young), on the placing of warning notices on cigarette packets and advertisements, on the determination for publication of the tar and nicotine yield of cigarettes, on collaborating with the tobacco industry in the testing of safer cigarettes, on smoking in public places, on the question of lower life insurance premiums for non-smokers and on obtaining the co-operation of the mass media. There are of course other recommendations in the Report. Some of them would require legislation—such as those calling for a ban on advertisements, the banning of gift coupons, as suggested by the noble Baroness, and the removal of cigarette vending machines from public places. The Government have no plans at present for legislation. I am sure that the House will not expect me to comment on proposals that raise budgetary issues, but of course we will keep the whole situation under review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Serota, also asked me about other wider implications.
464
The Government recognise that there are other major implications and they have arranged for these to be studied by the Departments concerned. This is a complex and difficult task. Inter-departmental discussions have begun, and the Government have asked for these to be completed with the least possible delay. But I should not like it to be thought from what I have said that the Government in any way claim a monopoly of the right to tackle the smoking problem. Far from it. The health professions have a particular responsibility and particular opportunity. I am sure that we would all agree that the Royal College of Physicians are to be most highly commended not only for producing this Report but also for establishing a new body, Action on Smoking and Health, to carry on this most important work. I hope that this debate will itself make a contribution to the efforts being made to tackle this most serious health problem.

AGRICULTURAL PRICE REVIEW
3.50 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting this interesting and important debate (and I apologise particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, who is about to make his maiden speech; I hope that I shall not delay him unduly), but I should like now to repeat to your Lordships a Statement on the Agricultural Price Review. The White Paper is available in the Printed Paper Office. The Statement is as follows:
"The increase in production costs since last year's Annual Review has been bigger than ever before, due partly to inflation and partly to higher imported raw material prices. Rising productivity cannot cover such cost increases. If we are to get the expansion we want in the future, they must be met partly through the price the consumer pays and partly in the Exchequer liability for direct support. Our commodity determinations this year provide in this way for costs to be fully met. So the gains secured through greater productivity will be available to the industry to help both income and investment.

465
"Before outlining the determinations, I must make it quite clear that they represent changes in the guarantees set a year ago. They therefore include the increases made in October, 1970. The main changes compared with the 1970 Review are increases of 12p per cwt. for wheat, 10p for barley and 5p for oats; 67½p per ton for potatoes and 77½p for sugar beet; £1.22½p per cwt. for cattle, 2½p per gallon for milk, 7p per score for pigs, 2.8p per lb. for sheep, together with ½p more for wool and continuation of the extra increases in the hill sheep subsidy. As announced at the time, the temporary increase in the fertiliser and lime subsidy made at the last Review for one year only will end.
"On eggs we are moving to a free market and the guarantee will be reduced again this year. We are, however, raising minimum import prices significantly in the light of increased production costs. On milk we have proposed a big increase in the guarantee. Levy arrangements will in addition strengthen the price of milk for manufacture and so firm up the pool price. This is necessary in face of a very steep rise in costs. The retail price will have to go up by ½p in July in consequence. We have also taken into account the reduction in the standard quantity. In addition, we are offering substantially higher incentives to encourage still further the good progress made on brucellosis eradication. I am announcing to-day arrangements to start area eradication.
"In conventional Review terms the total increase in the value of the guarantees is about £138 million over the levels determined in March last year. This includes the adjustments to the guarantees made last October.
"These determinations have been made in the knowledge that we shall be changing the basic method of agricultural support. After intensive negotiations with overseas suppliers, we have now secured the necessary agreement to enable us to introduce interim levy schemes covering cereals, beef and veal, mutton and lamb and minor milk products from the beginning of July. I am circulating information about this in the OFFICIAL
466
REPORT and making copies available in the Library now. Fuller details will be announced as soon as all the discussions are completed, and the necessary Orders will be laid before Parliament. These schemes will introduce a much-needed limitation on Exchequer liability. With the new policy, changes foreshadowed by the approach we have taken this year will be made in the concepts and procedures of the Annual Review.
"The Review and the determinations must be seen against this background. Our decisions fully cover cost increases on major commodities. They aim to maintain a proper commodity balance and provide substantial extra resources for sheep. In the present economic situation it would have been wrong to go further than this. I am sure these decisions will restore confidence in the industry and enable it to move ahead both on output and productivity."
Following is the information referred to:

ANNUAL REVIEW 1971

  INTERIM IMPORT LEVY SCHEMES
  CEREALS
  1. With effect from July 1 the new minimum import price and levy arrangements will reflect those now in force, but the present "co-operating country" and "country levy" provisions are being discontinued and the new system will be based on variable general levies assessed on the difference between lowest representative offering prices and the relevant minimum import prices.
  2. The range of products covered will continue as at present and will include all the cereals and cereal-based products normally traded (other than rye and rice). Maize intended for industrial uses will be allowed levy-free entry. Denatured wheat, flour not suitable for human consumption and malting barley of high diastatic quality will have separate minimum import prices.
  3. The present level of minimum import prices will be increased, in average terms, by £3·50 per ton starting in July 1971 and continuing for the year August 1971 to July 1972; and for the period August 1972 to December 1972 by an amount which for the crop year 1972–73 as a whole would be £6 per ton on average above present levels. The level of minimum import prices thereafter will be the subject of later determination.
  4. The minimum import prices will rise seasonally throughout the year from August to July in order to encourage orderly marketing. The total range of the variations will be £3.
  5. The forward period for which contracts may be registered will continue at 3 months and announcements of prospective rates of levy will be made accordingly.
  MEAT
  6. With effect from the first week in July (beginning on July 5, 1971) imports of fresh, chilled and frozen beef and veal and of fat cattle will be subject to a system of general variable levies to support minimum import prices, on a weekly basis, for the various main categories of imports other than from the Irish Republic. These minimum import prices will be related to an annual target indicator price for fat cattle in the United Kingdom market, which for 1971–72 will be E10·35 (207s. 0d.) per live cwt. Levies will be chargeable if for any week the average market price of fat cattle in the United Kingdom falls below the target indicator price for that week. Levies will be payable at the time of import or withdrawal from bonded warehouse.
  7. With effect from July 1, 1971, imports, other than from the Irish Republic, of fresh, chilled and frozen mutton and lamb will be subject to import duties at specific rates. For bone-in mutton carcases the rate will be half that for other mutton and lamb, for which the rates will be £9·33 per ton from July 1 to December 31, 1971, £18·67 per ton from January 1, 1972 to June 30, 1972, and £28·00 per ton from July 1, 1972.
  8. Special arrangements to apply to imports of fat cattle, beef and veal, and mutton and lamb from the Irish Republic are currently under discussion with the Government of the Republic. These arrangements will be linked to changes in the United Kingdom Fatstock Guarantee Scheme, which are outlined in the White Paper "Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees 1971" published to-day.
  MILK PRODUCTS
  9. With effect from July 1, 1971 minimum import price arrangements, enforced where necessary by levies, will be introduced for milk products other than butter and cheese. They will be set at these levels:

  £ a ton

  fresh cream

  …

  351

  canned cream

  …

  249

  skimmed milk powder

  …

  157

  whole milk powder

  …

  273

  condensed milk

  …

  135

  10. Arrangements are also being made to ensure that the prices of imported chocolate milk crumb and animal feedingstuffs containing milk solids will not be out of line with the prevailing prices for milk products. Special arrangements consistent with the objectives of the scheme have been agreed in principle with the countries concerned in respect of imports from the Irish Republic, of whole milk powder from New Zealand and Australia and of canned cream from Denmark. Further discussions on the details and operation of the scheme will be held with domestic interests and with some overseas suppliers in the immediate future.
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl for repeating this Statement. Bearing in mind what he said about the debate, I shall endeavour to keep my questions to the minimum. First, may I say how much we shall all welcome the news about the progress of the brucellosis eradiction, and we shall look with great interest at what exactly is being announced in the other Statement.
  May I ask him whether he agrees that the abnormally large sum, £138 million, is not an indication of generosity towards the farmers but rather an indication of the abnormally high rate of inflation of costs which they have to meet? May I ask him a little more about the figure of £138 million? What proportion of this relates to the changes made last October, and what proportion relates to the increase which the housewife will find, for example, in the increase in milk and the increase in sugar prices? Of the increase of ½p in the retail price of milk, will he confirm that this is an increase of ½p per pint? Is that increase increases in feedingstuff prices indicated costs already being met by the dairy farmer but also the increased costs he will have to meet as a result of the increases in feedingstuff prices indicated in the other part of the Review Statement?
  Then may I ask what estimate has been made about the resultant increase in the cost of living, the cost of food, to an average family of four? Finally, is this an agreed Review with the N.F.U?
  LORD HENLEY: My Lords, so far as I can see, this is a very good Review, provided that the noble Lord can assure me on two points. The first is whether he is sure that the costs really have been met. I think that there is some disagreement on this point. Secondly, can he assure me that he will be able to keep costs down in the coming year, because those costs have risen so fast that this very large Review has had to be necessary. Finally, I should like to say that, from a technical point of view, it seems to me that the structure of this Review, introducing the levy system for the first time, is ingenious, and I hope that it may well prove a pattern for the future.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for their welcome of this Review. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked me a series of questions. He asked first, what proportion of the £138 million was in fact awarded in October. The answer to that is £54 million. He also asked how much the Exchequer support would be. My Lords, it is an increase of somewhere about £47 million—that is, of course, an estimate. If prices remain high, it may not be anything like so much as that. That does not include the £29 million which resulted from the October Review. He is quite right in saying that the ½p increase in the retail price of milk is per pint. This ½p is expected to cover production costs, the expenditure in connection with brucellosis eradication, and the distribution costs.
  The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked me whether these figures were agreed. The position is that the N.F.U. agreed that our calculations were correct in relation to the Statute, but they felt that there were other expenses outside the statutory ones which should have been taken into consideration; and this is where we disagreed. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, also asked me whether this is an agreed Review. While the N.F.U. do not in fact accept this as an agreed Award, they are satisfied with our calculations. But, basically, they felt we should have gone further.
  4.0 p.m.
  BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, am I to understand from the noble Earl that he is going to make another Statement on brucellosis to-day, after it has been made in another place?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: No, my Lords. There is not to be another Statement, but in both Houses there will be a Written Answer which will appear in Hansard to-morrow.*
  BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl a question. Is it in order for me to put a question about the statement on brucellosis? I should like to ask the noble Earl whether these changes are going to be limited to financial incentives. Can he tell me when the Government are going to start compulsory
  *See col. 553
  slaughtering? After all, that is most important in this matter. Other countries, smaller than ours, have done it for many years and of course have eradicated brucellosis. Therefore I should like to know what the Government propose.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not think I can go into great detail at this stage. It will be about 18 months before there is compulsory slaughter in the eradication areas, and that is because we felt it was essential to have the agreement of the industry to the progress that is to be made. The industry felt that a reasonable time was required to allow the farmers to adjust themselves and to make their preliminary arrangements, so that they would not be faced with slaughtering when there were probably no replacements available.
  BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that those who have been interested in this matter will deplore this decision? The Government have yielded to the most unprogressive clement in the National Farmers' Union, and instead of getting on with eradicating brucellosis, they are now going to wait a few more years. It really is deplorable.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I cannot accept that, because if we are going to slaughter these animals it is essential that replacements are available—and they will not be available. It would mean a considerable reduction in our dairy herds, and I do not think the country is in a position to stand that.
  LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, as a spokesman for the farm workers in this country may I welcome this Statement, which I think is very much on the right lines? I have one question that I should like to ask. For some years agriculture has been regarded as something for real team work between farmers and farm workers, and for years this arrangement has worked out very well. The only point was that farm workers never thought they received their fair share of the increases that were given to the industry. May I ask the noble Earl whether he can contact his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, to ensure that this time farm workers get their fair share of this increase which is to be made available?

  471
  Like the farmers, they have a splendid record of production in recent years, but they have not had a fair share of the increases that have been given. Will the noble Earl ask the Minister to see that this time farm workers are not left out in the cold but get their fair share of the increase?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl is aware, as I am, that there is perfectly good machinery for dealing with farm workers' wages, and, as he knows, there has been a very considerable increase very recently. I entirely support him in his remarks about the tremendously good work which the farm workers have done and are doing, and I am sure they will continue to do it. But I do not think it is for me to say to the Minister that because of this Review he should make special arrangements about farm workers' wages.
  LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, there is a fairly substantial increase—£138 million is the sum mentioned. All I am asking is that the farm workers are given their fair share of this.
  LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Earl say what part of this £138 million, expressed as a percentage, will be borne by increased prices to the consumer? The noble Earl said that only some £40 million-odd will be paid by the Treasury, and that will leave a great deal to be recovered. How much is it going to add to the cost of living?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord overall figures about the cost of living, but I can give him figures about the increase in the price of milk. From memory, I think it is one-third of 1 per cent. on the cost of living in relation to milk.
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I did not get an answer to the question—
  LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I wonder whether there can be a question from this side.
  LORD BESWICK: I am sorry, my Lords, but I did not get an answer to the question which I put.
  LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I have not yet had the chance to put a question.
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in that case the noble Lord is in the same position as I am, except that I have put a question and have not had an answer. May I ask the noble Earl whether he can say what proportion of the £138 million will be raised through the housewife, in respect of the increased costs of milk and sugar?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should have said that it means an increase of three-quarters of 1 per cent. in the case of milk. I am afraid that I do not have the figure in regard to sugar. Basically, there will not be any material increase—certainly, in the case of the levies on meat and cereals. As I said, I am afraid I do not have the figure for sugar, but I will let the noble Lord know as soon as I can.
  LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, if I may, and with your Lordships' agreement, I should like to put a question to my noble friend about sugar. As he has already said that he does not have the figures, I do not expect an answer now; but I am delighted at least to be able now to put my question. Can my noble friend explain to me why the British taxpayer should have to pay more money to the British farmer to produce more sugar beet at a time of world sugar surplus? Can he also explain why, at the same time, under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement the British taxpayer has to pay more money to Commonwealth sugar producers because of the sugar they are producing?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the noble Lord may certainly ask me, but I am afraid that I cannot answer him.
  LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I am much obliged.
  LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not a fact that £54 million of the £138 million, which he has quoted, was saved at the last Price Review and was provided by the last Labour Government? Will the noble Earl tell me whether it cost the Treasury anything to provide the £54 million in October, and was it not met out of savings from the last Price Review?

  473
  Secondly, does not sixpence on a gallon of milk produce £54 million; and is this not what the housewife will be faced with as a result of an increase of this kind? Is it not also true that £5 million or £6 million will be put on the cost of sugar beet, which must also be met by the consumer? So that, as a result of this Review, on those two items alone the consumer will have to find £60 million in increased costs. Perhaps the noble Earl will say that this is, in fact, a cost-minus Review rather than a cost-plus Review, in as much as feedingstuffs, which were previously included in annual Price Reviews and taken into consideration, have been left out of account on this occasion.
  Finally, when the noble Earl says that they propose to cut away the £10 million provided by the last Government as a fertiliser subsidy and to give a cash injection into the agricultural industry, may I ask whether he is now saying that they propose to bring that to a halt and put nothing at all in its place?
  EARL. ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I take the noble Lord's last point? As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, at the 1970 Review the previous Government said that that was purely for one year and would not be repeated. We have merely stuck to that, and I think it is right. Then did I understand the noble Lord to talk about 6d. extra on a pint?
  LORD HOY: I think the noble Earl said 2½ new pence.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: No, my Lords; one half of one new penny per pint.
  LORD HOY: I do not want to be at cross-purposes on this matter, but the Award in fact represents, in old coinage. 6d. per gallon—I think the noble Earl could confirm this from his advisers—and one penny (using the old penny for this purpose) in fact produces £9 million. So if my arithmetic is correct and I convert the 2½ new pence into six old pennies and multiply what it produces by nine, it makes £54 million.
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: I thought the noble Lord was talking about 6d. per pint.
  LORD HOY: No; per gallon.
  EARL, ST. ALDWYN: I agree; that is more in line. As I said, my Lords, the additional cost to the housewife, on the retail index, is three-quarters of 1 per cent., and this, we hope, will cover not only the production costs but the money involved in brucellosis eradication and the distribution costs.
  LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, as a farmer, I welcome the Statement made by the noble Earl, but I should like to ask him one point on milk. How much of this extra 2p a pint goes into the pocket of the producer and how much goes into the distributor's pocket? Because it has always seemed to me in the past that the distributor has come in for the bulk of any increase. There is another point that I should like to bring up, and that is that we are changing the system of farm subsidy and putting all the costs of the increase to the farmer on to the housewife. Now is that right at this time, in our financial state? I understand that it is most likely that the pound is again going to be devalued. I am not asking the noble Earl to comment on that, but if it is devalued—
  EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but we have spent a very long time on this Statement and perhaps he could put his question very shortly. We are not discussing the possible devaluation of the pound.
  BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, am I right in assuming that the increased cost index to the housewives is to acclimatise them to the possibility of our entering the Common Market?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not think it is a question of acclimatisation. We have said for a long time that we felt that a higher proportion of these costs should be borne by the consumer, and that is the effect of what we are doing.
  VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, has it been established that the housewife gets no benefit at all from a reduction of taxation? They do pay taxes.
  LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I put one brief question to the noble Earl on minimum import prices, on which, regrettably, he has been rather—shall I

  475
  say—hesitant? The cost of production of all livestock products depends to a large extent on the cost to the farmer of the food that he has to feed to that livestock. The cost of that food depends to a very large extent upon minimum import prices. At a given level of minimum import price, the figures which the noble Earl has announced may be adequate—they probably are adequate—but if that minimum import price is in fact going to be higher, those figures may be entirely inadequate. It is impossible for us to judge on this point unless the noble Earl tells us what the minimum import prices for grains are going to be. Could he give us that information?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the minimum import prices will be raised to an average of £3·50 per ton from July, 1971, and to a minimum of £6 from August, 1972, until December, 1972.
  LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am afraid I do not quite understand those figures. At the moment, speaking from memory, minimum import prices for wheat are in the neighbourhood of £24 a ton. When he says that they are going to be raised £2 or £3—
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: By that amount.
  LORD WALSTON: By £2 or £3. So there will be an increase of something over 10 per cent. in the minimum import price, and therefore, presumably, in all feeding-stuff costs.
  LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, will the noble Earl answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Nunburnholme about the proportion of the increase in the price of milk which will be paid to the producer?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: No, my Lords, I am afraid I cannot divide this amount into the proportions for which the noble Lord was asking; but I will try to get the figures for him.
  LORD STONHAM: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that this is a record Review, a marvellous Review, if you are a farmer, and a disastrous one if you are a consumer?
  EARL ST. ALDWYN: No, my Lords, I would not accept that. I think it is essential for this country to have a reasonably
  476
  profitable agricultural industry, and the increases that the consumer is involved in are really quite small.
  LORD BESWICK: My Lords, could I ask finally one easy question? Are we to take it that these increases in various items of food are in accordance with the pledge given by the Party opposite to reduce prices "at a stroke"?

SMOKING AND HEALTH
4.18 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD ROSENHEIM: My Lords, it had not been my intention to venture to speak in your Lordships' House until I was better versed in its great traditions. I cannot, however, remain silent on the subject of cigarette smoking, which offers us to-day the most challenging opportunity for real preventive medicine. I am well aware that it would be entirely wrong for me to embark upon any topic that was controversial, but there surely can no longer be any controversy about the widespread and appalling harm that results from smoking cigarettes.
My noble friend Lord Platt has outlined the contents of the second Report from the Royal College of Physicians, and has depicted the holocaust that results from smoking, and I would fully endorse his remarks. He was, of course, President of the Royal College in 1962, at the time of the first Report, and this Report was followed by an immediate decline in the smoking of cigarettes—a decline which was, unfortunately, ill-maintained. The present Report not only confirms the damage that is done by cigarette smoking, but carries a clear message of the benefits to health which follow from giving up this pernicious habit. My noble friend Lord Platt has given the figures of the results of the giving up of cigarettes by my own profession and the saving of life that has resulted from that.
In addition to the report from the World Health Organisation to which my noble friend Lord Aberdare referred, there has been a similar report from the United States Public Health Commission which again supports evidence of the dangers which result from cigarette smoking. At the World Health Organisation

477
Assembly in May, 1970, their report, with its far-reaching recommendations, was considered, and the Assembly resolved:
"That the Director General be requested to call the attention of all members and associate members to the report on the limitation of smoking and to suggest that the advantage of applying the recommendations made in this report should be considered in all countries."
My Lords, it is essential that every effort should be made to stop this widespread addiction and to control the present epidemics—and I was delighted to hear my noble friend Lord Aberdare use this term—of cancer of the lung, of chronic bronchitis and of coronary artery disease. I welcomed the statement made by Lord Aberdare, and I am delighted that the Government have taken the first steps towards the promotion of public health in this field. I hope that many further steps will follow. I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, suggest that smoking should be forbidden in public places rather than that certain areas should be set aside. How fine it would be if the atmosphere in cinemas were to become as pure, clean and unpolluted as the air in your Lordships' House!
We are, I believe, observing a slow change in social habits. This change must be encouraged and accelerated. It is now rare to see cigarette smokers in gatherings of doctors. Doctors have not only received the message but those who do smoke often look self-conscious, and, I suspect, feel guilty. This message must be spread far a field. The Health Education Council, under the chairmanship of Lady Birk, has been doing excellent work and the posters of that Council have been steadily improving in their impact. I am delighted to hear that a further grant is being made to the Health Education Council; but I would draw attention to the fact that 13 times as much is being spent on public education in road safety, although each year lung cancer kills four times as many people as do road accidents. While the Health Education Council is spending £100,000, millions of pounds are spent on promotion, on advertising and on coupon schemes.
If social attitudes are to change, a campaign must be launched and waged. The Royal College of Physicians, having published their Report, have sponsored
478
a new organisation, Action on Smoking and Health—ASH—and it hopes to unite the many voluntary and other bodies and individuals who are fighting against cigarette smoking. The aims of this organisation are simple: to provide information, to stimulate and promote research, to consult with other bodies concerned with smoking problems and to strengthen and harmonise their efforts; to influence public opinion-forming bodies, at present uninformed and unconcerned, and in fact to act as an authoritative voice to try to weld all these bodies into one mass movement to get a change in our habits.
Doctors are clearly setting a good example, but far too many still smoke cigarettes and far too few seize the opportunity to talk to and to persuade their patients when they meet them in consultation or in hospital. There is much room, I must admit, for further instruction of medical students, and also of other students and schoolchildren. Teachers and parents must be taught to set an example to the young; while business executives could well spend some time examining how much time is lost from work through ill-health, let alone the time taken on smoking cigarettes while on duty.
Much research is in progress in the search for a safer cigarette. This is clearly to be welcomed, and I trust that this research will prove successful. In the meantime, operational research is needed into why people should smoke and how they can be helped to stop. Such research, in my opinion, may lead to far greater saving of life than results from the more glamorous, more exciting and far more expensive laboratory research into the causes of cancer. We must no longer tolerate the unnecessary misery and years of ill-health that result from chronic bronchitis, the high toll of coronary diseases and preventable deaths from cancer of the lung. My Lords, we know how to slop these tragedies. The time has come to act.
4.27 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: My Lords, before I begin my speech, may I exercise the privilege that by tradition is accorded to someone who next follows a noble Lord who is speaking in this House for the first time? The privilege in this

479
case is to express to the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, our warm congratulations on his maiden speech for, if I may say so, its clarity and comparative brevity; and to express, as I am sure I can on behalf of all Members of your Lordships' House, our hope that we may have the pleasure of listening to him speak on many subjects in the future.
I must at the outset of what I have to say on the subject of this Motion declare an interest, in as much as I have had a long connection with the tobacco industry although not any active connection for the last 12 years. I am prompted by some of the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, to feel that in all honesty I must also declare a personal bias, because I have been a consistently heavy smoker all my life—at least from the age of 19; that is, for about 58 years. If I add to that the fact that to the best of my knowledge my health has not suffered there from, I should like to make it clear that I do not do so in order to suggest that I am one of the exceptions that prove the rule or that I am to be classed among those whom I think the noble Lord, Lord Platt, described as having a congenital ignorance of mathematics. Nor, on the other hand, would I claim for a moment that I am qualified to contest a medical opinion.
My purpose in addressing your Lordships to-day is not to state my personal convictions but rather to say something about the position of the manufacturers, so far as I know it, in regard to a question which for the last quarter of a century, ever since the first Doll and Hill Reports on the statistical association between smoking and lung cancer has caused them as well as—if not indeed more than—the general public very real concern, a concern that has by no means been confined to the actual or potential effect upon their trade.
Although, as I have indicated, I am not qualified to comment upon the medical conclusions contained in the recent Report of the Royal College of Physicians, I felt that because of my long experience in the industry, I had some obligation to speak to-day and, with that in view, to obtain as far as I could the facts about the manufacturers' attitude to the problem. To avoid any possible misunderstanding I ought to add that my intervention to-day
480
is not made at the suggestion of the manufacturers or of any one of them. But I hope that what I say, in the light of the information that I have been able to get, may contribute something to that part of the background, and the appreciation of that part of the background, to the problem.
From the outset—that is, as soon as the problem became known—manufacturers felt that the key to its solution must lie in scientific research to find whether there was, in tobacco or tobacco smoke, some identifiable agent which made smoking directly one of the causes, or a contributory cause, of lung cancer. If this could be found, they felt that it must be possible to deal with it; if not to eliminate it immediately, then progressively to render it innocuous.
With the co-operation of all the leading manufacturers in the country, the Tobacco Research Council was set up in 1956. I cannot say precisely what each individual manufacturer did, but I am, of course, familiar with what Imperial did. I can assure your Lordships that nothing that they could do has been left undone, and no expense has been spared. Directly, and indirectly, through the Tobacco Research Council, the manufacturers have kept in touch with research on this subject throughout the world; and from time to time they have supported financially not only work by the Medical Research Council on lung cancer but also particular research projects by many independent investigators which seemed promising and which were held up for lack of funds. The Tobacco Research Council set up in Harrogate, and staffed, a large research laboratory working solely on problems related to smoking and health. In addition, Imperial and its fellow manufacturers in the United Kingdom each carry out substantial health-related research on their own private account.
As time went on, my Lords, the results of the research undertaken or sponsored by individual manufacturers have been pooled for the common good, and the authorities have been kept informed of all that has been done. The manufacturers have welcomed, and would continue to welcome, any suggestions from medical scientists for further research. Apart from the scientific and medical conclusions of the new Report of the Royal

481
College of Physicians, there are various recommendations which, I think, fall naturally into three groups. First, there are those designed to increase the knowledge of members of the public and smokers generally on the subject; to develop safer smoking products and to enable those smokers who choose to continue to smoke to take into account all relevant information as to choice of product and as to what might in the generality of cases be safer smoking habits. Secondly, those designed to restrict the freedom of manufacturers to engage in cigarette brand advertising and sales promotion; and thirdly, fiscal measures, in particular differential taxation to discourage particular forms of smoking. There are some practical difficulties in the last, but in any event that recommendation, like some of the recommendations regarding schools, et cetera, falls, I think, strictly within the sphere of Government action.
The others, my Lords, are recommendations on which, to some degree, action by the industry is called for in the Report, and they have been the subject of detailed discussion between the manufacturers and the Department of Health and Social Security. I read this morning the Statement in answer to Questions, to which reference has been made to-day, which was made by the Secretary of State for Social Services in another place, and which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, repeated in your Lordships' House last evening. As has already been said, that Statement refers to the responsible and helpful way in which manufacturers have approached these discussions with the Government, defining the area of agreement which has been reached at this point, and including, most importantly as I see it, the establishment of a Standing Scientific Liaison Committee.
The Statement does not, however, deal with advertising, save in the context that advertising can be used for the promulgation of a warning on health risks. Yet, as the extent of advertising is commented on in the Report, and as it is a not unimportant part of the background, I felt that I ought to obtain some information on the subject; and the facts, as I understand them, are these. There has not been for many years any advertising designed to induce people to smoke, to induce smokers to smoke more or to appeal especially to young people. This
482
policy has been operated under a voluntary code of practice agreed by the industry and policed by the independent Code of Advertising Practice Committee.
The advertising, my Lords, is strictly grand advertising. Considerable sums are spent on advertising, but then the industry is a large one and highly competitive. I believe that currently the total cost of advertising is approximately one-fifth of a new penny per packet of 20. The Report states in paragraph 9.27:
"Banning cigarette advertisements from television was not followed by any general reduction in smoking but it was accompanied by a great increase in gift coupon schemes that could have nullified any effect of the ban."
It goes on to say:
"Increased expenditure on sales promotion has not been associated with any great increase in cigarette consumption."
My Lords, I have no wish to over elaborate this point, but I think it only fair to say, first, that there is no direct connection between the cessation of television advertising and the growth in popularity of coupon brands. The growth of coupon brands began in the late 1950s and was accelerated by the 1961 duty increase. In July, 1965, when television advertising of cigarettes ceased, coupon brands had already obtained 22 per cent. of the total market. Secondly, that the circumstance chiefly responsible for the growth of coupon brands at the expense of non-coupon brands has been the general rise in prices and reduction in disposable incomes; and thirdly, that in the last 10 years, as I think was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—though he did not give specific figures—the total consumption of tobacco in cigarettes in this country has in fact decreased by some 12½ per cent.
I think that there can be no question that the reason for this decrease is a combination of higher duty, with other costs rising and with less money available; and a consequent change to smaller cigarettes, and from plain cigarettes to fitler-tipped cigarettes against the general background of an increasing awareness of health risks. Manufacturers have given the Government their reasons for believing that banning or restricting advertising would seriously reduce the effectiveness of inter-brand competition without affecting the total consumption of cigarettes.

483
As to the remaining recommendations in the new Report, I can say, in the first place, that manufacturers cannot, and do not, have any quarrel whatsoever with action by the Government or educational agencies to ensure the widest possible dissemination of the facts relating to smoking and health; always provided that any such educational programmes are conducted with due regard to the need for the information given to be factual. As has already been referred to, they have discussed constructively with the Government ways and means by which, without infringement of the accepted canons of advertising, they themselves could convey on advertising material and on packings a warning which the Government considered appropriate.
I understand that the accumulated research results now indicate with increasing certainty that the constituents of cigarette smoke which cause lung cancer in laboratory animals are to be found in the fraction which is called tar, and not in any other fraction of the total smoke. Incidentally, my Lords, I think it only right to say that the most significant contribution to research in this area has come from the tobacco industry; notably the work conducted by the Tobacco Research Council at the Harrogate research laboratories. In this connection there is a reference in the Report to the evidence now becoming available in the United States that lung cancer mortality risk is reduced for those smokers who, in a relatively short space of time change from plain cigarettes with higher than average tar yield to filter cigarettes with lower than average tar yield. And it is significant that surveys in the United States have indicated little tendency for smokers who change to cigarettes with reduced tar and nicotine delivery to smoke more of them, to smoke more of each cigarette, or to inhale more.
Having regard to the prevalence of the habit, and to the satisfaction tobacco smoking brings to some, at least, this latest evidence could be very important. Manufacturers have already taken effective action towards reducing tar content in the smoke delivery of their brands and, in conjunction with medical scientists, will seek to effect further reductions. I am informed that the average tar yield of cigarette brands manufactured in the
484
United Kingdom has in fact declined by about 30 per cent. over the last six years, and this is largely the result of steps which have been taken substantially to reduce the tar yield of filter cigarette brands.
These facts are clearly relevant to the recommendation of the new Report of the Royal College of Physicians that the tar and nicotine yield of cigarette brands should be published for the information of smokers. As I have said, the manufacturers are ready, if this is the wish of the Secretary of State, when all the facts have been appraised by Government, to collaborate in regard to the publication by the authorities of cigarette brand tar and nicotine yield data, provided only that these data are presented by the authorities in a way that clearly delimits their significance in relation to the health of smokers. The Report of the Royal College of Physicians suggests that any statements regarding the possibility of reduction of risk through reduction in cigarette brand tar and nicotine yield should be accompanied by an authoritative medical statement that the only sure way to avoid risk is not to smoke. It would seem, my Lords, in the present state of knowledge, that concentration on this tar problem might well prove to be of cardinal importance.
May I say, in conclusion, that I believe it to be true of the general body of manufacturers, as it is certainly true of Imperial, that they do not presume (because they are not qualified) to contest medical judgment on the interpretation of factual statistical data relating to smoking and health; nor do they make specific or implied health claims for any of their products. While they would naturally feel that their freedom to make and sell a product which can be legally acquired by the public should not be restricted beyond an extent which can be shown objectively and impartially to be necessary to protect the public health, they themselves would spare no expense, or relax in any way their efforts, to pursue and help others to pursue research into the reduction and eventual elimination of any elements in their products which are found to be harmful. And they welcome most warmly the announcement of the Secretary of State to appoint the new Standing Scientific Liaison Committee, comprising scientists from the

485
industry and scientists and doctors appointed by the Department of Health and Social Security.
4.44 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I am tempted to challenge many of the statements made by the noble Lord, but I am anxious to devote the time at my disposal to something more constructive. There is, however, one point on which I really must comment. I was astonished to hear the noble Lord say that the tobacco industry did not use advertisements designed to encourage young people to smoke. I would direct the noble Lord's attention to a full page coloured advertisement in the Daily Express last week, depicting a lovely young girl, wearing a huge luxury hat and against a luxurious background. Protruding from her mouth was a long cigarette, with a filter tip, of course, because that is deliberately designed to give the reader confidence. I ask the noble Lord to examine some of these advertisements, and I am sure that when he next comes to address the House on this subject he will not be quite so frivolous.
I want to thank my noble friend Lord Platt for his excellent exposition of this Report. The only item that he omitted—and after the last speech I am sorry he did—was his own personal description of manufacturers of cigarettes and tobacco. He refrained, he said, because he might be tempted to use language that the House might object to. Next time I hope he will not be so sensitive. I want to thank also the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim. Here we have the hero of the hour, because the noble Lord, as the President of the Royal College of Physicians, was the Chairman of the Committee which was responsible for this Report. He and I met many years ago when I was at the Ministry of Food, and I was grateful for his help and advice. I learned then that he was a man of integrity who had at heart the public weal. Perhaps I may voice just one criticism. I feel that the Royal College of Physicians has at its command the finest brains in medicine. They are only too anxious to help on this subject of cigarette smoking and others. But I feel that their public relations department is not sufficiently strong, and I am glad to hear that the noble Lord is going to strengthen it. After all the time, energy
486
and money spent, I want not only the people in this country but the people of the whole world to know the findings of his Committee.
In parenthesis (the noble Lord will forgive me for mentioning this, but it is an excellent opportunity) I should like to remind him of another committee which was very similar to this one, because it was to inquire into the effects of boxing on health. Seven years have been taken over that subject, and I understand that it was only when he became President that he expedited the matter. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and I took part in a debate on a Bill to prohibit boxing, which I tried to pilot through the House, and it was then decided that the Royal College of Physicians should examine the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, has told the House (and I am very pleased about it) that he is setting up a committee—ASH—for action on smoking and health. May I ask him to set up one also for A.B.H.—for action on boxing and health? Who knows but that if his public relations committee had been a little bigger and stronger Henry Cooper might have been persuaded not to go into the ring last night. There are these other questions which need publicising, and I am sure that if the nobl3 Lord needs any help in any direction many of us would be only too glad to assist him with ideas about public relations.
I propose to make some suggestions—and I was pleased to hear this afternoon that one of my suggestions has already been acted upon on television. Some of us are old enough to recall the vigour with which Governments years ago tackled tuberculosis, which had reached epidemic proportions. As dried sputum was known to transmit the disease, notices were put in all public places. Perhaps some of your Lordships remember the notices in buses.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: Yes.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am sure my noble friend is too young to remember them. But I see the noble Earl, Lord Arran, assenting, and I am sure he is old enough. The notices read: "Fine for spitting, £5." As I sat in buses

487
and looked at those notices I said to myself: "This is an excellent idea. For hours and hours on buses people look at this notice." The interesting thing is that as a result of that notice, spitting, except perhaps among nasty people, is no longer a habit in this country. This derives from the fact that we conditioned the people of the day—they did not know anything about dried sputum transmitting T.B.—into behaving in such a way. What I suggest to-day is that we should condition people with regard to smoking. Why have the Government and their predecessors failed to prohibit smoking in public places? We have heard to-day that it is going to be done in parts of public places. Is it going to be suggested that in the cinema there will be a notice in the circle, "No smoking up here", but that smoking will be permitted downstairs, and the smoke will go up in the air and be breathed by people in the circle? Is is very difficult to localise smoke and therefore I listened to the Minister with a little doubt in my mind when he said that in certain areas we should not allow smoking.
If we believe so sincerely in this, why do we not to-day say that we will set an example by prohibiting smoking in the Committee Rooms of your Lordships' House? To be absolutely radical I am leaving out the Library; I am even leaving out the Dining Room. But why should we not start in our Committee Rooms? No noble Lord says here that we must smoke: we seem to be debating quite effectively without having to smoke. Let us start, and tell the country that we have started. At the moment it is a little embarrassing. The silent majority have to endure the discredited practices of the few, and the few now have become a little embarrassed about it. But they are such addicts that it is difficult to control them unless you say, "Thou shalt not smoke here", and I hope the Minister will consider that.
Recently we were considering aspects of drug addiction and quite rightly—I think Lord Rosenheim said this—we must regard the cigarette addict as equally in need of our help. As I look round here I know one or two noble Lords who smoke, and I feel that I ought to be looking at the ceiling. Most
488
smokers are nervous individuals, anxious to present to the world a calm, confident front which they do not possess. The result is that the very act of smoking becomes a symptom of the disease. A man will say, "It is not the smoke I want, but I must have something to fiddle with in my fingers." Those of us who have been to the Middle East have seen them using "worry beads". A good Muslim is not allowed to smoke. He feels nervous; he does not feel confident, and his Government, or his religion, very cleverly provided him with something; and he sits there with his little "worry beads". I know a man who has given up smoking, and he always has coins in his pocket which he twiddles; and it helps him.
Those of us who are anxious to prohibit smoking are not unaware of the difficulties of the smoker but, having said that, I must add that I believe we are wasting our time a little on older people. I feel that they are beyond our help, because habits are very difficult to change. For instance, as I came into this Chamber to-day one noble Lord said to me, "Why will you try to deny me my method of euthanasia?". My Lords, what can one say to that? I long to take him into a cancer ward and let him see cancer of the lung. But that was his approach. Nothing we say here to-day, I believe, will make any difference to the smoking habits of the noble Lords who listen to us. We must concentrate on youth.
I was impressed with regard to the methods of advertising. I am going to talk about what I think should be the approach by referring to a dinner that I went to some years ago. It was arranged by an international organisation; I was in the chair, and an American senator sat on my right. He lit cigarettes between the courses and after coffee I toasted the Queen, and I then said, "Ladies and Gentlemen, you may now smoke". The senator was covered with confusion. He apologised, and asked me that when I visited the United States the following month not to mention the incident to his wife. Now, my Lords, his confusion was due to the fact that he realised he had committed a social gaffe, not to the fact that I and his neighbour had to inhale with our dinner his stale exhaled smoke which completely ruined our meal. No

489
apology was forthcoming for that, only because he had made a mistake regarding social convention.
Here, I believe, lies the key to effective advertising which those men and women in the advertising world who are employed to prostitute their talents to increase smoking understand full well. I described the picture of the lovely girl with a luxurious background with a long slim cigarette on her lower lip. These massive advertisements, with glamorous girls and unisex boys, always display luxurious backgrounds, indicating that social standing and sexual attraction are associated with smoking. We have to tackle it in the same way. Why do the Government not embark on an equally massive advertising campaign to disprove this false image and present the true picture? I must confess that I do not think there are any reliable statistics which prove that smoking reduces sexual potency, so we cannot go as far as that. But I want the Government to be bold, to make it clear to the young that the first loving approaches to one of the opposite sex cannot be highly successful if one of the couples smells of stale tobacco.
I welcome Lord Platt. I listened to every word when he said to noble Lords, "I cannot tell any difference between those of you who smoke and those who do not, except that you smell." I was going to say it, but I thought to myself, "Dare I?". When Lord Platt said it I thought, "That is all right; I can emphasise it". The olfactory sense is the sense that soon becomes fatigued and the result is that the smoker cannot smell himself. I am sorry, smokers, these are absolute facts, and the chain-smoker exhales smoke with his breath and exudes it through his skin; and doctors know the chain-smoker. When the chain-smoker who has done a hard job of work all day takes off his shirt, it smells of tainted sweat. Here is the real picture of the smoker. His teeth become discoloured; his conjunctæ become yellow, and his fingers are stained; his moist cough accompanies his unattractive lovemaking. Well, my Lords, this is what you have to do to counter this pernicious advertising of the manufacturers across the road.
To-day, I agree, the girl is smoking more—I am not apologising for my sex: she is smoking more. There are other
490
factors. She meets the boy friend who is doing pretty well. He is a heavy smoker, and she learns after a time that he likes the person with him to smoke, because if the person with him does not smoke it accentuates the fact that he is doing something which he has been told is dangerous. I think that we have to relate some of the increase in smoking among girls to this. In some cases the girl recognises the addict, and she joins him with a cigarette out of sympathy. As regards the luxurious background, I want the Ministry not only to have this picture of the individual, as the real smoker is, but also to have the picture that the home smells of the heavy smoker; that signs of ash on the carpet, the signs of ash in the ashtray, are really not attractive. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Platt. I do not know what the young mothers will do when they fully appreciate that smoking during pregnancy not only retards the growth of the fԓtus—and tremendous publicity should be given to this—but leads to a greater risk of an abortion.
My Lords, I see one welcome change at this debate: non-smokers have become less tolerant of smokers, and smokers are on the defensive and showing signs of self-criticism. That is why the Government can step in with excellent advertising. What they find difficult to accept—and I was very surprised when my noble friend Lady Serota talked about the smugness of people getting up and speaking on this subject—is that those trying to solve this problem are not killjoys; on the contrary, they are simply trying to promote the general wellbeing.
I just want to say this, to add my experience of what good advertising might be. On my first visit to the Soviet Union, many years ago, I brought home a propaganda poster on this subject. It showed the family in a small room, with father puffing away, and the children doing their homework in a cloud of smoke. I am quite certain that that did not do any good because the true addict, I am sorry to say, is not concerned with the welfare of his family. If he were, he would avoid smoking, which would result in his premature death with consequent disastrous results on his dependent family.
Although we have heard to-day from two noble Lords, Lord Platt and Lord

491
Rosenheim, emphasising cancer of the lung, chronic bronchitis and coronary thrombosis, I think we should repeat time after time that smoking has a causative link with chronic bronchitis, emphysema, coronary thrombosis, angina pectoris, cancers of the lung, mouth, pharynx, larynx, ԓsophagus and bladder, and also with pulmonary tuberculosis. This should be repeated time after time, otherwise there are those fatalists who say, "Cancer of the lung; after all, I have to die of something." Tell them the lot in an advertisement. Let them realise that they are vulnerable to half a dozen diseases; that any of these can occur in middle life, and that a smoker's premature death can condemn a wife and dependent children to a lower standard of living. I believe that powerful propaganda, which disproves the seductive statements of the tobacco advertisers, is the most effective approach to the problem.
My last words, my Lords, are on money. All this needs money. I would invite people to look at The Times to-day to see what I call dangerous advertisements put in by the wealthy drug manufacturers. These are now called Fison's. Fison's were not making sufficient profit out of the insecticides, and so on; so now they turn to drugs. If one wants to see the wicked effect of advertising on the reader, look at The Times to-day. We should be told, on the subject of money, whether the failure to provide adequate funds is due to the Government's fear of antagonising the electorate or to the Treasury's fear of losing revenue. Whatever it is, we should recognise that the price which we shall have to pay by the 1980s, if Governments continue to evade their duty, will be 80,000 premature deaths a year from the effects of smoking.
5.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, may I first of all explain that I live in one of those outlandish parts of the country where there is the inevitable early last train home? If, therefore, I am not in my place at the end of the debate, I hope I shall be absolved from any discourtesy. When my contemporaries and I were at school there was one stock sentence which we had to translate, or try to translate, into Latin. It went in the form of a question: "Is he a knave or a fool?"
492
I think, having heard what I am going to say, your Lordships will probably unanimously say of me, "Both". I will tell you the reason why. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, has risen to the very heights of his profession—a profession which we all revere and admire, and to which most of us have at one time or another had reason to be grateful. Yet, having read the Report (my copy is well thumbed), frankly I do not think the case is completely and utterly proved.
The other day the noble Lord, Lord Platt, addressed your Lordships and referred to atheism. I am not going quite so far as that, but I must confess that I am still at this moment an agnostic. I do not want my words this evening to be in any way carping criticism. I read this Report very carefully; in fact my copy is so well thumbed that probably I shall not be able to find the places that I want to refer to in a minute. There are certain statements and certain figures which I think need querying, and there are certain answers which I think need to be given before it is possible to get this across to the man in the street, of whom I am a simple example.
First of all, at page 48 you find a statement to the effect that cancer of the lung is almost entirely due to cigarette smoking. Nine Committees or Commissions have said "Yes" to this proposition. There are a number of individuals, referred to as a "small number" (there are 10 of them, including the redoubtable Professor Eysenck), who say, "No". I should like that question to be cleared up. It can probably be said that there are nine Committees or Commissions and 10 individuals; that there are probably three persons to each Committee or Commission, and that nine Commissions are far better than 10 individuals. But the 10 individuals include famous people—I have mentioned the name of one—who could give the man in the street a little cause for doubt.
I turn to bronchitis and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to read a small part of this Report. At page 75, it says this:
"Deaths attributed to bronchitis are more frequent in the British Isles than anywhere else in the world, even in countries with equally high consumption of cigarettes."

493
Over the page, a few lines down it says:
"The Report on Air Pollution by the Royal College of Physicians concluded that life-long exposure to air heavily polluted by coal smoke in particular contributes to the special liability of British cigarette smokers to develop severe bronchitis."
Note those words, my Lords: "life-long exposure to air heavily polluted by coal smoke". I should like to have an up-to-date comment on that point, because to-day, with our smokeless areas, less coal is being burnt. I think there might be second thoughts on this matter.
Then on the same page there is another matter which needs to be cleared up, It says:
"Deaths from bronchitis in unskilled labourers and their wives (social class V) are five times more frequent than in professional men and their wives (social class I) … The reason for this … remains obscure."
I would urge that more research be devoted to this aspect to find out exactly why.
Then we come on to this great question as to whether, and if so why, pipes and cigars are less harmful than cigarettes. There is a statement about this on page 54. Reports in this country, and in the U.S.A. and Canada, say that pipes and cigars are better for us than cigarettes. On the other hand, reports in Germany and Switzerland say that pipes and cigars are worse than cigarettes. Again, where does one go from here? Incidentally, at page 61, the Report says that further study is needed in this respect.
There is another matter to which it would be helpful to have an answer. I have said that I am a fool; I am very ignorant about these matters, and I am merely asking questions. But at page 40 the Report says something which I did not know; that is, that pipe and cigar smoke are alkaline, whereas cigarette smoke is acid. Why? Having been in the paper trade for over forty years, I wonder whether it has anything to do with the paper. If so, cannot something be done about the paper? I was not concerned with manufacturing cigarette paper—a very different kind of paper was made by my firm—but I knew someone who for twenty years was manager of a factory which manufactured cigarette paper and he used to tell me of all the stringent tests and specifications which
494
had to apply to the paper he manufactured.
In passing, he mentioned one point some years ago which I do not see referred to in this Report. In his belief, pipe smoking was healthier than cigarette smoking, and he thought that that was partly due to temperature. According to him, when one draws on a cigarette, a pipe or a cigar, the temperature at the lighted end is the extraordinary figure of 1500°C. Of course, the smoke very soon cools off to a much lower temperature than that, but if it has to go through a pipe or a thick cigar there is a much better chance of smoke becoming cool before it enters the mouth compared with an ordinary cigarette.
Next I would raise the question of experiments. Many of them have been carried out on rats and mice. My wife and I live in a pretty old house which we share with a lot of rats and a lot of mice, but we do not allow them to smoke so we have had no chance of experimenting for ourselves. But the question I should like to put seriously is this. Are the appropriate organs in rats and mice similar to human organs? Does the effect of nicotine and the other substances in tobacco on rats and mice correspond to the effect in human beings? In this connection, let me point out the position regarding the famous poison Warfarin, which, except for a small immune colony on the Welsh Marshes, is fatal to rats and mice. I am informed (although, again, I have not tried it) that a human being can eat bucketfuls of Warfarin without being harmed. Here is the point. Are rats and mice the appropriate animals on which to try out experiments so that they give the same results as would be obtained from those carried out on human beings?
On the question of drugs, on pages 113 and 114 of the Report it is stated:
"There appears to be no risk of addiction to other drugs in those who stop smoking."
I have said twice that I am a fool, but I am not such a fool as to believe everything I read or see published. But this statement in the Report is quite contrary to what we have been led to believe from public statements and other statements in pint. Anybody who saw B.B.C. television News last Monday will have been horrified by what is happening in

495
New York in this connection—if that report is true, which it may not be.
I now make one more reference to something which could possibly improve cigarette smoking. On page 38 of the Report reference is made to filters, and on pages 53 and 54 to filter-tipped cigarettes. They appear to be regarded favourably, but no definite conclusions have been reached. It is important that an attempt should be made to reach a conclusion in this connection. I have in my hand a small apparatus. I smoke filter-tip cigarettes through the holder I have in my hand. In this holder is a crystal filter—I am keeping my thumb firmly over the white dot, otherwise I might be accused of advertising. What I want to know is whether it is safer to smoke a filter-tipped cigarette through a holder containing a filter than to smoke a non-tipped cigarette without a holder.
Finally, my Lords, I wish to make two suggestions. Before your Lordships comment on the first I hope that you will hear me out as I want to explain a difficulty. On page 134 of the Report reference is made to cigarette brands with a low content of tar and of nicotine. I had no idea there were different contents of tar and nicotine. However, a question which I wrote down in your Lordships' Library a week ago is this: Could not brands with low contents of these substances be publicised and even, if I may be hopeful, be relieved of some taxation? I was rather pleased with that suggestion, but in the last 24 hours my noble friend Lord Aberdare came out with the statement that the question of tar and nicotine content was going to be looked into and that the amount of tar and nicotine in various brands was going to be publicised. If he will be kind enough to believe that I wrote this idea down a week ago, I certainly will not accuse him of cribbing it over my shoulder in the Library. My second suggestion is that there should be—I have asked for it already—more research into filters and filter-tipped cigarettes. To that, my Lords, I would only add that I have no interest, financial or otherwise, in the manufacture, distribution or sale of cigarettes or any type of tobacco.
5.17 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I should like to add my expression of
496
gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, who is presently President of the Royal College of Physicians, for putting us so greatly in their debt. It is very encouraging that it is the medical profession themselves who have indicated in two successive and extremely well documented Reports their concern over this problem, and that it is they who are putting pressure upon the Government and the public to pay heed to, and to follow, their recommendations. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Brock, or the noble Lord, Lord Platt, in speaking again, may be able to answer some of the questions put by the noble Viscount, Lord Monck. But I would entirely support Lord Monck in his plea that greater efforts should be carried out in research, and that we should try to obtain even more authoritative answers to some of the detailed points which the noble Viscount has out before us.
However, I should have thought that on the main question there really is no doubt whatsoever. I say this because I have to declare an interest which, so far at least, no one in this debate has declared. I nursed my husband who died of lung cancer. I know what is entailed in human terms. Needless to say, when I was informed of the condition of his health I had long talks with the consultant surgeon at the great London teaching hospital where he was examined before he came home. From what I was told, I have no doubt whatever that the medical profession themselves are absolutely convinced of the causal connection between cigarette smoking over a period and the onset of lung cancer. One of the particularly distressing factors in lung cancer is that frequently one does not have the diagnosis until it is too late to do anything about it. Therefore, since that time, for both personal and public reasons, I have done as much as a lay person can do to try to inform myself of the position, and do anything I can to help.
It seems to me that there are certain more optimistic facets of this question than perhaps my noble friend Lady Summerskill suggested. She suggested that no one beyond a particular age, which she did not specify, could hope for redemption. But one of the most

497
helpful comments in this Report is the suggestion that those who give up cigarette smoking over a period of five years or so (the period obviously varying for individuals) provided that no malignancy has already started, can very largely hope to overcome the effects of their earlier addiction. Therefore there is hope, and, as I understand it, it is sensible, even at a relatively advanced age, to give up. It is interesting that in the United States of America a quite significant proportion of smokers seem to have changed their habits. This is something about which we should all rejoice.
I should now like to say one or two words about a group to whom the noble Lord, Lord Platt, particularly referred, that is women smokers, because they are on the increase. It appears from such investigations as have taken place so far that if a woman becomes an habitual smoker—statistically at any rate—it is more difficult for her to give up later on than it is for a man. I do not understand the reason for this, but perhaps we may be enlightened later in the debate. If one looks at the investigations which have been made on a wide scale in the United States of America into younger women smoking, one finds that women aged between 24 and 35, if they tried to stop and in fact did stop for a short time, were more apt than others to revert. This is distressing, and I would so warmly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and my noble friend Lady Summerskill said about the advertising which is now being carried on by the tobacco companies. To my mind, there is no doubt whatever that the nobler Lord, Lord Platt, is perfectly correct in his assumption that they have realised that this group is a possible growing market for tobacco products and therefore this is the market to which their advertising is currently being aimed.
Concerned as one is with smoking among women, my far greater concern is with young people and with children—and I mean children; I do not mean even adolescents. Yesterday I was able to speak to Professor Holland, who is in charge of the research now being undertaken by St. Thomas's Hospital with, I am happy to say, some financial support from the Department of Health and Social Security. As some of your Lord
498
ships will know, this unit is about to undertake further investigations among schoolchildren in the Midlands, following the large scale investigation which they undertook a couple of years ago in Kent, where more than 10,000 schoolchildren were examined and were questioned concerning their smoking habits. As a result of these investigations the conclusion was reached that among children of 11 years of age somewhere between 10 and 15 per cent. of the boys and about 5 per cent. of the girls were already smoking regularly, and that the respiratory condition of some of these children gave evidence of that fact. I asked Professor Holland "Where did you start? Did you start investigating smoking habits?" He said "Oh no! I started on respiratory disease, and it was as a result of my investigations that I came to the conclusion that what was needed was an investigation into the smoking habits of children".
Taking a slightly older age group, of between 11 and 16, the investigators came to the conclusion that by the time children reach the age of 16 some 30 to 40 per cent. of the boys and some 25 per cent. of the girls are already smoking. This surely must cause us the very gravest disquiet. Something which is equally disturbing is that the investigations which have been made into the effect of propaganda on children of this age show that it is virtually negligible. It is water off a duck's back. It makes no impression at all. Apparently we have not yet found the way to understand the motivation of young children sufficiently to be able to devise satisfactory counter-propaganda with children of this age. The fact that they might die at the age of 50 instead of 60 has no meaning whatsoever at that age. The fact that their future wives and children may be left penniless again obviously has no effect whatsoever on a child of that age. Therefore, clearly one must have quite a different approach.
I hope very much that the Health Education Council, of which my noble friend Lady Birk is such a distinguished chairman, will be given far greater resources than it has enjoyed hitherto. We have not been given any order of magnitude of the help which the Government are making available, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, recognises that there is a tremendous job in research,

499
education and advertising to be undertaken if we are to tackle this matter seriously.
I was quite startled when I began to study this problem, to find that at this very early age there is already a direct correlation between smoking and respiratory symptoms, and that the influence of cigarette smoking is already significant and independent of other social and environmental factors which one could isolate. It is also recognised that the smoking habits of children are almost unaffected by current propaganda, and one must ask oneself how else can one hope to deal with this problem here and now before more elaborate research is done.
I would suggest, my Lords, that example is really the most potent weapon that we have. I have had a good deal of correspondence and various conversations with people since I made a broadcast to which a certain amount of attention was drawn, and I have been astonished at parents of children—mostly teenage children—who have said to me "Well, of course we have told them everything, but they still smoke". I have asked "Have you stopped smoking?" All too often the answer is "No". But the parents hope that the children will believe them, when I am certain that the reaction of the children (whether or not they say this in so many words) will be "Surely they must be hypocrites, because if they really believed all that they are telling us they would not smoke themselves". This seems to me to be a most important matter, and one of the directions in which our propaganda should be pointed. A man or a woman may not stop for their own sake, but they may for their children's sakes, and I think this is better than merely trying to horrify people by the results of lung cancer or other physical consequences.
The other group of people who are in a position to influence children are, of course, the teachers. One of the interesting things in the investigation into the smoking habits of schoolchildren was that so far as one could judge schools with comparable social structures and environmental positions nevertheless varied enormously in the incidence of children who were smoking. Therefore there really must be something in the
500
influence of the staff and the general atmosphere in those schools. If the school is a happy school, in which the children are thoroughly interested and excited by what they are doing, then I suppose smoking is much less likely to be prevalent than in schools where possibly the atmosphere or the teaching situation is not so satisfactory.
I think it is in this area that possibly our greatest efforts should lie, and I hope very much indeed that the very small steps which the Government have so far taken are only the first. I realise that it is the first step which counts, and I welcome that: but I hope very much that the Government will not now weary in well doing, having once taken up this cause. One television crash programme, excellent as it may be, is just not enough, because the effect wears off. This must be a continuous process—changing the techniques, changing the approach from time to time, but a continuous process.
I also hope very much that the Government will take much more seriously some of the other suggestions made in the Report: for example, as I have been speaking more especially about the effect on children, the banning in public places of vending machines, because this is, after all, where most children get cigarettes. It seems to me that if we are serious about this problem something of this sort must surely be done.
I come to my final point, because I know that other noble Lords with greater authority than I wish to speak. I fail to understand the Government's attitude towards legislation. The noble Lord used the words "threat of legislation hanging over the head of the industry". If the industry is really proposing to do what we hope it will do, I do not see what it has to fear from legislation which just sets out this requirement in an orderly way and makes sure that there is universal compliance. I myself have no fears of proper legislation, and I was disturbed to be informed just a few hours ago that the Minister representing the Government on the Committee on the Bill now before another Place declared his absolute neutrality and said in effect, that he had no interest in helping the Bill. Quite frankly to me this seems regrettable.

501
I hope that the Government will not turn their back on legislation in other fields where it is required, and if nobody else does it, I will myself attempt to enlist your Lordships' support on this matter of vending machines in public places. I think this is a social responsibility that we should take seriously. This does not need research; this is common sense and social concern. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, when, by leave, he replies to the debate, can perhaps give a little more positive assurance on some of these matters.
5.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, there is little left for me to say, but as I introduced the debate on the first Report of the Royal College of Physicians I think I should say something. I feel very strongly about these things. Your Lordships may remember that I introduced the debate on the first Report eight years ago, and I have been waiting and waiting desperately for some results from the wise things, the warnings, indeed the diatribes which we had in the House on that day. But perhaps I should first declare an interest. I am the beneficiary of a trust which owns tobacco shares. I have pleaded with my trustees to rid me of this incubus, but from their point of view, no doubt correctly, they retain my small shareholding. In other words, and I speak factually and not emotionally, I regard myself as an unwitting accessory to manslaughter, as indeed should all those who own tobacco stocks and still more the directors of the companies who control these slaughterhouses. Carmen did much more harm in her tobacco factory than she ever did in the bullring. Your Lordships will note that I naturally absolve those who work in these abbatoirs. They know not what they do, and, after all, it is a job like any other job, and jobs matter these days, matter indeed perhaps more than they have for the past forty years.
I am going on the basis that it is now generally accepted by the House, and by almost everybody I can think of, that cigarette smoking kills people. I defy any noble Lord to get up and say that this is not so. I am perfectly certain no one will. And I am happy that we have not had our attention diverted by the likelihood, beloved by the tobacco manufacturers, that diesel fumes also kill. It
502
may well be so, but that has nothing whatever to do with the business we are discussing this afternoon. It is an entirely separate issue.
My Lords, 31,000 premature deaths associable with smoking is a lot of deaths. I am always amazed by the fuss justifiably made over deaths on the road, in the Press and in Parliament, which, as I am never tired of telling your Lordships, was last year for the first time higher than in 1934 when there were ten times fewer motor cars on the roads. My Lords, 7,000 deaths is a lot of deaths; 31,000 is a lot more, four and a half times as many indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, pointed out. And yet I am afraid we still do virtually nothing.
After the "pasting" given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, then Leader of the House, to the tobacco industry last time, one might have thought that some consciences at least might have been stirred. And, indeed, in the very fear that consciences would be stirred, the value of tobacco stocks dropped some £30 million more or less overnight. But the death wish which is evident at the moment in other spheres of human activity proved stronger than the wish to survive, and the shares quickly picked up again. With even more contempt, incidentally, have the latest Government proposals been regarded by investors, so that shares have hardly been affected by the new regulations so much as by one new penny, and that in an upward direction. Clearly they are relieved; clearly they are laughing at the Government.
Do your Lordships really believe that the fact that a packet will henceforth carry a small warning, a mild warning, will make the slightest difference? Do your Lordships look at the cigarette packet or the chocolate box when you open it? We light up our cigarettes and we shall go on lighting them. Is this really a step forward? Who shall our immediate target be? It has been made abundantly clear—but I believe in the Goebbels technique of saying a thing over and over again—as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, that it is far harder to give up smoking than never to start. That is almost platitudinous. I ask your Lordships to consider this, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, asked us to do. At this moment there are boys and girls of 13 and 14 and less who, through sheer

503
incredulity (or could it be stupidity?) are bringing on themselves the torments of thirty or forty years ahead. How can we expect these young people to know what they are laying in store for themselves? And how on earth shall we possibly sway them? It may even be indeed that they are right; it may well be that by the time they reach the cancer age—I speak loosely; all ages are cancer ages—that a cure or a preventative will have been found so that these follies of their youth will count for nothing.
I pray God that this may be so, but I must remind your Lordships that, even though some progress has been made, we have been hearing talk of cancer cures just around the corner for the past fifty or sixty years and still have not got the complete answer. Meanwhile, these young people must take their chance. And who is to prevail on them? Who can persuade them that the sunshine of a bright spring morning will one day turn into the bitterness of a withered autumn? Parental influence? But is that all?
My Lords, I am impressed by this second Report of the Royal College, but I think perhaps they have tended to overstate a case which is in fact proved beyond any measure of doubt. They have introduced irrelevant side effects of doubtful validity. The picture is horrific enough; why make it more horrific still? I do not at all object to the word "holocaust". Like the Royal College, I do not regard that as an overstatement; but to bring in ancillary bad effects such as the claim that
"smokers tend to be impulsive, arousal seeking, danger-loving,"—
not necessarily a bad thing—
"risk-takers, belligerent towards authority"
is special pleading of the most unscientific kind. Non-smokers also tend to be "impulsive, arousal-seeking, danger-loving, risk-takers, belligerent towards authority". Among them I number myself, and I hardly smoke at all. Furthermore, the fact that smokers
"drink more tea, coffee, and alcohol, and are more prone to car accidents, divorce and changing of jobs,"
is just a lot of nonsense. It migh just as well be said that they tend to be blond. I think it is rather silly of the Royal College to spoil a perfectly good
504
case by these vapid generalisations. There is no cause to pile on the agony.
I repeat, how are we going to stop young people? So far as adults are concerned—and adulthood now begins at IS. most foolishly, to my way of thinking—I will defend to the death, as an individualist, the inalienable right of a person to go his or her own way to hell. But the young people are a different matter. They are not responsible for themselves; we are. The trouble is—and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, made it very clear—that boys and girls tend to associate the habit of smoking with growing up. When one is young one wants to "show off" a little to prove oneself and to give oneself confidence. In this age of comparative affluence, the easiest way of showing off is to smoke a cigarette, particularly in front of one's girl friend. In Portugal, children cannot afford cigarettes—or could not in my day—and so they spit. They make the most disgusting noises and thereby hope to emulate the grownups. My Lords, I do not like spitting, and the noble Baroness, Lady Summer-skill, has reminded me of the dangers of spitting, but, all the same, from the general point of view of health and survival I prefer it to cigarette smoking.
The question is, how do we remove the smartness, if I may use that word, of cigarette smoking as a symbol of adulthood? In my day at Eton we were birched for smoking, and although there was no valid reason for doing this so far as we knew at that time, it somehow entered the dim recesses of the pedagogic mind that there was something wrong with smoking, if only because it was fun. For once the schoolmaster was right, though by a sheer fluke. In fact, by punishing us it made us all the keener to smoke. Therefore, I do not recommend that. I am all for propaganda, but I am somewhat sceptical as to the far-reaching effects which sonic people claim for it. Education of the young, both at home and at school, must be a primary weapon in our armoury. But propaganda is not enough; we must take more positive action still to get the results we want. I am in favour of the Government's proposals, wishy-washy as they are, but I would add others, far more drastic, to them, some of which have I already been mentioned.

505
My Lords, I would suggest that all cigarette advertising in all the mass media, including commercial radio—and I would ask the Government particularly to remember commercial radio, which is about to burst upon us—should be statutorily forbidden. I am sure that this would have an immediate and effective result. Then again, I would statutorily forbid the placing of cigarette machines in any public place—as has been said by six different speakers. Clubs might be an exception to this. The truth is that the harder you make it to get something you want, the less likely you are to get it. Lastly, it is, I believe, illegal for a tobacconist or a publican to sell cigarettes to a person under 16 for his or her own use, but of course it is easy enough for the young person to say that he is buying them for his father or his family. I would interpret this law literally. There would be difficulties, naturally, for the publican or tobacconist to decide whether or not the child concerned was under or over 16; but the law works, on the whole, pretty well with regard to the sale of alcoholic drinks. Fearing himself in danger of breaking the law, the vendor will be on the safe side. He does not wish to lose his licence.
These are practical proposals which could be implemented forthwith, and I think they would be very effective indeed—even more effective than circulars to teachers, though I do not underrate the importance of them, too. If these measures are successful, and they could only be gradually successful, then we must take into consideration the workers in the tobacco industry. But the rundown in manufacture being gradual, so too would be the number of employees who could be gradually phased out. Prohibition, which the American experiment has put me against, would immediately put tens of thousands of people out of work; but by the run-down process, which would be the result of what I am suggesting, the tobacco industry would slowly, and only slowly, wither.
Last of all I come to the question of revenue. And here I am honestly less concerned. A large sum of money is of course involved, but I do not think it is one which should influence us in taking this vital action. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, said in our previous debate:
506
"… we cannot afford to trifle with the truth. We cannot afford to yield to the interest of the Revenue. We cannot afford to fear economic consequence to business interests. Men who go into business for profit must be prepared, if necessary, to hear loss."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22/3/62; col. 750.]
My Lords, I found that, and I find it to-day, a very courageous statement. The revenue from cigarettes is tainted money. However excellent the use which may be made of it, it still comes under the heading of immoral earnings. If we must find the money, then we must find it some other way. It is not for me to suggest how. One thing is certain, my Lords: we simply cannot go on like this. The price of cigarettes in terms of pain and death is too great.
5.47 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I first thank my noble friend Lord Platt for initiating this very important debate, and also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, on a really magnificent maiden speech on a subject on which he is such an expert. In addition, may I tell him how encouraging it will be to my colleagues on the Health Education Council when they read the kind words that he used about some of our campaigns.
Naturally we welcome this Report. We welcome it not only because it has given a very much-needed boost to the whole anti-smoking movement and campaign, but because it is written clearly, it is easily understandable, and it is not hard going. It has aroused the public, alerted the politicians; and the health professions have been more stirred than they probably have been before. A simplified version of the Report is at this moment being prepared by the Health Education Council for sale to the general public—not, let me hasten to say, because we have any criticism of the literary prose of the original Report, but because we feel that we need a rather shorter and more popular form if it is going to be read generally. We hope that this will be published at the end of April. In case any of your Lordships feel we are rather slow off the mark, I may explain that there is a three months' embargo on publishing another version.
One of the difficulties which affects some people is the widely differing figures on mortality that are circulating and are put out by different authoritative bodies. I think this leads to confusion in the mass

507
media and in the minds of the public about the degree of risk they are running. This is the way some people feel about it. Frankly, as I rather abhor statistics and never use them unless I absolutely have to, that does not cut much ice with me, because I think that, regardless of whether a particular statistic is agreed by the Chief Medical Officer of Health or by the members of the Royal College of Physicians, what is agreed—as practically every speaker here this afternoon has said—is that smoking is harmful to health.
Although the physicians have told the nation the stark facts, many of the public do not like what they are told. About half of the public are committed to this very hazardous but enjoyable habit, and since human beings are emotional, irrational and under tremendous pressures it is not so easy to discard it and to bring about changes in behaviour. The difficulty of changing personal behaviour is one of the fundamental problems facing modern preventive medicine, and the creation of a desire for change is the first essential.
I am very sorry that my noble friend Lady Summerskill is not in the Chamber at the moment because, quite by chance, I found among my papers (I will not vouch for its scientific authenticity) a paragraph from a new journal called Europa, which states that 200 volunteers of different ages in France have been systematically questioned over the past ten years as to their sexual habits and proclivities. The findings were that sexual activity diminished more rapidly after the age of 25 among those who smoked than among those who did not. If fear is what is wanted, where sex is concerned nothing succeeds like failure. I do not know whether that will cheer up my noble friend. If that is completely unscientific and outside the bounds, I hope noble Lords on the Cross-Benches will forgive me. I mentioned it because it seemed so very relevant.
The difficulty of trying to change behaviour is highlighted in matrimony. Husbands and wives who are bent not only on changing one another but even, very often, on changing themselves, find that it is a very difficult and often impossible process. So, since everyone is certainly not going to stop smoking, we must at least encourage people to cut down and turn towards the least
508
lethal forms of smoking. Although there is a certain amount of disagreement about pipes and cigars, they are still considered safer than cigarettes. And in view of the increase in smoking among younger women, should we not encourage them to think that the cigar is chic and the pipe is trendy?
The Health Education Council has welcomed the move towards warning notices on cigarette packets, indicating that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health. I must be quite frank and say that I do not believe that this is going to have a very long-lasting impact, but it is important because it is the first time we have had a notice giving a warning from the Government that smoking has harmful effects. I know that the wording of the notice has now been agreed, and that it may not be possible to change it, but one of the difficulties is that although everybody understands and accepts what is said about the ill-effects of smoking, people always believe that they are going to apply to somebody else and not to themselves. Therefore I wonder whether the tobacco manufacturers could be asked to agree that the word "your" in the warning should be brought up in a bolder type, or underlined. It is a very small typographical point, but it might make the message a little more emphatic and personal, which is what we are hoping to achieve.
I hope that we shall not wait for a great deal more research before the tar and nicotine content is shown on the packet. As the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, said, the tobacco manufacturers have a point when they say they are prepared to put the content on the packet, but that the Government must then interpret what it means. Obviously, there are many areas where much more research is required, and that will continue to be so; but we cannot wait indefinitely. Enough is already known, and in the laboratories, which are mainly financed by the tobacco manufacturers, there is apparatus that can measure not only the content of tar and nicotine but also its effect on being drawn into the lungs. I suggest that the Government do not wait for further research, and that they should talk to the tobacco people about using these laboratory facilities. Perhaps they should have one or two of these machines of

509
their own or, if they are working in conjunction with the tobacco manufacturers, have an observer in the laboratories so that the measurements are agreed.
The information could then be put on the packets so that the people who still insist on smoking, but who are sensible enough to want to find the least lethal way, can smoke the cigarettes which are least harmful to them. As I understand it from several visits to the United States, this is something that made an impact. The tobacco manufacturers were in competition with one another to see who could produce the mildest cigarette. That would at least be one step forward. The Consumers' Association, which is very interested in this field, should be right in the middle, because it is as important to know which are the least harmful cigarettes as to know which is the best value washing machine.
I should like to reinforce what the Secretary of State has said about the need to increase the number of places where smoking is not allowed, and I also support what my noble friend Lady Serota said about putting a great many more places out of bounds for smoking. Many smokers would accept such a restriction with great gratitude, because it would mean that for certain periods of time they would be forced not to smoke, like some of your Lordships who are sitting in this Chamber. I agree with my noble friend Lady Summerskill that the restriction should apply to Committee rooms here and in the other place, and there should certainly be a non-smoking room in the Library. This is something about which this House could decide by itself.
As regards what has been said about hospitals and public transport, I think there should be very much more positive action. It is only a few months ago that I had a letter from a woman who attended the out-patients' department of a hospital, and she complained bitterly not only about smoking going on where she was waiting, but about doctors walking around with cigarettes in their mouths. Much stronger action could certainly be taken on public transport, and in theatres and cinemas. The fire risk is taken more seriously in America, and the Government might discuss with insurance companies the idea of using
510
no-smoking as a condition of insurance. Although the majority of theatres in London have, "No Smoking" signs up, there are many other theatres all over the country where smoking is allowed. The people who run those theatres would be delighted if they were able to impose restrictions against smoking, because of the risk of fire, the dirt and the untidiness.
The question of individual behaviour and freedom of choice has been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Serota, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. This is a rather tricky tightrope, I agree. A short time ago I wrote a letter to The Times saying that increasing the places where people were not allowed to smoke would not only help the non-smoker but be healthy for the addicted smoker; and I had a letter back, which quite astonished me, telling me that this was the most intolerant point of view the writer had read since Enoch Powell. This is really something which I think has to be grasped at some point.
At the moment, the Health Education Council's Medical Research Division is engaged in an investigation into morbidity—that is to say, the cost to the community of illness, as opposed to mortality—and hitherto there has been very little direct work done on this. I think it can be fairly argued that this is a social and economic cost to the country, and therefore this must to some extent balance the individual's choice. Then, again, there are the points that have been made by other noble Lords about the effect on the family, the effect on relatives, when somebody is ill; or as in the tragic case of the death of the husband of my noble friend Baroness White.
I am delighted to see that the Secretary of State has already been in touch with the Chairmen of the B.B.C. and I.T.A., to both of whom I have spoken about the question of smoking on television itself. I am happy to say that they have both shown considerable cooperation on this particular point. I also hope that the Secretary of State will be successful in trying to get public service time on both the B.B.C. and I.T.V., because I am very happy that we are being given some extra money to use on television, and we shall be using it for commercials. But it seems to me

511
that, in addition, the I.T.A., like the B.B.C., has a public responsibility and, in addition to what we are spending (which I might say is a decimal drop in the ocean compared with what is being spent outside television by the tobacco manufacturers), public service time should be asked for and pressed for.
Talking about the money that is spent, I must say that my heart was touched by the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, to the concern of the industry about the implications of smoking and health on the community. If I may, I should like to touch his pocket—or, through him, the pockets of the manufacturers—and say that one concrete way in which they could show this concern, if they do not feel like making a contribution to the Government, would be by making a financial contribution to the Health Education Council. I would ask the noble Lord to consider this, and I say this quite seriously. In view of that, I should not like to comment on some of the other remarks he made because I would rather charm him into giving me some money.
Next September, the second World Conference on Smoking, which is sponsored by the Health Education Council, will be held in London, and the discussion at this conference will be largely concerned with the changing of people's behaviour. One of the things that fascinates me is that we are all aware of the study among doctors and the fact that so many doctors have themselves given up smoking. I do not want to "knock" the doctors too hard about this, but how is it that those who have benefited so much have been unable to persuade their patients to do likewise? Because I think it is agreed—I think the noble Lord, Lord Roseheim, mentioned this—that they had not done so.
The Report rightly says that doctors should set an example to all their patients by not smoking in their presence, and should take every appropriate opportunity to inquire into the smoking habits of patients and try to put over the benefits of their stopping, particularly when they see them with children. Even when a mother with her child comes to see the doctor, he should try to press this point home. The Chief Medical Officer of Health is writing to all G.P.s emphasizing
512
this, and the Health Education Council is backing it up with some teaching aids on, Why Never to Start Smoking and How to Stop Smoking. These are going to be distributed to G.Ps. through the local health authorities.
When the Report rightly suggests that medical students should be made aware of the dangers of smoking, and says that they are not at present being urged to avoid smoking or being trained to play any part in the education of their patients in this matter, I feel that here one comes to a rather different point. It is not just a question of the people who are teaching the students being, as many of them are, distinguished experts in their subjects, but that teaching in itself is a special skill. There are a few fortunate people who combine a tremendous knowledge and ability in their own subject with an innate capacity to teach; but the majority of people do not, and they need to be taught to teach. This, I think, is something which is very important for the medical profession itself to do. In addition, I think there are wider subjects than that. The whole question of psychology, human relationships and social behaviour in the basic curriculum of the medical student and, so far as possible, of the nurse and other health staff—in fact, anybody who comes into contact with the public in this field—is absolutely essential, because one must not restrict this question when one is talking about behaviour and motivation.
The Health Education Council is also considering this question of training. Everybody has been extremely kind about our efforts, but I must keep on stressing that they really are on a very small scale. We are considering how we can help in the training of doctors, dentists and nurses, and have already been discussing the problem with the professions, universities and hospitals. But I think the real impetus for this—I hope my noble friends on the Cross-Benches will agree—must come from the doctors themselves.
In their Report the Royal College also recommend other methods of public education, including the use of the mass media. One of the concerns of the Health Education Council since it was set up in 1968 under the chairmanship of my noble friend Baroness Serota has been the effective use of the mass media, and, to ensure that it is effective, to base it

513
on adequate research data. I must say how grateful I am to Baroness Serota for having emphasised this and for having set this very important pattern when she was the distinguished chairman of the Council.
I hope the House will forgive me for spending a couple of moments on this matter, because it is public money that we are spending; but it means that a considerable amount of research has to be carried out before an anti-smoking campaign or any other campaign is launched. In the campaigns which are going on at the moment, attitudes to smoking were first examined to identify areas, then the themes suggested by this research were examined and then, from these, poster "roughs" were prepared. Then, reactions to these were tested and examined again. This was a whole process of examination carried out over a period of six months. I was hoping to have the results to-day, but unfortunately we are awaiting the processing of the data from the original interviews. I understand that this will be ready next week. Once the evaluation of interviews had been completed, we then continued the campaign; and it was then, for the first time in this country, that the antismoking advertisements were inserted in the national Press. We were also at the same time producing posters to distribute to the local authorities for commercial and underground poster sites.
Incidentally, I may say that the designs of some of our posters have won wide acclaim in the publicity world and in the commercial field. Two of the advertisements we used—those which explained the consequences of smoking in the most direct language—were researched among a sample of readers to find out how acceptable they were likely to be, and whether they would produce any immediate change. The reaction was that people noticed them and talked about them. But as to whether they will change their smoking behaviour, I must be quite honest and say that we will know only by the figures showing decreased tobacco consumption. But we know that the fact that they are talked about—some people think they are good, some do not like them, some think they are too frightening, others that they are not frightening enough—means that they are being discussed. This at least is the first stage in awareness. One of the
514
young designers working on the posters himself gave up smoking as a result of the work he was doing. So we know that we have had a small amount of success.
For the future, may I say that I believe that our educational work must be selective. We have made the general approach, given what I call the "horror story". Now we should be aiming at emphasising the positive benefits which other noble Lords have mentioned, the financial and cosmetic benefits, of giving up or reducing cigarette smoking. I like the idea of my noble friend Lady Serota about non-smoking gift coupons; but I see the difficulties of operating something like that unless we can find a way of ensuring that people do not cheat—get the prizes and also smoke. I thought that the Scottish Health Education Unit was enterprising in inserting some advertisements explaining how people could get free holidays by working out what they would save by giving up smoking for a year. There were a thousand inquiries as a result of these advertisements. Naturally, a very much smaller number of people will have stopped smoking; nevertheless this, again, is the beginning of awareness.
I think that our outstanding priority in any future campaign is to aim at the young. Everybody who has spoken so far has agreed that prevention at an early age is the most important factor. In a piece of research done by Mr. J. M. Bynner for the Government Official Survey in 1968, 5,601 boys aged between 11 and 15 from 60 secondary schools were examined in relation to smoking. The conclusions were extremely interesting. It is not simply a matter of telling parents to tell their children not to smoke, or even of educating the teachers. Both these approaches are important; but we really need to know much more about the motivation of children who smoke at an early age and of those who do not.
In the survey the number of variables to smoking experience was narrowed down first to 21, and then finally to four as having the most impact. These were: (1) the number of friends who smoked; (2) anticipation of adulthood, wanting to grow up; (3) parents' permissiveness; and (4) knowing of the danger of lung

515
cancer. This last came as a very low fourth. The interesting thing about the survey was that it was discovered that smoking was associated with educational failure; that those who smoked and were not making a "go" of school work were, nevertheless, anxious to be successful educationally. If this is so, there is at least one line of approach that now we know something about; but this also means a very much wider and deeper look than just from the point of view of smoking, into the attitudes of children at school. It was found that 80 per cent. of parents who were regular smokers but hoped their children would not smoke, gave them the odd cigarette or the odd packet of cigarettes. Also it was found that, until it was pointed, the parents were not aware of the fact that their attitude to their older children rubbed off easily and quickly on to the younger children. It is important to get the parent/child double-pronged attack on this subject. This is important, it seems to me, because although it is true that the parents should stop smoking to set an example. I believe that parents who now smoke, if they had known some years ago the facts now presented and if this knowledge had been as widespread then as it is now, for the sake of their children would not have become the addicts that they are today. We should get children to look at the other side of the coin: that they should not emulate their parents. They know their parents are hooked; that it is a bad thing: and it is important that they should not be hooked in their turn. We can educate the children more easily in the areas where young people meet. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, will be mentioning Youth Clubs.
Finally—and I am sorry to have kept your Lordships for so long, but this is a subject of particular importance to my Council—one of the priorities when we have the personnel (and, even more so, some extra money) of the Health Education Council is to try to aim educational propaganda at the pregnant woman. My noble friend Lady Summerskill mentioned this. Young pregnant women have an extra and tremendous incentive: they are not just thinking of their own health but that of another human being. The influence can
516
spread wider. The young pregnant wife who gives up smoking can ask her husband to do the same. She may even say, "I shall not give up smoking unless you do, too". She can become a very important influence in that way. Furthermore, with pregnant women, we have the only evidence, as I am advised, established on a statistically valid sample of part of the whole population of the United Kingdom where there is a "cause and effect" shown.
Finally, we welcome the setting up of ASH which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim. We should have a very good chance of co-ordinating successfully with it since the Chairman of ASH, Dr. Charles Fletcher, is also the Vice-Chairman of the Health Education Council. It is important that there should be co-ordination so that everybody does not go around "doing his own thing". Although legislation may be appropriate for dealing with some aspects of smoking and health, it seems to me that we should have long-term, short-term and medium-term plans. We need to put as big an investment into education and into research into behaviour (as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim) as into pure medical or physical research. We also need to know a great deal more about and to delve deeper into the pressures and structure of our society which throw up these problems. I do not believe that in the long-term one can deal with smoking in isolation.
6.20 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTS-MOUTH: My Lords, I wish first to join in the expressions of gratitude to the Royal College of Physicians for their Report and also for the debate which has taken place to-day. I do not intend to keep your Lordships for very long. There are only three things that I want to say. The first and obvious one which must be recognised on all sides is that this Report leaves no shadow of doubt about the effects of cigarette smoking. One of the biggest problems of which we are conscious is the way in which we are to get this across to the community as a whole. That this has to be something which is not merely a Governmental activity, not merely left on the plate of the doctors, but one in which every section of the community must be engaged,

517
is absolutely clear. Equally clear is it that this is not a once for all campaign, if that is the right word, but something which must be a continuing part of our social set-up.
The first of the three things I want to do is to welcome very warmly the statement by the Secretary of State of the Government's intentions. In the Report there is a hint of a slur on the Government for failing to take action on previous Reports and what we have now been told is certainly a consolation. I would agree with those who hope that the action which the Government are intending might be even more drastic than we have been led to suppose. Certainly I would hope that the notice on cigarette packets might be more positive than has been suggested; certainly I would hope that the areas in which smoking is allowed should be very much more confined than they are at the moment; and I would support the plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, that it should be the smoker who is, as it were, confined, rather than the non-smoker.
Secondly, I would say that the statistics in the Report make impressive and interesting reading. I think that two things stand out from them, especially for me. The first is the extent to which the average cigarette smoker is at risk, even compared with the heavy smoker. I think it true to say that most people have recognised for a while now that heavy cigarette smoking is a serious danger to health. What I do not believe has been as fully recognised—and the evidence is provided in these statistics—is that even medium cigarette smokers are equally at hazard. How many people have said to me, "I am no longer a heavy cigarette smoker, I have cut down. I have only 10 a day now, and therefore I am all right." The evidence in this Report shows clearly that in fact the person who smokes a small number of cigarettes is at risk as well as the heavy smoker. In a sense, I think this puts tobacco in a different class from alcohol. The Royal College of Physicians is pleading for total abstinence from smoking on the grounds that, however modestly it may be indulged in, it is bad for health.
The second thing which, for me, comes out of the statistics is something which I had not realised before; that is, that the age group on which the effects of
518
cigarette smoking have been most disastrous, the group between the ages of 35 and 64, is the group of the breadwinners. Just at the time when politicians and sociologists alike are worried about the growing proportion of dependants in our community—children and those who are of retiring age et cetera—there is a suggestion that smoking is a habit which is socially irresponsible. Up to now the cigarette smoker has justified himself by saving, "Well, I do not hurt anybody else." It seems to me that one thing that this Report shows is that he does hurt someone else; and is, as it were, unloading on to society responsibilities which are really his and which he is sidestepping.
The third thing I wanted to do was to make a plea for even further investigation into the causes of smoking, if that is the right way to describe it. I think that somehow there is a lack of any true effort to find out the causes of habitual smoking. Very little is known at present about the unconscious motives and satisfaction on the pharmacological or biochemical basis of addiction. It is true that in the past the Government have instigated surveys. One into smoking among young medical students resulted in the report in 1969 and there was one into smoking among schoolboys. Neither of these projects threw much light on the psychological and physiological causes of a need for nicotine.
I wonder whether it might not be fair to ask the physicians whether the causes of smoking, which on the whole they seemed to suggest are reasonable ones—that it induces social ease, gives relief from tension and an arousal for work and for play—might not be gone into more fully; and possible alternatives to smoking provided to meet the needs of individuals. The Report as a whole is one which we cannot but welcome warmly, and our gratitude is extended to those who produced it. Quite clearly, this is an operation in which the whole of the community must be engaged, and not only one section, if the ravages caused by cigarette smoking are to be stopped.
6.28 p.m.
LORD BROCK: My Lords, we have all been pleased to read the current Report of the Royal College of Physicians which follows and endorses the findings of their

519
first Report, Smoking and Health, published in 1962 and arising from the presidency of the noble Lord, Lord Platt. I think that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, deserve our warmest congratulations, which, of course, they have had freely this afternoon. I join with others in congratulating my friend and colleague the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, on his interesting, valuable and distinguished maiden speech. I strongly support their findings that warn so clearly of the grave dangers to health that follow from cigarette smoking. At this late stage in the debate it seems almost superfluous to state this.
The only point that I feel I cannot fully endorse is the concentration on the dangers of cigarette smoking and the playing down of the dangers of pipe and cigar smoking. Those dangers are far less than those of cigarette smoking, but my own observations tell me that the pipe smoker is not safe from the grave danger of contracting cancer of the lung. It would, however, appear to be reasonable to encourage those who cannot give up smoking to change from cigarettes to cigars. My Lords, I realise that the pipe is very popular and is associated with contentment and relaxation, but it is desirable to sound this note of warning, even though it will doubtless be ignored. I should also make clear that my reservations about the safety of pipe smoking arise from my own experience and observations and are not based on comments that have lately appeared in the national newspapers.
Of course I fully support the findings of the Committee in regard to cancer of the lung. This is a condition of which I have had considerable experience, dating back some 40 years, during 35 of which I have been specially concerned with its surgical treatment. From this long experience I wish to make some comments which I think are relevant to our discussion. I am embarrassed that so much of what I have to say has already been said in some ways this evening, but I hope that my rather late remarks will be acceptable. First of all, I turn to the direct relation between cancer of the lung and cigarette smoking. I take as completely proven the case put forward of this direct relationship. I emphasise this because one still hears expressions
520
of doubt—in fact, we have heard them this afternoon in this House—about cigarette smoking being the chief cause of cancer of the lung. The grim figures of deaths resulting have already been given. As yet, men are more often affected than women, but as their smoking habits increase, as has been brought out clearly this afternoon, women are being more and more attacked. The disease, in my experience, is more serious in women than in men. I think that is a point that is worth emphasising.
The second point I wish to make is the difficulty or inability to accept that disaster may happen to the individual, or the feeling that its occurrence may be such a long time ahead that it is largely irrelevant and can be ignored. This attitude is summed up in the renderings, "It won't happen to me", or, "We have got to die some time, and as I am only 20", or 30 or 40, "it will be some event comfortably a long way in the future". In this we have the most difficult aspect of the problem: it is just not realistic to expect human nature to change much in this connection, and certainly not in the young or very young. How can one expect a boy or girl in the teens to be able to appreciate the full significance? The noble Baroness, Lady White, has already spoken aptly of this aspect and has indicated the need for special efforts in the case of children. One can only hope that as they get older there may come a time when they will decide to try to stop the habit, or at any rate moderate it, perhaps influenced by propaganda and public concern.
To return to the blind and common acceptance of the thought, "It won't happen to me". When I look back over my experience with this disease I am impressed with the futility of this attitude and the lives that are lost because of it. I cannot mention all the young fathers in the forties or fifties whom one has seen wrenched from their families, often after a painful illness, much earlier than than need have been, and resulting in a family problem and loneliness that might have been avoided. This has already been aptly mentioned this afternoon and it was stressed again by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth just now. One has seen this even with doctors, who can just as often he attacked by this disease; although the

521
great lessening of cigarette smoking among the profession, and consequently the lessened incidence of lung cancer and other conditions, is noted in the Report of the Royal College of Physicians. It is one of the hopeful observations that emerges from the Report, and may encourage others to do the same.
But it is not only the young or the middle-aged who may be attacked. Many people, after a life of hard work, when they are nearing retirement or have recently retired, fall to this terrible disease and are deprived of the quiet and comfortable years that they have justly looked forward to. The widow may not only be deprived of the company and comfort of a life partner but may find that she faces penury if the pension ceases or is greatly lessened with the husband's death.
I mention these things, my Lords, because I have so often seen them happen and have deplored their occurrence when they could have been prevented. I believe that it is the duty of those of us who see these personal and family tragedies to emphasise that they do occur; and occur to actual individuals, and not just to figures in a statistical return: that they can happen to the person who has comforted himself with the thought that they cannot happen to him.
I have two additional comments, one of which provides a small degree of comfort or encouragement. Although lung cancer is a terrible disease, with a short-life expectancy, some sufferers are fortunate in that they may be cured by treatment, especially by operation, in favourable circumstances. It is good that this hope exists. But—and this I must emphasise—only a small percentage of all cases are suitable for operation. The main mass of patients are not sent to a surgeon, because their disease is too advanced when it is diagnosed.
The Royal College of Physicians have issued their Report essentially because they have a duty and a responsibility to the nation and to the Government to make everyone fully aware of the medical facts of smoking and ill-health. As a part of this it is proper for them to make certain observations on how this danger, this menace, can be lessened. For example, the Report draws attention to the fact that if smoking is given up the risks of cancer et cetera lessen, and after, say, ten years
522
have receded substantially. Smoking in public places is not only objectionable to non-smokers, but can be positively harmful to a sufferer from chronic bronchitis and emphysema, and especially to sufferers from asthma. These persons need, and may properly expect, protection from smoking in a public place or vehicle.
There are also certain simple things in the technique of smoking that are helpful and are legitimate medical advice. But beyond these matters of technique, cigarette smoking is a social problem, and has many facets that are not, and should not be, the concern of the medical profession once they have drawn the problem to the attention and to the conscience of the nation and made some initial constructive suggestions. The Report contains an important chapter on the prevention of diseases due to smoking and recommendations on achieving this.
There are many aspects relating to limitation of the smoking habit the implementation of which should be the concern of the Government. It is wrong for doctors to become too active in antismoking propaganda. They may of course do so as Members of Parliament, or as part of independent social activities, but they should be careful not to mix their medical advice with what are largely socio-political affairs. I am pleased to note that, apart from giving its strictly medical advice and its conclusion, the Royal College of Physicians is not active in this way. It is associated with an independent body that seeks to warn people against the perils of smoking and to help to avert the habit, but it does this only because of its social conscience. ASH was erroneously described by one noble Lord as a Committee of the College. I think that is not strictly correct. I strongly approve of the action of the College, because I think that medical men fulfil their responsibilities and obligations when they have pointed out the medical dangers and hazards of smoking. Thereafter it should be a matter for the social conscience of the nation as a whole. I do not support the plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, to increase the public relationships of the College.
It gave great satisfaction to hear yesterday that the Government intend to take some first steps in this matter. It is a very difficult problem, because man

523
seems essentially wayward in this and will certainly not abandon smoking as a result of sweet argument alone. Neither can he be forced to abandon smoking. The Government, or some social organisation or organisations, must strive to lessen the habit and to recognise those things that encourage it. The present interest shown by the Government gives real hope for improvement.
6.38 p.m.
LORD POLTIMORE: My Lords, I hesitate at this late hour to join in this debate. We have had excellent speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and from the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim. I can speak only from my personal experience. In the course of 83 years I have smoked a lot. I gave it up, and then smoked a little. Then, eleven years ago, I gave up smoking completely. I think it is quite easy to do so, and I feel all the better for it. There used to be a wonderful quip of the music hall:
"A little of what you fancy does you good."
I am a great believer in that. I believe that all people are entitled to enjoy themselves. Every man has his own peculiar idiosyncracies, his weaknesses and his failures, but I do not see why he should not enjoy them. What we want in this world is moderation. At New College years ago, before my time, there was a well-known professor of history who used to have undergraduates up before him when they came in late to college. He used to say to the young men: "I cannot have you coming in at these late hours. I don't know what you may have been doing. You may be drinking, you may be gambling, you may even be smoking." He was fond of his bottle of port every night, and I believe that people should be allowed to enjoy themselves. In this connection, I thoroughly agree with all this cutting down of smoking; but what ought also to be taken in hand is drinking and gambling. I should like to see the three taken together and reduced.
Many years ago, on stations, in railway carriages, in buses and on the seats in the park one used to see notices saying, "Please do not spit". I remember this as a very common habit. I believe that people used to chew tobacco and to spit, and in view of consumption it was considered horribly dangerous. Cancer in those days was not thought of very
524
much. I do not know whether the Englishman has lost the power of expectoration or has become a cleaner man. The latter I very much doubt, when you see the state of some of our ditches and fences and rubbish heaps all over the country. Anyhow, spitting has completely disappeared in this country.
I do not believe that the way to stop smoking is by legislation. You will never do it by legislation; you have to do it very gradually. I believe a great deal can be done by advertisements in the paper, on the railways and in the underground. Nowadays, on the new escalators on the Victoria line you see lovely pictures of so-called ladies in their briefs and their bras and sometimes a great deal less—personally I think they are the most terrible and the most suggestive things that can be imagined. I should like to see all those wiped out and replaced by some decent advertisements designed to stop smoking and gambling and drinking. I believe this would do a great deal of good.
One other aspect of smoking which has not been mentioned is the question of fire. I believe that more fires are started in this country through cigarettes and lighting matches than by anything else. Many a time I have known people burned to death when reading a paper. People sit, in a hotel perhaps, smoking a cigarette, and they go to sleep. They awake and stub out their cigarette, or think they have, and they go to bed. The next thing that happens is that the whole building goes up in flames and nobody knows the reason why. At the inquest it is said to have been caused by a faulty electric light wire or a short circuit in the television. I believe that in nine cases out of ten it was caused by a cigarette.
I was very surprised in the debate on safety driving the other day that there was no mention of the danger of smoking cigarettes when driving a car. It is an extraordinarily dangerous thing to do. I once did it and dropped the stub of my cigarette in the bottom of the car, and I nearly had an accident. Then there is the horrible habit of stubbing out a cigarette and chucking it out of the window. It falls in the middle of the road where it is safe; but it has not been put out, and the next car blows it a

525
little to the right and the next car blows it on to the grass, and acres and acres of countryside are burned.
My Lords, this is a very acute question. It has been said to be a difficult question. I do not know that it is. I believe that it can be summed up completely in one word—self-control. We all know what self-control is. We have all known self-control from our earliest days. We knew it in our adolescence, and we know it in our old age. The solution of the problem is as simple as that.
6.45 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, may I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, for introducing the Report of the Royal College of Physicians, and my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, upon his most conspicuous maiden speech. May I also add the thanks of the various anti-smoking associations of one kind and another, not least those sponsored by the Christian Churches, and the much healthier basis that this document has provided for an attack on smoking which in many cases, as the document says, has had an undue amount of prejudice about it.
I, indeed, was reared on the proposition that smoking was an affront to the Almighty and that had the Creator intended us to smoke He would have provided us with an in-built chimney; that smoking was in fact near to sinful. The evidence which is before your Lordships to-day is not necessarily utterly distinct from that, but it is in my judgment of a very different and much more coercive kind. I should like briefly to make my comments about this particular document, which I have read with care. To begin with, it is a devastatingly important document and I do not share any of the half-reservations that have been voiced to-day in your Lordships' House. It seems to me, as, I hope, a fair-minded observer of facts, many of which I am not expert enough to understand, except in general terms, that an overwhelming case has been made out, and that that overwhelming case constitutes a challenge which is unavoidable and demands action which we should indeed be fugitive if we denied.
I remember talking the other day to an extrovert, robust smoker of many cigarettes a day who had given up smok
526
ing. When I asked what was the prime cause of his giving up smoking, he said, somewhat naïvely, that when doctors were frightened it was time for him to be terrified. He had indeed been terrified by evidence which is exemplarily set forth in Smoking and Health Now. Perhaps the most impressive fact about this document is that it indicates the way doctors who know what it is about have taken the appropriate steps to do what they think was necessary in the light of the evidence which they could not ignore. This provides something of an answer to my noble friend Lady Summerskill, who remarked that those of mature age are not likely to change their habits. Professionally I would not agree with that, and in this case there is plenty of evidence that what has happened in the reading and in the various erudition and other qualities that belong to this Report is that such an overwhelming case has been made out to those who are best equipped to appreciate it that they themselves have taken the appropriate action and stopped smoking. I find that very impressive.
I find it equally impressive that those who have set forth the indications and facts about this malaise have not hesitated to propound a number of quite practical and precise objectives and programmes for its alleviation, and indeed for its final abolition. I wonder if it would be impertinent for me to make two somewhat critical comments—not critical in the sense that I do not believe that the writers of this particular document have been insensible to the facts, but perhaps in addition. I have some little knowledge of drug addiction and of how to treat it, and it is a statistical fact that there is a close relationship between the smoking of cigarettes and the smoking of marijuana and "pot" To establish a causal relationship would, I think, be improper—there is not enough evidence—but it would seem to me to be fairly reasonable to suggest that if there were a very rigorous diminution in the intake of ordinary smoking cigarettes there would be less likelihood of young people, having tasted cigarettes and enjoyed them, going on to the next stage of taking marijuana, however comparatively bad that particular habit is. I should like to know what the evidence is, if any, that there is a correlation not

527
only statistical but perhaps causal, particularly among young people, between the smoking of cigarettes and the next stage in drug addiction, even to what are erroneously called the "softer" drugs.
A much more serious criticism can be levelled against the evidence that is set forth, and the deductions which are made, in the field of cigar and pipe smoking. I could wish that the noble Lord, Lord Brock, were in the Chamber, for I heartily agree with him. If you consult Chapter 2.2 of the Report, you will find it more or less blandly asserted that there is much less risk in tobacco addiction from cigars and from pipes, and that the level of expectation of mortality among the pipe smokers is only a little higher than that of the non-smoker.
In Chapter 4.23, the statement is made that it is difficult to understand why this situation should have occurred. Indeed it is difficult to understand it, because the situation has not occurred. If you read Chapter 4.13 carefully, you will find that there is ample evidence from the Swiss and German investigations that there may be a heavier mortality and a greater incidence of lung cancer for those who smoke cigars compared with those who smoke cigarettes. In Chapter 9.23, which is part of the recommendations at the end of the Report, once again the assumption is made that the smoking of cigars and pipes is much less lethal, and much less dangerous, although previously it is said that much more research has to be undertaken on this point. I think it would be very unfortunate if people, looking for gleams of comfort in this Report, were to assume that the assertions made as to the relative innocuity of tobacco smoked from the pipe and the cigar should encourage them, because the evidence is contradictory in the Report itself. I hope that my medical friends will not assume that it is impertinent for me to make that point; I have looked at it carefully and have given your Lordships the appropriate references.
As to the prognosis, what is to be done? I regard the Government as having given us very puny encouragement. I hope that they will go much further. I believe that the answer has to be found in the most excellent examination given
528
in the Report of the relationship of the social environment, and the particular application of plea, or of resolution, in the private sector. I entirely agree with the Report that what is needed is the provision of an ever-enlarging smokeless zone, for it is within the general framework of the smokeless zone that the most likely results are to be found. This is manifestly true in the question of public places, and it seems to me that the evidence for the provision of occasional places where people can smoke in public is a much more reasonable proposition than the allocation of certain places in public areas where they can be free from smoking. Surely, it is beyond doubt that the inconvenience and, maybe, the predisposition to illness, caused in public places by the fumes of tobacco is a sufficient argument for the alteration in the whole principle of what should be the norm. The norm should be non-smoking, not smoking.
I have little use for the tag on the packet. If it is sufficiently severe—not in the conditional subjunctive tense, rather like the way in which we sometimes pray that the Lord might do something for us, instead of saying, as we ought, that he will do something for us, and the assumption is that it may be dangerous, then a great many people will ignore it—if it is put much more rigorously as a real and great danger, will it not increase the sense of cynicism among a great many decent people? They will ask the question: "Why, if this is such a serious business, are we being invited to purchase the packet of tobacco?". I do not want to be unduly provocative, but would it not be another instance of the cynicism of the capitalist system in the minds of many young people, who are not without perception in these matters, and will regard a very severe indication on a packet that it is dangerous alongside the incentive to purchase that packet as a piece of rabid cynicism? I do not think this will do much good; and in any case, after a while people will take no notice of it.
I am perfectly satisfied, furthermore, that there is overwhelming evidence for the abolition of the vending machine, particularly in public places. This is a monstrosity of injustice. If it is wrong for youngsters to be able to buy cigarettes over the counter, then it is an

529
encouragement to the evasion of that law that they may stand outside the shop and get those cigarettes by the insertion of a coin. This is nonsense, and anybody with a sense of justice will recognise that it is nonsense.
I have come, inevitably, to the position that all advertisements of cigarettes ought to be abolished. I can see the simpliste naïvete of those who assume that there are other reasons for advertising cigarettes than promoting the sale of them. I should have thought that it was inevitable that if you advertise a cigarette what you are advertising is your prognosis of a purchase and your anticipation of profit. What else are you advertising for? I should have thought that the advertising that now takes place is—as has been indicated already to your Lordships amply enough without further comment on my part—in the light of this document, another instance of the cynicism of a community which is not prepared to take its public responsibilities seriously enough.
Although this may sound an altogether outrageous comment, the more I have listened to what has been said to-day, and the more I have endeavoured to make my own mind up as to what is the sufficient action, the more am I satisfied that voluntary associations and methods will not do. Every year for many years I have been to Cornwall for my holidays. I have sat on many a beach, and bathed from many a beach, from which intrepid and dangerous bathers have gone out and not come back. How often have they gone out when the red flag has been up, when they have been warned by everybody that it was dangerous! I do not believe that ultimately we are going to make any sufficiently serious impact upon the attractiveness of smoking cigarettes until the manufacture and sale of those cigarettes is prohibited by law. I believe that we shall come to that sooner or later, and the sooner the better.
If this sounds rigorous and a reduction of human liberty then, after all, liberty is only ordered restraint. I believe that the stage has been reached in which one man's selfishness can impair the welfare, not only of his family, but of a great many other people, and depreciate the general wealth and condition of the community. I believe that that stage has been reached
530
with regard to tobacco smoking in cigarettes. Therefore, although it sounds a too rigorous and extravagant a claim, the more I have listened to what has been said the more I am committed to believe that whatever happens in the realm of the cigar and the pipe, sooner or later—and may it he sooner—we shall abolish the sale of the cigarette.
6.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVITS: My Lords, this is a debate I particularly do not like taking part in, for the simple reason that I must declare an interest. It is an interest almost diametrically opposite to that of the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, in that I am an almost lifelong non-smoker. I say "almost" for the reason which was given by the noble Earl, Lord Arran, that as it was against the rules, I smoked when I was at Eton. I may add—and one always laughs, but it happens to be true—that I gave it up when I left, and have not smoked since. Because I studied the matter, I decided that this was a habit which, on the whole, I should be better without, and I stopped. No doubt I stopped early enough not to have acquired a permanent need for the habit. By so doing, I found myself among the non-smokers. Therefore I started to notice things, particularly the smell of various people and of places where I found myself. It is for this reason that I dislike taking part in this debate: that if smoking is very much reduced I myself shall be extremely pleased; life will be much simpler and more pleasant for me; and I greatly dislike speaking about something which will restrict other people but will not affect me adversely. It is a matter of conscience for myself, but it hurts me to take part in this debate. Nevertheless, I think I must.
As I said, I shall be happier if smoking is reduced. Among other things, I always secretly in my mind label people who smoke as "smellies"—I hope my friends who smoke will not mind too much, but that is how I regard them. I may also say, for the noble Lords on the Front Bench before me, some of whom are Whips, that I often do not go to Party meetings in the Committee Rooms for the reason that my noble friend Lady Summerskill referred to: I cannot stand the smoke. All these are reasons why I shall be much happier. But the time has come when we must put a stop

531
to smoking, not for my reasons, but for the reasons of the community.
What can we do? There is legislation. I personally would support almost everything that has been said in the House about subjects for legislation to diminish smoking. I am not sure that I would go so far as to ban the sale of cigarettes, but I would go almost any other distance. But that is a matter for the future. The Government could do various other things, apart from legislation. In this country Governments are notorious for doing things too little and too late, and, if I may say so, the Government of noble Lords opposite seem particularly bad at doing things very much too little and very much too late. The recent pronouncement on smoking seems to me to be so feeble as hardly to touch the subject at all.
I am afraid I consider that the tobacco manufacturers are behaving, it is true, in a manner which one could approve of, but for much the same reason that a gentleman sweetly and kindly hands over his cash when faced by a thief who shoves a revolver in his stomach. I must say that it has struck me as peculiar, as I am sure it has struck many noble Lords, that this announcement should come out at the same time as a Bill on the subject was appearing in another place—a measure which would be received with considerable approval if it came here. I have considerable doubts whether any such announcement would have been made if such a Bill had not been put on the Table elsewhere.
Apart from Government action of one kind or another, there is something else we can do and that is to act ourselves. I do not like saying this, because, as I say, it does not affect me, but there are a great many of us who are leaders of one kind or another, particularly of the young in this country. That is a point very much to my own heart and, as we have heard to-day, very much to the heart of other noble Lords in this House. Doctors, teachers, youth leaders like myself, all have a duty first of all to stop smoking themselves. If it is a habit which we just cannot get rid of, I believe it is our duty at least to go through the motions of not doing it and to restrict it to a private habit. School teachers should not let children see them smoke. This should
532
be true of doctors, youth leaders and every kind of person who has any sort of claim to be a leader in this country. This is one of the reasons why I personally have believed it to be right that such leaders of the young as "pop" singers, and so on, should be more heavily dealt with than ordinary people if they go in for drugs—because they are leaders and people will follow them. It is first of all the duty of the leaders to get themselves right.
All my years I have very much taken to heart a quotation which I found in Chaucer but which I do not normally see quoted outside its context. In the Prologue to The Canterbury Tales the merchant is particularly assiduous about his business, because he says:
"When Golde rust, what shall Yrone do?"
The day the boss starts slacking, what sort of slacking will go on beneath him, among the workers? I do not know why this is not quoted so much. It may be because it is more anti-boss than anti-worker; that may be the reason why it does not appear very much in public print. Nevertheless, it is an extremely important fact. It is the business of leaders to give the lead, and if they do not they can expect worse to be done by others. I repeat, "When Golde rust, what shall Yrone do?" Let that be the principle that everybody who leads in this country takes, right the way from Her Majesty down to—I will not name the lower levels, but everybody who leads.
To me, that is the most important point I should like to get home everywhere. It is our first duty to put ourselves right. When we can do that, then we can go on to preach at others, but they certainly will not believe it otherwise. One of the reasons why too many children are smoking in school and elsewhere is that too many parents, schoolmasters and others are smoking. How can children believe our words when we do not act ourselves? That seems to me to be quite basic.
There are some people I believe we shall not save, because they are not liable to be persuaded. The noble Earl, Lord Arran, read out a long list of people who were more apt to smoke, and he thought the doctors had been rather charmingly humorous in producing that list. He did not believe it. I personally believe it most strongly. Smoking is in

533
many ways a relief, and those who are weak, uncertain, deprived, and so on, are apt to be delinquents, heavy smokers, heavy drinkers, and accident-prone. I believe that all these things belong in one basket, and that if you produce statistics about one you will find yourselves producing statistics about the others. It cannot be said that these conditions are caused by smoking. Smoking is one of the group of things which belong in this basket, and if you are to cure smoking among these people you will have to go after effects which lie far outside this debate—matters which I should love to go into, and indeed have gone into at other times, but cannot go into now. This is something quite different. But with the others I am convinced that it is a matter of example, and it is example that we should now go in for. My Lords, let us—I cannot really include myself because this I have already done—ask the leaders to cure themselves, and then we shall have gone a long way towards putting this problem right.
7.10 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, my only excuse for intervening at this late hour is that I intend to be extremely brief. I think there is no doubt in the minds of all of us, as is borne out by the Report of the Royal College of Physicians, that consumption of tobacco is on the increase despite all the efforts which have been made to draw the attention of the public to the dangers of lung cancer. It is appalling to hear now, perhaps more than ever before, the request at public dinners that the Loyal Toast should be proposed early in the proceedings, long before the serving of the dessert, just to enable people to give way to their craving to smoke—a craving that seems to be more insistent and more prevalent to-day than ever before. I wish the example could be more widely followed of one toastmaster who, after the Loyal Toast, instead of the usual words, "Gentleman, now you may smoke", remarked, "Gentlemen, those of you who are fully aware of the risks you run of developing lung cancer—now you may smoke".
The right honourable gentleman stated yesterday in another place:
"Perhaps the most important aspect is to dissuade the young from starting to smoke."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 16/3/71, col. 1191.]
534
The emphasis was on "starting to smoke". In my view, to print on each packet a warning notice to the effect that smoking can damage your health is almost useless. Why the emphasis on "your health"—purely from the selfish point of view? The noble Lord, Lord Brock, has already pointed out, speaking with unique authority, that smoking also constitutes a severe danger to others around the smoker especially those who may happen to be sufferers from emphysema or chronic bronchitis. But what is the point of merely putting on the packet, "Smoking can damage your health"? The packet is thrown away as soon as the cigarettes are smoked; or even sooner if they are transferred at once to a cigarette case. One can imagine that prolonged negotiations must have taken place between the Department of Health and Social Security and the representatives of the cigarette manufacturers to wring out from the latter even this concession of agreeing to print these words on each packet of cigarettes. Once the packet is thrown away the warning may pass unheeded.
What is really needed is something that will act as a constant reminder, and especially for the young. Here I should like to suggest that we ought to take advantage of young people's fondness for collecting. Children love collecting things, whether it be coins or pictures of World Cup footballers, pioneers of motoring or of aviation. Many of us vividly recall those cigarette cards of earlier days. They went out of issue long before the war with the advent of stiff cartons for cigarettes. Now they have become valuable collectors' pieces. Why should not the Department of Health and Social Security, in addition to increasing its subvention of more than £100,000 to the Health Education Council, also sponsor the issue of a new series of 20 or 25 different cigarette cards and approach the cigarette manufacturers to insert one into every packet of cigarettes, as was done in the good old days?
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, is present in the Chamber, and I would pass on the suggestion to him for really serious consideration. Instead of depicting inventors or explorers, these cards, drawn up with imagination and ingenuity by experts in the Department of Health and Social Security or the

535
Council for Health Education, would depict cases of cancer of the lung or cancer of the larynx and similar diseases, and on the back of the card there would be a brief case history of the patients, drawn up imaginatively with some appeal to the children who collect these cards, and generally designed to drive home the ill-effects of the smoking habit.
The scope for such a series of cards could be almost unlimited. Other sets could be issued on the history of smoking, with particular reference to the strictures of his noble Majesty King James I on that "noxious weed", dating back as far as the year 1615, or a series of cards on cancer and recent advances in medicine. These cards would have a definite educative value. I think they would be immediately collected by school children, and competition would be stimulated among them to possess a full set of cards. Even a special album could be issued, free of charge, perhaps by the Council of Health Education or even by the Department of Health and Social Security, or by the cigarette manufacturers themselves, to encourage schoolchildren to complete their sets.
Of course, the issuing of such a set might result in a slight increase in the sale of packets of cigarettes, but surely no more than the issue of cigarette coupons or Green Shield stamps does at the present time. This is an idea that I think cigarette manufacturers themselves voluntarily ought seriously to consider. Certainly it is a risk worth taking, as the dangers of cigarette smoking will constantly be brought home to the young collectors of these cards and will remain with them as a permanent record.
Is there not something in this idea which is worth considering? I throw it out to the Department of Health and Social Security or the Council of Health Education, or even to the manufacturers themselves, with the suggestion that they look into it quite seriously, simply because I believe that every possible step that can conceivably be taken to reduce the incidence of lung cancer ought to be taken, and that our warnings especially should go out to young people, to acquaint them with the very grave dangers of starting—and particularly of starting—this pernicious anti-social habit.
7.20 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, there is little that I wish to add to the debate at this time, but I should like to say just one or two things. First, I should like to say how pleased I am to have been present when my old friend Lord Rosenheim made his maiden speech, and how much I enjoyed what he said and how I trust that he will speak to us a great many more times.
I am very pleased indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, put down this Motion for debate. There is little one can do positively at the present time, apart from what has already been suggested. I am pleased that the Government have decided to increase the grant to the Council for Health Education, because I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will do her best to see that the money is properly spent, and that seems to me to be one of the best ways of getting the point across. It is very difficult to deal with the young, because the dangers seem to them such a very long way away. They cannot see themselves dying in 50 years' time of cancer of the lung, even though they may be told that cancer of the lung is a very unpleasant thing to die of; it does not seem a very likely thing to happen to them.
But there is one thing that might be thought of (I do not think it will do enormous good), following what has been said by quite a number of speakers, to discourage people smoking in public places. Would it not be possible for the Government to encourage the local authorities when they license cinemas, theatres, and so on, not to allow people to smoke in them? I cannot help feeling that we are not so very different from other European countries, and there are quite a number of countries where people may not smoke in the theatre or cinema—Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Spain, and I think some of the Scandinavian countries. I have mentioned this point to your Lordships before, and I am told that it is quite unnecessary here; that these countries do not prohibit smoking from a health point of view, but merely to ensure that the building will not catch fire and burn down.

537
I do not mind what the reason is. But if in those countries I have enumerated there is a reasonable, normal population who can go to the theatre and not smoke, I do not see why English people cannot do the same. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, that it would certainly make life far more pleasant to be in an atmosphere which is not full of smoke, though I am bound to say that I do occasionally smoke myself.
I am not at all sure that putting a little notice on the packet of cigarettes will do any good, except that it shows goodness of heart somewhere; it shows good will. As I say, I do not think it will have much effect, but it is better to do that than nothing at all. Finally, I would say that I entirely agree with everything the Report of the Royal College of Physicians says. It can be summed up that smoking is a beastly, dirty habit, and it would be far better if everybody could give it up.
7.24 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I must start by again telling the noble Lord, Lord Platt, how deeply grateful we are to him for initiating the debate. I always think that he rather nestles under a mantle of modesty which does not succeed in hiding his extremely sharp perception and very deep knowledge, and I think the debate to-day has been one of the most important we have had, even if not one of the most dramatic. It has also been remarkable for a very large number of mercifully brief speeches, for which we must all return thanks. But, of course, it has really been remarkable for the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim. Having listened to him today, if I may say so with respect, one understands why he is always described as the doctors' doctor. He showed a distillation, if I can put it that way, of wisdom and originality which will be invaluable in the debates in your Lordships' House. We very much look forward to hearing him again.
This is, of course, an extremely important question and a very, very difficult one. European man has been smoking now for 3½ centuries, and almost ever since he began, efforts have been made to make him stop. It is perhaps rather ironical, as we have had so many dis
538
tinguished physicians speaking to-day, that it was probably a physician called Francesco Hernandes, who introduced the smoking habit in the fifteenth century; instantly everybody tried to put a stop to this pernicious habit, and quite rightly. The Czars would deport you to Siberia. The sort of things which were done in Switzerland one would hardly believe. I think it was Pope Urban the Eighth who actually introduced a Bull threatening excommunication for smokers; and James I, as my noble friend Lord Segal mentioned, had a marvellous campaign called "Counterblast to Tobacco". I recommend the title to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. In that campaign he took the view of my noble friend Lady Birk rather than my noble friend Lady Summerskill about people's sexual prowess on tobacco, because this was the frontispiece of this counterblast:
"Tobacco, that outlandish weed
It spends the brain and spoils the seed.
It dulls the sprite, it dims the sight,
It robs a woman of her right."
But to no avail; everybody went on smoking. They imperilled their bodies and souls by doing so. This is still the great problem.
With this magnificent Report, in spite of some of the criticism which the noble Lord, Lord Soper made, we know what the problem is. There is no doubt about the physical evidence. But what are we to do about it? One of the remarkable things about the debate to-night has been how much everybody has agreed about the action that we ought to take. Everyone agrees that we ought to have a sustained campaign on television and so on, not merely an instantaneous one but one that must go on. I think almost everybody agrees that cigarette vending machines ought to be stopped, especially when we think about the children.
The most important thing that we all agree on is that there should be, as my noble friend Lord Soper said, an enlargement of the smokeless zone. If people want to smoke, then they should have to go to a great deal of trouble to do so. For instance, most compartments on a train should be non-smoking compartments and smokers should have to scurry up and down the platform looking for what might be a smoking compartment. This is the way to tackle this

539
problem. I think there is no question about our agreeing on that.
I do not want to go into the details, which have been so very well expressed by most speakers, about youth. Of course, it is absolutely vital that young people should in some way be convinced that the thing to do is not to start smoking. It is absolutely true that if you can stop before you are 20 you are rarely going to start again. I myself, like my noble friend Lord St. Davids and the noble Earl, Lord Arran, smoked at school because I was not allowed to, but from the moment I left school I have never smoked. So our propaganda directed at the young people must not be self-righteous or preaching. In some way we must show them that smoking is the dirty habit we know it to be.
I particularly welcomed what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said about the talks with the broadcasting authorities: that people should not smoke while they are actually appearing on television. Of course, if it is in the situation of a play, that is one thing; but speakers should not actually be seen smoking, because television people are the great heroes of to-day. Those are the persons the young people look to, and that is the kind of climate we have to think about. I very much agreed with my noble friend Lady Summerskill in what she said: that we must get across the complete unattractiveness of the habit. Young people are not going to be afraid of dying of cancer at 40—they think you might as well be dead at 40 anyway. But show them that smoking is rather disgusting, the coughing and wheezing, and the smell; that is the thing to get across to them. Show them that it is not fashionable and glamorous to be smoking, but the disgusting thing it really is.
That is where the advertising comes in. If I may say so, we very much appreciated the way that the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve spoke; it must have been a rather difficult debate for him. I thought he explained extremely well what his view about it all was. But it really is rather astonishing, when you think of those bronzed young men and those delectable young women in the advertisements. Of course this appeals to the young; and I could not follow his argument about advertising not being
540
meant to sell the cigarettes, only to sell the brand. I cannot make out why the tobacco companies spend millions of pounds a year if they are not going to sell the cigarettes. If I may say so, it reveals an astonishing view of capitalist economics. If this is the way industry is run, it is no wonder that we are in some difficulty now. I believe that we have to tackle this advertising question from the beginning, if I can put it that way.
I do not want to speak for too long; there are many things we could all say. I should just like to turn to one or two matters that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, spoke about, and put one or two questions to him. I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, said about research into the question of why people smoke. I have read a fascinating article by Dr. Charles Fletcher, who said he was worried that in the anti-smoking clinics all smokers were treated in the same way, whereas the reasons for people smoking are extremely varied and very complex. Surely we need more research into this. I hope the noble Lord will tell us that the Medical Research Council and his advisers are in a position to research into the causes of smoking, just as much as into the disasters which happen when you do.
The statistics which the noble Lord gave to us seemed to me horrific, and I must say that, of the forms of warning on the cigarette packets that he mentioned, the one he discarded was my favourite. I think that if he had said, "Fags are fatal", it would have an extremely good effect. In general, it seems to me, all of us agree that "Smoking may be dangerous" is not enough. May I also say to the noble Lord that I do not think he was quite right when he said that this is the most serious warning that any Government has put in. As my noble friend Lady Serota said, in the United States, though they began rather gently, they now say, "The Surgeon General has determined that smoking is dangerous to your health." That seems to me to go much further, and to be far more effective than what the Government are now proposing.
I should like to take up one point which I think has not so far been mentioned. The noble Lord referred to an

541
inter-departmental committee. In the Report at the end of Appendix A the Royal College called for an official inquiry into the economic consequences of a decrease in cigarette smoking, and asked that a full and public account of the balance of benefit and loss should be published. Last year, we lost 6·8 million working days through strikes—a horrifying figure, about which we are very worried. However, in the same period we lost 36·8 million working days through bronchitis. The situation is extremely serious, and I do not think that an inter-departmental committee such as the noble Lord mentioned fully answers the point put by the Royal College. Therefore, I should like him, if he can, to reconsider this.
Then I should like a little more information about the tar and nicotine content of cigarettes. The noble Lord said he could give us the information. But will it be put on the cigarette packets? Will it be put in some kind of pamphlet? We should like to know a little more about that, if he can tell us. We all want to know much more about whether there is a real possibility of a safer cigarette. For myself, I am rather doubtful, and I should not like him to hold off legislation simply because he was waiting for that.
My Lords, I come to my last point. The noble Lord and the Government have to face up to the legislative position. We know that there is in the other House Sir Gerald Nabarro's Bill, and if he gives it up (which does not look likely, as he is not that kind of person) there is another Bill waiting from Mr. Laurie Pavitt. So I do not think the Government can say, in that bland way, "Well, if we go for legislation the cigarette manufacturers will stop doing what they have promised to do." I do not think they would want to; I do not think public opinion would allow them to. I should like to ask the noble Lord to reassure the House that, as well as welcoming this Report, as he has already done, the Government will implement it with a little more vigour?
7.36 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I speak again and try to cover some of the points that have been put to me. Many of your Lordships have declared
542
interests in the course of the debate. May I say straight away that I am a nonsmoker, and the fact that I produced a packet from my pocket was merely to illustrate the warning on it and not as part of my usual equipment.
May I say, like the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, what a pleasurable debate this has been, particularly having regard to the fact that all the speeches have been to the point and reasonably short, and only, if I may say so, interrupted by an agricultural diversion. I have already expressed my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, for giving us an opportunity to debate this matter. I think now we have another reason to be grateful to him, because evidently it was because he put this Motion down that the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, decided to make his maiden speech as early as he did. I certainly think that all of your Lordships will feel, as I do, that this was an excellent thing, and we all hope that he will join us on many more occasions and speak to us. His speech was certainly right on the target, brief, and extremely pleasant to listen to.
The noble Lord told us, much to my pleasure, something of the objectives of ASH, and the Government have most warmly welcomed the formation of this body. I feel sure that it has much to contribute to the solution. He also had some very wise words to say on the need to do more to instruct young doctors in training, and also on the very desirable objective of persuading both the general practitioners and the hospital doctors to show, themselves, how conscious they are of these dangers by using their influence to persuade their patients to give up smoking. I am sure that this is a most profitable line to pursue. After all, this is a health hazard, and most of us are rather more liable to pay attention to our family doctor than we are to the Government.
He also stressed the need for research into the reasons why people smoke. This was another point that the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, brought up. Certainly there is research going on. There is research going on in the United States, and also at the Maudesley Institute for the Study of Addiction. Further research into why people smoke could give us greater insight into how to help them relinquish the habit. An outstanding

543
and comprehensive piece of research has been commissioned and published by my Department into why young people smoke. The reasons are almost exclusively due to social conditions. Therefore, in a different social climate the onset of smoking might never need to occur. The young have been found to associate smoking with adulthood, and this is a pattern which is laid down for them by the fact that adults are so prone to smoke themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, spoke from his great knowledge and experience of the problems of the industry. I was particularly pleased to hear him speak of the research work that has been done by the Tobacco Research Council, and I freely acknowledge that it has done some useful research. I would say that the Government are aware of the co-operation that the industry has given in reaching this voluntary agreement, which we think has real advantages over legislation. It was appropriate that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, was after the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair, in the batting list and she was well placed to attack some of his speech. She certainly put the case against smoking with great force and in very human terms that went home very deeply to many of us. I particularly agree with her view that it is best, first, to tackle the problem with the young people. I am sure that some of her ideas will be of value to the Health Education Council when they are considering their advertising campaigns.
I think the noble Baroness was the first to raise the question of smoking in public places and, as I said earlier, my right honourable friend is going to ask those responsible for public transport, cinemas and the like to set aside more accommodation for non-smokers. Some progress is this direction has already been made, but there is room for more. Perhaps we should even go so far as to bring the space for smokers and non-smokers into broad correspondence with their respective proportions. But in all these matters it has to be remembered that the Report of the Royal College of Physicians was published little more than two months ago, and we feel that we have gone as far as we can immediately go. But we are committed to trying to enlist the cooperation of those concerned with public places.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, the noble Lord said that he wishes to bring the spaces for smokers and nonsmokers into broad correspondence. Would it not be very much more appropriate if he brought into correspondence the spaces for what he hopes will be the smokers and non-smokers?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think one has to take into account facts as they are, rather than try to wield the big stick over people in this country. My noble friend Lord Monck asked some very technical questions about the Report, which I felt it was rather beyond me to answer. I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Rosenheim, had already spoken as he might have been in a better position to reply. My noble friend mentioned the question of pipes and cigars, as well as filter tipped cigarettes.
There are papers from Europe which have recently been referred to, suggesting that the incidence of lung cancer is as great in pipe and cigar smokers as in cigarette smokers. But the experimental method used in these papers makes their interpretation exceedingly doubtful and unreliable. American and Canadian studies, as well as the Report of the Royal College of Physicians, indicate that pipe and cigar tobacco is relatively less harmful. The new scientific committee which is to be set up will be asked to consider whether further research is needed, but on present evidence people who cannot stop smoking would be well advised to switch to pipes or cigars. As regards filter tip cigarettes, it is too early to assess whether the increase in their production has had any effect on the incidence of lung cancer. A number of studies are taking place on this subject and we are still awaiting their results. There is some evidence from research in the United States that, in general, filter tip cigarettes are safer than similar cigarettes without filters.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, started her speech by declaring an interest in the subject which deeply moved all of your Lordships who heard it. We listened with very great attention to what she had to say, and I found myself in considerable agreement with almost all she said at the beginning of her speech. I am quite sure that, if we can, we must first tackle this problem among the young. But,

545
above all, there is a need to understand the motivation of young people before we can bring much influence to bear on them. I agree with her about the potential influence of parents and teachers in helping with this problem. She did not quite understand why the manufacturers were apprehensive about having legislation hanging over their heads, and could not see why they could not go ahead anyway with the voluntary agreement. But I think the position is rather difficult, because in order to fulfil the voluntary agreement they have had to go to a great deal of trouble to put notices on the packets and on their advertisements. It clearly would not be in their interest to go ahead with any of these preparations if they thought that there was going to be legislation following up which might change the whole requirements to which they had already agreed.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I think the Government possibly underestimate the manufacturers' public spirit. I think they want to do this not only in their own interests but in the interests of everybody else as well. My view is that they would seek to do it.
BARONESS WHITE: But, my Lords, the time factor is surely a very short one. We have waited many years for this action. The Bill is already in Committee in another place and I am sure that we can pass it through all its stages fairly rapidly when it reaches this House. It would be a matter of not more than a few weeks one way or the other.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows the other place better than I do, but I do not think that it would be so easy as that. But whatever their motives may be, I do not think you can really expect people to honour a voluntary agreement if they are then going to be told forcefully to do something which might prove to be different.
The noble Baroness was followed by many other speakers on the subject of the prohibition of public vending machines. I can only say that I have taken note of the feelings of the House on this subject. As I said earlier, to ban them would
546
involve legislation, and we have no plans for this at present. But certainly this is one of the recommendations in the Report that will be carefully examined, and if we decide that it is a useful suggestion we shall go ahead with legislation. But I cannot anticipate what the result will be on that.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, designated himself a proud individualist, and as he spoke from the Liberal Benches that was entirely appropriate. But his Liberal views did not seem to extend to the young. He felt that they should be controlled in a more autocratic way, as I understood it. But he realised that the solution lies in influencing young people's social attitudes. His constructive suggestions for positive action included the prohibition of advertising and of public vending machines. He also suggested that we should tighten up on the sale of cigarettes to people under the age of 16. At first sight, I see some difficulty in distinguishing the age in this matter—who is above the age, and who is below it? This difficulty would of course apply at whatever age the prohibition was applied. The noble Earl drew an analogy with the prohibition on the sale of alcoholic drinks, but this is rather different, because in the case of alcohol there are a very much smaller number of sale points, which makes enforcement very much easier, quite apart from the effect of the sanction of the loss of licence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, had a great many useful points to make. I took particular note of her feeling that the word "your", in the warning that smoking can endanger your health, should be marked in some way as the important word in the sentence. I shall certainly see that that suggestion is considered. She also said that some parts of your Lordships' House, such as the Committee Rooms, might show a better example in the matter of smoking. I do not think it is up to me, but the Chairman of Committees will have noted her point. Perhaps she is aware that there is a notice in the main room of the Library which reads:
"The two north rooms in the Library are available for smoking."
That is one of the most polite "No smoking" notices in the world, and one of the least observed.

547
I agree with the noble Baroness on how important it is to persuade broadcasting organisations to help in this matter, because it is not much good advertising in television if, at the same time, in the programmes the tough guy is always lighting up a cigarette. That merely encourages young people to think that that is the way to live tough. My right honourable friend is going to have conversations with both broadcasting organisations, and I hope that something may come of those.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes on (I think he has finished with me at this point) I wonder whether he is going to say anything more about the tar and nicotine content—
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords.
BARONESS BIRK: —because I understood from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, that the tobacco manufacturers are willing; and if they are willing I hope the Government are going to say, "Yes".
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords; I was coming to that: I had not finished with the noble Baroness.
It is a matter of great satisfaction that the manufacturers have agreed to the publication of figures for tar and nicotine. These figures, it is intended, will be published in a sort of league table, so that people who smoke will be able to compare the amount of tar and nicotine in any particular brand of cigarettes with that in others. But at the moment there is a certain amount of difficulty. It cannot be done quite as easily as it sounds, for the reason that what has to be measured, in the case of the tar, is the tar content of the smoke. It is the yield of tar from the cigarette as it burns; and there are something like 1,200 different constituent compounds that have been found in this tar. So it is important to know not only the amount of tar but also the danger of the particular compound that is in the particular tar, and I think that there are very great difficulties from this point of view. It is not only the amount of tar, it is also the type of tar, the specific carcinogenic activity, that is highly significant. It would be quite wrong to lead people
548
to think they were smoking a safe cigarette because they were inhaling less tar when in fact the less tar was of a more dangerous type. That is the difficulty at the present time. But, as I say, this committee is going into it.
My Lords, we listened with interest to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth. He also mentioned the importance of research into the causes of smoking, to which I have already, I hope, given some answer. I listened also with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Brock, and especially to his reference to sufferers from asthma, because only last week I was opening the Asthma Research Council's Pharmacological Research Unit at the Brompton Hospital, and I very much sympathise with those sufferers. I sympathise with the idea that there should be more non-smoking areas in public places.
The noble Lord, Lord Poltimore, has had rather more years' experience than I have, but I, like him, am a bigot because I, like him, gave up smoking some ten years ago; so I have a great deal of sympathy with what he had to say. I found myself in less sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said. He went rather farther than I should be prepared to go, in saying that the liberty of the individual should be overridden, and that in the end we should have to abolish cigarettes. On the other hand, I took his point about public vending machines.
So far as the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is concerned, he said we did things too little and too late. I do not agree. He can hardly say we are doing things too late because the Royal College of Physicians' Report has come out only in the last few months, and we are already putting forward some proposals,. The noble Lord, Lord Segal, I thought, put up an excellent idea for the toastmaster. I think that all toastmasters should in future adopt his suggestion. But I was not quite so happy about his cigarette cards suggestion. Of course we will look at it, and I am sure the cigarette manufacturers will, but I have a suspicion that it might increase the sales of cigarettes. I also collected these cards, and I doubt whether I should have been very sympathetic to collecting a set of this sort. I am also sure that I never

549
read what was on the back of them; but I appreciate his idea. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. We will take into account his suggestion about the licensing of cinemas.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, at the end of her remarks, asked me one or two quick questions. I think I may already have answered some of her questions in the course of what I have said. On the subject of advertising and the banning of advertising, the only thing I can say (which is quite interesting, I think) is that in two countries, at any rate, Russia and Italy, where the sale of cigarettes is a State monopoly, there is no advertising at all; but still the numbers of those who smoke are rising. But that is not a very significant answer. For the moment, we are going ahead with voluntary agreement, and we feel that for the time being this is the best way of proceeding.
I think I have answered the question put by the noble Baroness about the tar and nicotine content. I hope that this information will be published in the form of a league table. I cannot go any further about the inter-departmental committee—or, rather, discussions. I explained in my original speech that these inter-departmental discussions are actively in progress, and that is as far as I can go at present. As to whether our notice on the cigarette packet is likely to be more effective than anybody else's notice, I think opinions might differ in comparing the actual wording with that used in America. But certainly our notice is more conspicuous, and we also have the additional notice appearing on all Press advertisements and hoardings.
My Lords, I hope that I have answered most of the questions that were put to me. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any further. I will only say that we cannot stop people smoking overnight. Public opinion has to be changed, and it can be changed only slowly. But we believe that in the light of the Report we have at least taken the first steps. We have taken them fairly quickly, and we shall hope to see some results from them.
8.0 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I shall not detain you very long at this late hour. We have already had a splendid summing
550
up from the noble Lord the Minister of State, but I take it that I have your Lordships' permission to make a few comments on what has been said during the debate, because I think that some of the remarks made are of some importance. Almost the last thing that the Minister said was that we shall not stop smoking overnight. That is very important from a point of view which has not been mentioned but which I am not going to bring up now; it is the financial one. The Government are in danger of thinking: "We cannot afford to lose"—what is it?—"£1,000 million or so in revenue". That is absurd. The best that we could hope for and expect from the non-smoking point of view is that there will be a very gradual drop in smoking. No Government will lose its revenue overnight.
I must start by thanking all—and I say "all", without exception; and your Lordships will see why in a few minutes—who have spoken in this debate and, of course, in particular my noble friend and colleague Lord Rosenheim. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that I may have been less than generous in welcoming what his Department is already setting cut to do in this matter. If I was less than generous in my welcome—I shall see in Hansard tomorrow—it was because of my very considerable disquiet about the bargain which we now know has been made between the Government and the cigarette manufacturers. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security are dedicated to the cause of non-smoking. I also know that there is a close connection between the C.B.I. and the Imperial Tobacco Company, and I wonder whether certain decisions may not have been made at a level perhaps even above that of the Department of Health.
However, I am greatly heartened by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, because, having heard him, I think the Government may never again be able to take the statements of the cigarette manufacturers as having any particular claim to reality. I do not wish in any way to accuse the noble Lord of any kind of hypocrisy; I am sure that he believes everything he says. But I believe that he does not know what is going on in the world around him, even

551
in his own industry, and that he is blind—especially colour blind. He has not seen any of the display advertisements directed obviously at trying to encourage young ladies to smoke, at this time in history of all times.
Before my voice finally fails, I should like to take one or two other things that the noble Lord said, for, as I have said, he did not stick to reality too closely. In the first place, he brought tears to our eyes at the concern of the cigarette manufacturers on this issue. I only wish that they had acted in the way they felt. He said—and this is near enough to his actual words—that the cigarette manufacturers and especially the Imperial Tobacco Company do not presume to contest medical judgment. Does he remember what happened when the College Report was issued in 1962 and a very prominent member of the Imperial Tobacco Company appeared with me on television in "Panorama" and tried to discredit the whole of the evidence of the Royal College of Physicians? Has he forgotten that? I have not; and I do not think that that gentleman has forgotten it either.
The noble Lord talked about advertising. Advertising has increased enormously in the last twenty years—it is up now to £52 million a year. The biggest increase of all was in the year immediately after the College Report. He spoke about coupon advertising not having increased when television advertising was banned. It did increase. He has not read page 18 of the latest Report of the College. He spoke about advertising not being directed to induce people to smoke and so forth. He may remember that in 1962 the British tobacco manufacturers voluntarily adopted a code that excluded any cigarette advertising which over-emphasised the pleasures of smoking, featured conventional heroes of the young, appealed to manliness, romance or social success, or implied the greater safety of any brand. Can we say that the cigarette manufacturers have kept to this voluntary agreement? Certainly not—as we see if we look around us or open almost any newspaper which has special coloured pages for these display advertisements which appeal to young people. My Lords, I felt that I had to say those things. I am very sorry to have had to do so. I do not want to blacken the reputation of the cigarette manufac
552
turers; I think that they have done it for themselves.
There are one or two other points of a general nature, but the only one I need allude to is the quest for the safe cigarette, the mild cigarette. Personally, I do not agree with this. I do not mind if people think that they can eventually produce a safe cigarette. I believe that the quest for it is roughly the same as that for producing whisky without alcohol. I believe that you will find that if research is done to get a milder cigarette with less nicotine and less tar, your real addictive smokers will simply smoke more of them and nearer to the butt-end. Those are my personal thoughts not based yet on scientific investigation and proof.
Finally, your Lordships will not be surprised if I welcome the idea that far more public places, and especially dining rooms, and so on, should be places where people do not smoke. I do not wish to be known in this House, to the embarrassment of all my friends who enjoy their cigarettes, as a man who does not believe in smoking. Nevertheless, if you did not smoke actually during my luncheon I should be very pleased. With those final words, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.
  WHITEHALL REDEVELOPMENT AND BROAD SANCTUARY SITE
  WHITEHALL REDEVELOPMENT AND BROAD SANCTUARY SITE
  QUEEN ANNE'S MANSIONS
  QUEEN ANNE'S MANSIONS
  BRUCELLOSIS ERADICATION SCHEMES
  BRUCELLOSIS ERADICATION SCHEMES