Sitting of 23 March 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CUMBERLAND RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
  Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
  CO-OPERATIVE BANK BILL
    NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK (NORTH CENTRAL FINANCE & LOMBARD BANKING) BILL
    Bills read the Third time and passed.
    TEESSIDE CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
    Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Speaker: The Question is "That the Bill be read a Second time—
Mr. Robert Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You appeared to
224
give the impression that the Bristol Corporation Bill was receiving a Second Reading. In fact, I understand that that is not correct.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that under the Standing Orders, once a Bill has been objected to and a Motion has been placed on the Notice Paper, the Measure must automatically go down for a seven o'clock debate before its Second Reading can be achieved?
Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I confess that I expected to hear a shout ex abundanti cautela of "Object".
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the points of order that have been raised with you, Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that it is probably because the microphones were not working properly that you did not hear the Chairman of Ways and Means say "Tomorrow", and that had you heard him say that, you would not have been misled by the malfunctioning of the microphones?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment.
Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order)
  Bill read a Second time and committed.

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) No. 2 BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next at Seven o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE

    Farmers (Nature Conservancy)
    Mr. David Jamesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will give additional financial encouragement to those farmers who conform to agreed standards of nature conservation and preservation of the countryside.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): This is a matter which I believe must be left to the good sense of landowners and farmers because of the obvious practical difficulty of defining any basis upon which such encouragement might be given.
    Mr. James: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the conservationist lobby, in the broadest sense of the term, is breathing ever more heavily down farmers' necks, for good reason, though farmers feel that they should not be left to bear the entire cost of preserving the countryside for the nation? Will he consider approaching the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether, for example, farmers could be given a tax incentive from earned income to enable them to co-operate in nature conservation?
    Mr. Prior: I recognise the point of my hon. Friend's suggestion, but it would be very hard indeed to put it into practice. Farmers are being asked nowadays to undertake, on behalf of the community, a large conservation job, but it is a task which I think they prefer to work out in their own way.
    Mr. Mackie: As the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that a definite cost is involved, does he agree that the agricultural community should not be expected to meet all these costs, some of which are becoming extremely heavy?
    Mr. Prior: This is a factor which I believe should be taken into account each year in assessing farmers' prices because this is something which the farming community as a whole has to bear on behalf of the nation.

    Sire Licensing
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed his consultations on the future of bull and boar licensing; and when he intends to make a statement.
    Miss Quennellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet completed his review of policy on sire licensing.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I would refer the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend to the reply given on 24th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.—[Vol. 812, c. 145.]
    Mr. Strang: Is the Minister aware of the suggestion that bull licensing might be abolished in England and Wales but not in Scotland? Does he appreciate that such a decision would be scientifically indefensible and quite impracticable?
    Mr. Stodart: I do not wish to go beyond what I have already said. I hope that I shall not be guilty of an anatomical inaccuracy in saying that the Government will be taking the bull by the—well, by the horns before long.

    Afforestation
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many acres of good agricultural land have been acquired for private afforestation in each of the last three years.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: Statistics of land acquired for private afforestation are not available, but almost all such planting takes place on land of relatively low agricultural value.
    Mr. Hardy: Would not the Minister agree that this seems to be a rather inequitable situation, since it is possible for private forestry concerns to plant on good agricultural land whilst the Forestry Commission is not easily or generally able to plant on land of that quality? Would he, therefore, reconsider and review the whole situation?
    Mr. Stodart: On 8th December I said that the Government were undertaking a

    227
    review of various aspects of forestry policy. This is one of the matters that would be considered.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is it not a fact that 95 per cent. of our timber requirements are imported, at great expense, and that, therefore, all afforestation of land, good and bad, should be encouraged, whether it is private or public?
    Mr. Stodart: There is a considerable import-saving potential here. I am a very strong believer in an integration of forestry with agriculture for the benefit of each.
    Mr. Hardyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to effect a change in the taxation arrangements for private forestry, particularly where this activity prohibits public access or makes no provision for amenity or conservation.
    Mr. Stodart: Taxation arrangements are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware of recent studies of the possibility that in a few years' time we may find that the greatest value from British woodland will lie in the amenity and capacity for recreation which it may provide? If that is the case, would he not, therefore, recommend to his right hon. Friend that tax concessions should be reviewed so that the possibility of providing for the nation's future needs is at least allowed?
    Mr. Stodart: I agree that amenity is an extremely important consideration. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what the hon. Gentleman has said. It may be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman to know that all private schemes which are submitted to the Forestry Commission for grant aid are scrutinised for the effects which they may have on the landscape. If the Commission thinks that amenity will suffer, applications are not accepted without amendment.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Is the Minister aware that, beautiful though trees may be to look at, they are also a crop, just like wheat, barley or oats? Would he have regard to that fact and so increase taxation concessions that there may be, in the national interest, a growth of this
    228
    industry and crop to the benefit of everybody?
    Mr. Stodart: My hon. Friend will not be in the least surprised to know that I have no responsibility for tax concessions.
    Mr. David Clark: I associate myself completely with the need for more timber. Is the Minister aware that in many parts of the country, especially in the Yorkshire Dales, there is increasing disappointment and disillusionment about the amount of private forestry which is taking place in areas to which the public are being denied access.
    Mr. Stodart: I repeat that both private and Forestry Commission plantings have a great deal to contribute to our economy.

    Experimental Husbandry Centres
    Mr. Muddasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes any changes in the functions of his Department's experimental husbandry stations; and whether he is satisfied that their organisation is consistent with the new advisory objectives of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the functions of the experimental centres are consistent with the objectives of the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, but he will, of course, keep their work under review.
    Mr. Mudd: Would my hon. Friend accept that his answer will give partial satisfaction to the industry, but the right to review the situation must continue to cause a certain degree of alarm?
    Mr. Stodart: I can only repeat that we shall keep the work of the institutes under the most careful review. Their aims—to provide information for advising officers and farmers, and for development under local conditions work which is done elsewhere—we regard as of the greatest importance.

    Glasshouse Crops
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the latest figure for the area of

    229
    glasshouse crops and how this compares with the position in 1960 and 1965.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my hon. Friend say whether they have increased? If they have, would he not agree, therefore, that there is a fair profitability—there must be if they have increased—in these particular crops? Would he also not agree that to ensure profitability, as they are not covered by the Price Review, special arrangements will have to be made in the near future?
    Mr. Stodart: It may help my hon. Friend if I tell him that the figures for 1970 are 240 acres higher than in 1960, but in 1960 figures did not include 230 acres on holdings of under one acre; therefore, the position has been pretty static. A great deal of help has been given in that £37 million of investment in glass has been grant-aided since 1966.
    Mr. Dalyell: What are the Government saying to the Horticultural Committee of the Scottish National Farmers' Union, which is concerned about dumping, especially of cucumbers and tomatoes?
    Mr. Stodart: That is more a question for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office.
    Following is the information:

    Acreage of crops grown in glasshouses in England and Wales (July Censuses)

    1970

    3,759

    1965

    3,342

    1960

    3,516

    Notes
    (1) This information relates to holdings with not less than 1,000 square feet of glass used for commercial production.
    (2) The figure for 1970 includes an estimated 230 acres of crops grown in glasshouses on holdings of one acre or less of agricultural land, returns from which were not collected in 1960 and 1965.

    Meat Labelling
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from the National Federation of Meat Traders' Association about the Meat and Livestock Commission's meat labelling scheme; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: None, Sir. This is a voluntary scheme introduced by the Meat and Livestock Commission and any representation about it should be made to the Commission.
    Mr. Strang: Does the scheme have the full and unqualified support of the Minister? What steps has he taken to persuade the federation to cease its petty opposition and to adopt the more responsible attitude of its Scottish counterpart?
    Mr. Stodart: This is a voluntary code entirely within the responsibility of the Commission. I can well appreciate some of the objections voiced by the federation. They are practical objections. But it is encouraging that the Scottish butchers, Sainsbury's and the Cooperative movement, have recommended the code.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that the essential feature of these codes is that they should remain voluntary?
    Mr. Stodart: Yes, Sir.
    Mrs. Joyce Butler: Would the Minister think again about this matter, bearing in mind that the labelling scheme gives valuable information to shoppers, who find it increasingly difficult when buying meat because of the modern methods of preparing and displaying meat by butchers?
    Mr. Stodart: That being so, I am certain that, if this is a useful exercise, housewives will favour it in going from one butcher to another.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what, according to the latest available figures, are the guaranteed prices in Great Britain, and the European Economic Community intervention price, for barley and wheat, respectively.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: The United Kingdom guaranteed prices for 1971–72 are £1·45 per cwt. for barley and £1·63 per cwt. for wheat. The European Economic Community's intervention prices for January, 1971, are £1·94 per cwt. for barley and £2·18 per cwt. for wheat. Prices for 1971–72 are still under consideration by the Community.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Would my hon. Friend say whether, in the event of our negotiations with the Community being successful, this would be a favourable matter for our producers, or the reverse?
    Mr. Stodart: As a producer of both these commodities myself, I should not have regarded the future as altogether unpleasant.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Would the Parliamentary Secretary say what will be the effects of his right hon. Friend's proposed intervention price of £3·5 up to £6 on the price of bread in this country?
    Mr. Stodart: With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I see no connection with the Question which has been asked.
    Mr. Marten: Is the Minister aware that today in the Common Market countries there is a great demonstration by farmers demanding higher and higher prices? What effect will this have on the budget of British housewives if we should enter?
    Mr. Stodart: I notice that farmers in the Community are demonstrating, and the proposals for 1971–72 are that the price of barley and wheat should rise to £2·04 and £2·20 respectively. Without having a Question put down, I could not give the sort of answer which my hon. Friend, with his very meticulous mind, would wish me to give.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to what extent he estimates that Great Britain will be able to influence the development of the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community if she joins.
    Mr. Prior: As a member of the Community we would have a full voice in its institutions and the development of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Godman Irvine: Will my right hon. Friend say whether during the negotiations he has found that those responsible for the agricultural aspects of the Community are flexible or inflexible in their approach? Will he further say that the progress they have made in restructuring the Community's agricultural policy and the reduction of surpluses are matters in which we might be able to make a contribution?
    Mr. Prior: To the latter half of my hon. Friend's question the answer is "Yes". To the former part, about the flexibility of the Commission in respect of British agriculture and British entry, the answer is that we would like them to be more flexible still.
    Mr. Deakins: Does the Minister's answer to the first part of his hon. Friend's supplementary question indicate that the Government, in the context of the Common Market, would use their influence to see that producer prices were reduced rather than increased?
    Mr. Prior: I think it would be wiser to get the terms of entry before we discuss what we shall do after we get entry.
    Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Is my right hon. Friend persuaded that if negotiations go on he can obtain favourable considerations for the hill farmers of this country under the terms of the E.E.C. agricultural policy?
    Mr. Prior: This remains to be discussed and negotiated in Brussels. I assure my hon. Friend that we have the position of hill farmers very much in the forefront of our minds.
    Mr. Mackie: Have not the Government, by committing themselves to a levy system, lost a point? If we join the Common Market and want to change the common agricultural policy, we have committed ourselves already and lost the argument.
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir. It was the previous Government that committed themselves to the common agricultural policy. Once that step was taken, that was the end of the story.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the Minister aware that he has committed himself to a managed market before entering the Common Market, which was not the policy of the Labour Party? Does he accept that, in the event of our entering the Common Market, a transitional period of less than five years would be damaging and unacceptable to British agriculture?
    Mr. Prior: The longer the transitional period the better and the easier it is for us to make the transition—that is quite clear. We have always made it clear that we were committed to the levy

    233
    policy, whether or not we went into the Common Market.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what procedures will exist within the enlarged Community for British producer organisations to influence prices of agricultural produce.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: There will be an annual review of the economic conditions and prospects of agriculture in the enlarged Community. This will provide for effective consultation with producers' organisations at the Community level before the Council of Ministers takes decisions on prices. At the national level, the Government will also be free to conduct an annual review with producers' representatives.
    Mr. Blaker: As it is an essential part of the Community's agricultural policy to rely on producer groups to stabilise the market, is there any reason why this should not be true for horticulture?
    Mr. Stodart: None at all, and it is a fact, I think—if I recall an answer which I gave my hon. Friend some months ago —that the amount of horticultural produce at present marketed by co-operative groups is very small and there is big room for improvement.
    Mr. Deakins: Why will not the Minister agree to place the arrangements for the E.E.C. review of agriculture for United Kingdom producers here on a statutory basis, which would give producers some confidence that their interests would be looked after both in Brussels and in this country?
    Mr. Stodart: Farmers will be able to put their views on prices to the Commission just as they can put their views to the Government now. They have no absolute right of consultation under the present system, nor have they any right to take part in the decisions.
    Mr. Farr: What effect will the domestic review have? Will it be considered in conjunction with a later review in Brussels?
    Mr. Stodart: The review in this country will not be a price determination; it will be a general look at economic conditions and prospects, and thereafter there will be a review in the Community.
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the extent to which inshore fishermen are likely to benefit from entry into the Common Market; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Prior: Our detailed examination of the implications of the common fisheries policy is still proceeding. This includes contacts with the Commission at Brussels on aspects of the policy, certain details of which have not yet been settled. It would be unwise to make an assessment until we have all the essential clarification.
    Mr. Marten: If my right hon. Friend cannot make an assessment, will he nevertheless give an assurance that in our negotiations with the Common Market he will make it a prerequisite of acceptance of any package deal that our inshore fishing industry shall not suffer?
    Mr. Prior: I am determined, as my hon. Friend knows, to protect the legitimate interests of the inshore fishing industry. But when one is negotiating, as we are at the moment, it would be unwise to declare all one's hand in advance.
    Mr. Spearing: What interests of the inshore fishermen are illegitimate?
    Mr. Prior: I should have thought that there were certain interests, such as conservation, which were extremely important; and this is the sort of interest which must be worked out.

    Food Prices
    Mr. Carterasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the food bill of both a single retirement pensioner and a married retirement pensioner couple has increased over the past six months.
    Mr. Prior: The Department of Employment's Retail Price Index for a single pensioner household showed an increase of 1·8 per cent. for food between the second and fourth quarters of 1970; and 1·9 per cent. for a two person pensioner household.
    Mr. Carter: That hardly answers the Question. Does not the Minister accept that, translated into real pounds, shillings

    235
    and pence, this means a tremendous increase in the cost of living for old-age pensioners—a higher increase than in recent years? Coupled with the announcements made by the Minister in his review last week, this will amount in total to a drastic falling off in the living standards of old-age pensioners. Will he, therefore, urge his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase dramatically the old-age pension in his coming Budget?
    Mr. Prior: I am well aware that inflation bears most heavily on pensioners and others on fixed incomes, and I am continually stressing the urgent need for the country to get this under control. That is the complete answer to the hon. Member.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would not my right hon. Friend admit at once that the increases that he has just denoted for food prices for old-age pensioners represent less than 2p in the pound, and are about one quarter of the advances which have taken place in nationalised industries? In view of all the increases put together, will he step along the corridor to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for a 10s. increase for the single old-age pensioner and 15s. for the two pensioner household to take effect at the earliest moment?
    Mr. Prior: As my hon. Friend knows only too well, pension matters are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, not for me.
    Mr. Speaker: The longer the supplementary questions, the fewer I can call.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I was not approving the hon. Member's supplementary question.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what movement there was in the retail price of food items other than those which show significant seasonal variations from the middle of December, 1970, to the latest available date, according to the Index of Retail Prices.
    Mr. Prior: The sub-group of the Food Index which covers non-seasonal foods rose by 1·4 per cent. between 15th
    236
    December, 1970, and 16th February, 1971, the latest date for which figures are available.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that it does not give us any pleasure to go on about these figures every time he answers Questions, but the figures are bad news for the housewife? The figure which he has just mentioned means that non-seasonal foods will have gone up 7 per cent. since June. Will he clarify the words of the Prime Minister last June? I will not quote them, because I am not trying to make a party political point. Were the people of this country wrong to interpret those words as meaning that there would be Government action to reduce the rate of price increases?
    Mr. Prior: The whole time there is Government action to reduce the rate of increase. I will respond to the hon. Gentleman who does not want to make a party point by saying that in two out of the last three years of Labour Government the increase in non-seasonal food prices between December and February was greater than it has been this year.
    Mr. Peter Mills: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) that this country still has the cheapest food in Europe, that a weak agricultural industry would mean that we were at the mercy of imported food and that the real reason for the increase in the cost of food is the legislation introduced by the Labour Government?
    Mr. Prior: That is very much to the point. As I said two months ago, we know that we have a difficult period ahead of us, but, as the Prime Minister has rightly said, we are now beginning to get on top of inflation, and that is the best thing we can do.
    Mr. Cant: May I help the right hon. Gentleman by asking him whether he is aware, on the basis of evidence in respectable newspapers, that there appears to be a serious racket in the prices of retail bacon and pork'? Will he reduce the cost of living, especially for poorer people, by investigating this? For old people, and others, there is nothing tastier than a bit of nice cheap bacon for breakfast.
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the price of bacon is cheaper now than it has been for three years.
    Hon. Members: Danish bacon.
    Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the way in which at Question Time after Question Time he blusters through his Questions is not appreciated by the country as a whole? Has he estimated the likely increase in food prices during 1971? Is he aware that some experts say that the increase may be as high as 10 per cent.? Whilst the House realises that there are some factors beyond his control for which he cannot be blamed, there are other matters which are well within his control. Will he now do something about it? Will he, for example, call a meeting of the Food Manufacturers Federation to discuss whether the manufacturers can absorb some of their costs in their profits and so stabilise the price of food?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I am well aware of the difficulties of this subject, and I want to be as helpful as I can to the House, but I do not think that trying to make an estimate for the rest of this year would be helpful.
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what movement there has been in the price of the 100 faster-selling branded foods covered by his Department's survey of retail prices between the last survey before decimalisation day and the latest available survey.
    Mr. Prior: In the four weeks between 9th February and 9th March about 92 per cent. of the price quotations for the faster-selling branded foods covered by this survey were unchanged or correctly converted to the decimal equivalents of their former £.s.d. prices. Of the remainder, just over 4 per cent, were dearer and over 3 per cent. were cheaper. These changes mainly reflected movements in manufacturers' prices, wholesale market prices or the incidence of special promotions.
    Mr. Barnes: I agree that the changeover to decimal currency went fairly satisfactorily, except, perhaps, in the greengrocery trade where there is, I think, some evidence of rounding up, but is the Minis-
    238
    ter aware that the Financial Times grocery index indicates that the upward trend, which was very marked between December and January, is still continuing between February and March? To come back to the point which I put previously, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government's incomes policy, such as it is, would have a much better response if the action which the Minister says the Government are taking over food prices were more evident?
    Mr. Prior: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman now says that the situation as regards decimalisation was comparatively satisfactory, and I hope that his hon. Friends will support him in that, since it was not what they said on the last occasion when we answered Questions on the matter.
    The Government's incomes policy is now seen to be having results, and this, in the end, is the best indication that price rises will stabilise.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of food as measured by the retail price index for the nine months between 18th June and 18th March.
    Mr. Prior: Between 16th June, 1970, and 16th February, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the Index of Retail Food Prices rose by 4·2 per cent.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, bad as those figures are, the housewife is in for a much heftier increase as a result of the Price Review last week, and will he now publish, out of the thousands of prices which go into the compilation of the retail price index, a list of the prices which have been cut at a stroke since 18th June, and also a list of the shops at which the housewife can buy those goods?
    Mr. Prior: What the hon. Gentleman presents as facts are not true. The increase resulting from the Price Review determination last week consists of an increase in the price of milk which is equivalent to ¾ per cent. on the cost of food index, and once the levy schemes start to operate, there will be an additional ½ per cent. over the following 12 months. That is the sum total of the increase stemming from the Price Review.
    Mr. Wiggin: Could my right hon. Friend say what relation the retail food price index bears to the total cost of living index?
    Mr. Prior: The retail food index comprises one quarter of the costs covered by the cost of living index.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that greengrocers throughout the country have just raised the price of cauliflowers by 10 old pence, an increase of 50 per cent., following the Government's levy just imposed? What will he do to restore the former prices?
    Mr. Prior: Apart from the fact that I do not for a moment believe that to be true throughout the country as a whole—
    Mr. Allaun: My wife has just paid that.
    Mr. Prior: —there are ample supplies of fresh vegetables of different varieties available at the moment, and I suggest that the housewife takes advantage of them.
    Mr. Kinseyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the effect the Farm Price Review will have on prices in the shops.
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the effect on retail food prices of the recent Price Review determinations.
    Mr. Prior: The price of milk is to be increased by ½p per pint in July and will add about ¾ per cent. to the Food Index. The only other determinations which can effect retail prices are those for sugar beet and potatoes but these should not in themselves lead to any increase in retail prices.
    Mr. Kinsey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The housewife is interested in the effect on her overall family budget. How do the determinations affect the direct price to the customer and the taxation price to the customer?
    Mr. Prior: Far from being the soak-the-housewife price review that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) talked about, the last Price Review compares very
    240
    well with some of those conducted when the Opposition were in power. The housewife will bear 44 per cent. of the increase this year, compared with 48 per cent. in the right hon. Gentleman's last Price Review and an average of nearly 50 per cent. over the past six years.
    Mr. Deakins: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in addition to the £60 million-£70 million extra will fall on the housewife as a direct result of this year's Price Review determinations, there will almost certainly be extra costs as a result of the introduction of import levies on meat, and that in the event of world cereal prices falling in the coming year, which is extremely likely, the raised minimum import prices for cereals will also lead to higher prices for bread and flour-based products than would have been the case?
    Mr. Prior: Most of that question was hypothetical. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not try to put unnecessary fear into housewives that prices will go up.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a White Paper showing the effect of the policy of encouraging competition in the stabilisation of food prices during the last nine months.
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) on 8th December.—[Vol. 808, c. 59.]
    Mr. Hamilton: That answer is not surprising, because the White Paper would be a blank sheet. Can the right hon. Gentleman comment on the Grocer's estimate that since the General Election there have been 5,856 price increases? If he is not prepared to publish a White Paper on price reductions at a stroke, will he consider publishing the items to which the Grocer refers?
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend publish a White Paper showing the difference between the rise in the retail prices of groceries during the six years when the Opposition were in Government, when they went up astronomically, and the price increases since

    241
    then, which have largely been due to the Opposition's mismanagement?
    Mr. Prior: As Labour hon. Members know, and hate to be reminded, in their five years in office prices went up by 25 per cent., whereas in the previous five years they went up by 11 per cent.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now consider holding a specific investigation into increases in food prices as a result of decimalisation, in the light of information received since 15th February.
    Mr. Prior: No, Sir. The changeover to decimal currency went smoothly.
    Mr. Eadie: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any idea how he reached that conclusion? For example, how does he canvass the housewife, who, according to quite substantial Press reports, doubts his statement very much?
    Mr. Prior: It happens that I think I am better informed about public opinion than the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Barnes: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the change-over to decimalisation in so far as it affected the greengrocery trade, which was a specific point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and not answered by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Prior: There were reports in the Financial Times article, which I think is the one the hon. Gentleman saw, that greengrocers had tended to even up rather than to pull down. This I regret, but I think that on the whole decimalisation went extremely smoothly and was a great credit to customers and shopkeepers alike.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Whilst I agree with my right hon. Friend, does he not agree that it could have gone still more smoothly if traders had made more use of the new half pence and had made use of the old sixpence?
    Mr. Prior: I think that that is perfectly true.

    Pig Herd
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is
    242
    his estimate of the effect of the recent Price Review determination for pigs upon the size of the pig herd.
    Mr. Prior: The immediate effect of the increase in the guaranteed price should be broadly to maintain profitability when production is stabilised within the middle band of the flexible guarantee. I cannot speculate on the longer-term trend in the size of the pig herd, but, if necessary, the Government will review the operation of the flexible guarantee arrangements later on in the year to encourage the desired level of production.
    Mr. Deakins: Is it not a fact that the February determination under the flexible guarantee arrangement showed the pig herd, or estimated marketings for the year ahead, to be at the top of the mid-band of 14·7 million, and is it not, therefore, almost certain that in May there will he a cut under the mid-band, unless the Government take emergency action, which will take away from pig producers with one hand what the Government gave them with the other at the Price Review?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman knows very well how the middle band operates; it is designed to keep pig numbers broadly in line with the increase in consumption. I cannot speculate too far ahead, but it seems to me that there is a fairly strong chance that there will be a cut in May.

    Food Products (Marketing)
    Mr. Kinseyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to combat the damaging effects which direct sales to large retail distributors are having on the wholesale marketing system for food products.
    Mr. Prior: I have no reason to think that efficient wholesalers cannot compete successfully.
    Mr. Kinsey: I share my right hon. Friend's opinion that competition is the housewife's champion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—hon. Members should ask the "Co-op"—but is he not aware that the position of the small man is being adversely affected by higher prices now as against the bulk large-scale purchaser, and it is important to keep the small man

    243
    in business since this is ultimately in the interest of the housewife's purse?
    Mr. Prior: I agree with what my hon. Friend says. The cash-and-carry warehouses and voluntary symbol groups can play a part in helping the small independent grocer to obtain the advantages of the large multiple store.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that confectioners, greengrocers and grocers, ordinary shopkeepers, complain bitterly that they were taken for a ride by wholesalers over decimalisation and that they are still being filched and cheated because they have to face the angry housewife over increased charges imposed on them by wholesalers? Will he do something about that to help the ordinary shopkeeper?
    Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman should already have heard, if he was here, his hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) say that he thought that decimalisation had gone satisfactorily.
    Mr. Molloy: The Minister is answering me now, not my hon. Friend.

    Fowl Pest (Vaccinated Flocks)
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will compensate the owners of vaccinated flocks which succumb to fowl pest.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: No, Sir. It is not the Government's responsibility to compensate farmers for losses from disease except where we require animals or birds to be slaughtered.
    Mr. Farr: Does not my hon. Friend think that the introduction of that policy would be a useful encouragement to flock-owners to vaccinate?
    Mr. Stodart: No, Sir. The policy of compensation was followed and was a failure up to 1963, when there were over 2,000 outbreaks in a year. The policy of vaccination caused the outbreaks to fall to fewer than 40, and vaccination is clearly the best policy.

    SOUTH AMERICA
    Mr. John Hannamasked the Prime Minister if he will now seek to make an official visit to South America.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Hannam: While I appreciate the pressures and commitments which prevent my right hon. Friend from visiting this rapidly developing and friendly trading area, does he agree that there is every indication of a strong and growing desire by this trading area, worth more than £4,000 million a year, for better, more fruitful and expanding trade relationships with this country? Will he consider the implementation of such measures as bilateral trade agreements and investment guarantees?
    The Prime Minister: Many firms in this country have long had well-established trading relations with particular countries in Latin America. We regard it as a very important market. As to bilateral trading agreements, this country operates under the multilateral arrangements of the G.A.T.T. Investment guarantees are being investigated by the Department of Trade and Industry, and I hope that it will be possible to make a statement about them fairly soon.
    Mr. Lipton: If the right hon. Gentleman went to the Argentine or some other South American country, could not he pick up one or two useful hints about how to get rid of unpopular colleagues?
    The Prime Minister: The Argentine would appear to have applied the procedure in reverse, which is not one that I wish to accept.

    TRADE UNION CONFERENCES
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Prime Minister how many invitations he has received to address trade union annual conferences on matters for which he is responsible.
    The Prime Minister: I have accepted an invitation to address the annual conference of the National and Local Government Officers Association next June.
    Mr. Sillars: When the Prime Minister addresses trade union annual conferences, will he take the trouble to tell them what claim he has to have a mandate for

    245
    Clauses 35 to 40 of the Industrial Relations Bill, which impose fictional agreements upon trade unions, especially as "Fair Deal at Work" denied that the Conservatives would do this?
    The Prime Minister: I am looking forward to addressing the conference. It will give me the opportunity to deal with the point the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and it will also give the conference the opportunity of seriously considering the Bill which is before Parliament.

    EMPLOYMENT
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister how many representations have been made to him since 1st January regarding the level of unemployment.
    The Prime Minister: I have discussed the state of the economy, including the level of unemployment, with a variety of organisations and individuals, and I have found widespread concern about the consequences for employment of inflationary wage demands.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has taken his Government only nine months to produce the worst unemployment figures since the war, and that by the end of July thousands of school-leavers will be added to the growing army of the unemployed? When he referred in the election campaign to building one society, did he really mean that he was giving equal opportunity to all men to stand in a dole queue?
    The Prime Minister: What I am aware of, and what those with whom I have discussed the matter are fully aware of, is the rising wage-cost inflation which we inherited from the Labour Government. The fact that the escalation in these claims has now been halted, and that there are signs of de-escalation, can be the basis—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not want to see inflation conquered in this country. When inflation is conquered there will be the basis for a sound expansion.
    Mr. Crouch: Has my right hon. Friend had his attention drawn to the growing problem of unemployment in the South-East region, particularly in North-East
    246
    Kent, where, although it is an area of relatively satisfactory economic conditions, there has been continuing and growing unemployment which the Department of Trade and Industry has not yet succeeded in solving?
    The Prime Minister: With great respect to my hon. Friend, it is not the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry to solve the particular problem of North-East Kent. I am well aware of the problems, many of which have arisen through the rationalisation of the larger companies in this country in an endeavour to maintain their efficiency and retain their export markets. What we must do is to encourage industry to go into such areas to take up the place which has been made for them by the rationalisation of existing companies.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: Leaving on one side the right hon. Gentleman's polemical utterances about alibis and scapegoats, has he received any representations or information about what I am sure he will agree is a very serious development, the growth of white-collar unemployment, for example, amongst sale staffs, executive staffs, design staffs, and so on? Perhaps he will look into this and tell the House later whether he is satisfied that the machinery of the Department of Employment is adequate to deal with the placing of those in the white-collar grades who are unemployed, not least those who are over 45 or 50.
    The Prime Minister: To the best of my knowledge, I have not had any representations on this aspect of the problem, but I will make sure about that. I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to look further into the question. Particular cases may arise at present as a result of the problems of Rolls-Royce. Here the Department of Employment has already made special arrangements for trying to find employment for design staffs and others concerned with the film.

    PRESIDENT NIXON (DISCUSSIONS)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to hold official discussions with President Nixon.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans for a further meeting with President Nixon.
    Mr. Dalyell: What did the British Government, as co-chairman of the Geneva Conference, say to the American President about the invasion of Laos?
    The Prime Minister: To the American President we have said nothing. What we have said to the Soviet Foreign Minister is that we would welcome joint action by the two co-chairmen for the removal of foreign forces from the whole area.
    Mr. Blaker: On a different point, my right hon. Friend will recall that when he saw President Nixon he discussed the question of the sale of advanced computers by this country to the Soviet Union. Has he any progress to report on this matter, which has been outstanding for some time?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot make a final statement about it today. The information I have is that the American Administration has given further consideration to the problem. I hope that we shall have a decision fairly shortly.

    TRADES UNION CONGRESS
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister when the Trades Union Congress last sought a meeting with him on matters of mutual concern.
    The Prime Minister: I was glad to have the opportunity of discussing the economic situation with the T.U.C. on 11th March, and I look forward to further exchanges of view.
    Mr. Marten: Now that the T.U.C. has condemned the strikes against the Industrial Relations Bill, would it not be logical for it to condemn the victimisation of those who did not strike against the Bill?
    The Prime Minister: The condemnation was made at the Congress at Croydon. We would all hope that no action will be taken against members of trade unions who did not take part in a political strike.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister give us an assurance that he will take cognisance of the point of view expressed to him not only by the T.U.C. but by the C.B.I., that he should reflate
    248
    the economy, thereby giving the people of Scotland in particular some hope about this Government?
    The Prime Minister: As both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. saw, my colleagues and I took very careful note of all the representations made to us, especially on the questions of investment, unemployment and inflation. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will take careful note of them all in forming his Budget proposals.

    SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that the Secretary of State for Defence is a member of the House of Commons, in view of the expenditure for which his Department is responsible.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence is well able to answer in this House on all defence matters, including defence expenditure.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Prime Minister think that it is an insult to the elected Members of the House of Commons that the head of the biggest spending Department in Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] It is the biggest at present, I think, spending £2,500 million. It is one of the biggest, in any case—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is the Prime Minister who is being asked the question.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it unfair that the Secretary of State should be in the other place, where he cannot be challenged by the elected representatives of the people? It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Secretary of State has an underling in this House prepared to answer here.
    The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's thesis. Until the Ministry of Defence was unified, it was customary for one of the Service Ministers to be in the other place, and he headed a major spending Department. As we have a bicameral system, I see no objection to a senior Minister being in the other place, and, of course, the

    249
    House of Commons retains complete control over expenditure.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does my right hon. Friend realise that those of us who take a rather more constructive view of defence expenditure than does the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) are thoroughly happy with the present arrangement?
    The Prime Minister: I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend is thoroughly happy, even if he does give the impression at the moment of receding over the horizon.

    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister if he will increase the number of Ministers at the Department of Health and Social Security.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Davis: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a desperate need to have a new Minister in the Department to do that which the present incumbents are not prepared to do—namely, to ensure that local authorities comply with the law, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which they are consistently refusing to do?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained to the House several times that the local authorities have been given very comprehensive guidance on what is required under the Act, that he proposes to give them the reasonable time that is required, because of the reorganisation of the whole of the social services now going on in local government, in order to implement it, and that he will make the necessary Order at the appropriate time.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (RESPONSIBILITIES)
    Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he will define the responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend is the Minister responsible for the negotiations for British entry into the European Communities, and deals with certain wider European questions. He also controls the management of the estates of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    Mr. Carter: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, but would he not agree that it should not be the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to come here with a set of faits accompli, the results of negotiations in Brussels, but that he should make far greater efforts to discover the true feelings of the British people towards the negotiations before going on to Brussels?
    The Prime Minister: The House has had many opportunities of debating the question of the European arrangements and negotiations. My right hon. and learned Friend makes a statement each time he returns from Brussels and, in addition, answers Questions in the usual way in the House. There is no question of a fait accompli of any kind. No decision can be taken until Parliament decides on the proposed arrangements if and when they come to be placed before the House.

    OXFORD (VISIT)
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Spearing—Question Q10.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Prime Minister recall—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not ask his supplementary question before he has asked the Question.
    Mr. Spearing: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, Question Q10.
    Mr. Spearingasked the Prime Minister when he plans to make an official visit to Oxford.
    The Prime Minister: On 23rd June, when the university has invited me to receive an honorary degree.
    Mr. SpearingI thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply but—
    Sir G. Nabarro: Congratulate him.
    Mr. Spearing: —does he recall that during the election campaign he called for an intellectually honest approach to politics, at the same time mentioning certain prices in the shopping basket? Will he please reconcile these two points—
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Mr. Heffer: Very good reading it is, too.
    Mr. Spearing: —with the Order, made in paragraph 49 of the Agricultural Price Review, to put new taxes on imported meat?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, even when post hoc, would appear to be somewhat far from Oxford. The whole question of agricultural policy was put before the electorate fully and in detail at the General Election.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a short business statement.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday that it would be appropriate for the House to debate Northern Ireland at a suitable time and he invited me to enter discussions through the usual channels about it. Those discussions led to the conclusion that the most appropriate and convenient time would be following the four-day debate on the Budget statement. I therefore wish to inform the House that on Tuesday, 6th April, there will be a debate on Northern
252
Ireland arising on the Motion for the Adjournment.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking the first opportunity to report to it the results of the discussions through the usual channels, which were unusually difficult but not disagreed.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we would of course have liked an earlier debate, as he and perhaps the House would have done, but that with the incidence of the Budget timetable, which none of us wants to disrupt unless something really serious were to occur, it was thought desirable not to have an immediate debate before the dust has settled in Belfast and the policy of the new Government has become clearer than it possibly can become in the course of the next two or three days? Although this means a long wait for many hon. Members, I think it is probably right to wait until that date.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I agree with the point of view he has expressed. We, too, would have liked an earlier debate—next week if that had been possible—but, as he has said, it would have been extremely difficult. I hope the House will feel that the result is the best that can be achieved in the circumstances.
Captain Orr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we, too, would have preferred a somewhat earlier debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who are we?"]—but we appreciate the difficulties—[An HON. MEMBER: "Paper tigers."]—and accept the fact that 6th April is the best date?
Mr. Whitelaw: I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for what he has said.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
  [5TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  As amended, further considered.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
    New Clause 11

      TRANSFER FROM PROVISIONAL REGISTER AND CANCELLATION OF ENTRIES
      5

      (1) In the case of each organisation which is entered in the provisional register, the registrar shall consider whether it appears to him to be eligible for registration as a trade union or as an employers' association in accordance with section 63 or section 67 of this Act; and if, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date of its entry in the provisional register, the registrar is satisfied that it is so eligible, he shall cancel that entry and register the organisation under this Act as a trade union or as an employers' association, as the case may be, and shall issue to it a certificate of such registration.

      10

      (2) If, in the case of any organisation which is entered in the provisional register, the registrar is not satisfied as mentioned in the preceding subsection before the end of the period specified in that subsection, he shall serve on the organisation a notice stating that fact; and, where the registrar has served such a notice, he shall cancel the entry of the organisation in the provisional register unless, before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date of service of that notice, he is satisfied—

      15

      (a) that the organisation would have to alter its rules in order to be eligible for registration under this Act as a trade union or as an employers' association, and

      20

      (b) that the organisation is taking all necessary steps for the purpose of so altering its rules.

      (3) Where the registrar refrains from cancelling the entry of an organisation in the provisional register by reason that he is satisfied as mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) of this section, he shall serve on the organisation a notice allowing it such further period as he may consider appropriate for enabling it to make the requisite alterations in its rules.

      25

      (4) If, before the end of a further period allowed to an organisation under subsection (3) of this section, the organisation does not make an application for registration under section 64 or section 68 of this Act, the registrar shall cancel its entry in the provisional register at the end of that period; but, where the organisation does make such an application before the end of that period, then—

      30

      (a) if in consequence of that application the organisation is registered under this Act as a trade union or as an employers' association, the registrar shall cancel its entry in the provisional register as soon as the organisation is so registered, or

      35

      (b) in any other case, the registrar shall cancel that entry as soon as he has given his decision on the application and the time for appealing to the Industrial Court against that decision has expired without any such appeal having been brought or, on any such appeal, his decision has been upheld by the Court.

      (5) No fee shall be payable for the registration of an organisation in pursuance of an application made in accordance with subsection (4) of this section.—[The Solicitor-General.]

      Brought up, and read the First film.
      3.33 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second Time.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time new Clause 12 and Government Amendments No. 70 and 71.
      The Solicitor-General: That will be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
      254
      The object of the two new Clauses is to simplify the procedure for the transfer of unions and employers' associations that are already registered on to the new register so as to ensure the continuity of their position and of their entitlement to rights which flow from registration, but at the same time to make plain that at any stage in the process a union may seek and secure cancellation of its registration.

      255
      Old Clause 75, which is being repealed, is replaced by new Clause 11. Old Clause 75 effected, as it stood, an automatic cancellation of provisional registration if the organisation made no application within three months for registration to be continued. That provision would have been somewhat inconclusive. It would have depended on lapse of intention and not upon a conscious decision by an organisation. It made no provision for an organisation to secure cancellation specifically of its registration.
      Before I explain the effect of the two new Clauses, read together with the provisions of Clause 74, I should first draw the House's attention to the fact that Amendment No. 70 makes an alteration in Clause 74 so as to extend the period of one month to six months. If one considers the position as it will be and as it will work if the House accepts the Amendments, it will be as follows. As a result of Clause 74, all those organisations which are already registered under the existing legislation will be transferred to the provisional register. In addition, any other organisation which applies for registration within six months of the passing of the Bill will be admitted to the provisional register upon application under Clause 74.
      Clause 75 will be replaced by new Clause 11, which will operate in the following way. During the next six months after an organisation has been entered on the provisional register, either automatically or as the result of application, the Registrar will consider the eligibility of that organisation for full registration, and he will apply the tests laid down in Clause 57 and Clause 63 with reference to trade unions and the corresponding tests and references to an employers' organisation. He will only at that point be considering eligibility —the question of whether or not the organisation qualifies as a trade union or as an employers' association. He will have to be satisfied, therefore, as to whether or not the organisation is based substantially on Clause 57—namely, the regulation of relations between employers and workers—whether it is independent and whether it is autonomous within the provisions of Clause 63.
      The Registrar will not at that point be concerned with the rules but only with deciding whether or not the organisation
      256
      qualifies and is eligible for registration, either as a trade union or as an employers' association. He will be doing that during the six months after the first entry in the provisional register. For him to undertake that consideration, in the great majority of cases no application will be necessary. He already has the information to enable him to undertake that consideration because it follows from the existing register that he will be able, by scrutiny of the rules and constitution of the existing organisation, in the vast majority of cases quickly to satisfy himself that the organisation is eligible either as a trade union or as an employers' association.
      Therefore, under new Clause 11, the transfer visualised—to the full register —will take place in most cases without difficulty. Only a comparatively small number of doubtful cases will remain behind on the provisional register. As a result of the repeal of Clause 75, there will be no question of the provisional registration lapsing after a period of three months further has elapsed. What will happen is that, under subsection (1) of new Clause 11, the Registrar will tell the organisation whether in fact it is eligible for transfer to the full register or not. If it is eligible, if it qualifies as a trade union or employers' association, the Registrar will so certify, and it will be transferred.
      Under subsection (2) of new Clause 11, if the Registrar forms the view that the organisation does not on the face of it qualify, perhaps because it is not independent, perhaps because its objects are not such as to qualify it under one or other of the headings, he will tell the organisation and give it six months within which to satisfy him as to its basic eligibility. If during that time the Registrar is satisfied that the organisation is taking all the necessary steps to alter its rules, again by reference to eligibility, he is enabled under subsection (3) to give it additional time to make the necessary changes.
      Under subsection (4), if during the additional time given for the necessary changes to be made, the organisation does not make any application, does not take advantage of the time given to convert provisional registration to full registration, the provisional registration lapses. On the other hand, if the organisation applies, if it takes advantage of the additional time granted, the Registrar ends the

      257
      provisional registration and the organisation is given full registration.
      If he decides at that point that he cannot register it because the organisation is still not eligible, he does not cancel the registration until the time has run for the organisation to appeal against his adverse decision. The effect of that is to give the Registrar the opportunity to consider during the first six months whether the organisation qualifies for transfer to the full register by reference to his information. This gives organisations time to consider their position and ample time to decide whether any changes need to be made simply to meet these eligibility qualifications, time for the Registrar to consider how the organisations stand, time for them to make what further changes may be necessary.
      Another effect is that non-registration, which is clearly an important decision for an organisation to take if it is already registered, would involve a conscious decision. It is plainly right that that kind of decision should not be taken lightly.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would rules which are debarred under the Bill be dealt with by the Registrar before or after provisional registration? At what stage would a union be required to alter any rules which were not in accordance with the Bill? If after provisional registration, how long would the Registrar give a union to alter such rules as it might be necessary to alter to comply with the Bill?
      The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter, because it is important to have the distinction clear. We are here concerned with whether an organisation is eligible for registration. In order to be eligible, it has to satisfy the Registrar only that it is an organisation the objects of which include the regulation of relations between workers and employers, under Clause 57, that it is an independent organisation, and autonomous, under Clause 63. We are not here concerned with the extent to which its rules comply with Clause 61.
      An organisation now registered under the 1871 and subsequent Acts as a result of Clause 74 would move automatically on to the provisional register. Any
      258
      organisation not so registered may apply within six months of the passing of the Bill for inclusion on the provisional register. In order to achieve that, it has to claim merely that it is a trade union or employers' association, or show that it is registered under the existing legislation. The Registrar then has six months in which, by reference to what he already knows about it, to decide whether it qualifies as eligible for registration as a trade union or employers' association, and he merely asks himself whether it has the right objects, whether it is independent, and whether it is autonomous. If he is satisfied, it is transferred to the main register.
      He has an opportunity at that point to give the organisation a chance to amend its rules merely to qualify for eligibility. For example, it may appear from its rules, although it is not so in practice, that it is not independent; it may appear from its rules that it derives benefits from some employer, and that would destroy its independence. But if that is not borne out in reality, the Registrar would give it time to amend its rules so as to qualify as an independent workers' organisation. It is only with that kind of rule that we are here concerned. Thereafter, when it is on the register under Clause 71, the Registrar will undertake an examination of the rules in much greater depth in order to determine whether they are consistent with the guiding principles of Clause 61. Under Clause 71, he may give notice to the organisation drawing attention to defects and giving it time to remedy those defects.
      3.45 p.m.
      There are three distinct stages: first, provisional registration is automatic; secondly, there is transfer to the full register providing that the organisation is plainly an independent trade union, or plainly an employers' association; thirdly, there is the process of analysing the rules to see whether they are in line with the provisions of Clause 61.
      Mr. Stanley Orme: I follow that very clearly, for it deals with the union which accepts the situation and wants to comply with registration. For that union the Registrar takes these steps. Where in this process would a union contract out?
      The Solicitor-General: I was coming to that next. I want to make it clear that there is no suggestion of an automatic enrolling on inescapable terms of any union which is registered. This is the function of new Clause 12. That makes it plain, as it was not plain from the original Bill, that at any time the Registrar may cancel entry of an organisation in either the provisional or the full register.
      The organisation may at any point, if it is now registered, for example, and would be transferred by Clause 74 to the provisional register and onwards, request the Registrar to cancel it, or the Registrar may cancel it if it ceases for some reason to exist, if is wound up, for instance.
      Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Is it the situation that unions which say that they will not register have to deregister themselves, have to take an actual initiative in the matter?
      The Solicitor-General: That is the basic change. Organisations which have been registered for perhaps up to 100 years are carried through by this means, first, on the satisfaction of eligibility, and, at a later stage, if the rules are in line with the guiding principles of the Bill. But at any point an organisation has power under new Clause 12 to apply for deregistration so that an organisation may "resign" in that way. The Government believe that it is right that it should be in this form, that there should be no question of restricting the right of an organisation to apply for deregistration, but that it should be regarded as a conscious, important act taken after consideration.
      This is a provision to make plainer what happens. The intention of the policy was always set out in Clause 74—that provisional registration followed from registration under the 1871 Act. The change is that a decision to withdraw, instead of being as a result of Clause 75 as it stood, a failure to respond, now requires an organisation to take a decision, but it is a decision which the organisation is entirely free to take, as we believe is right, under new Clause 12.
      Mr. Alex Eadie: The response of the trade union movement to the proposition which the hon. and learned
      260
      Gentleman has put is that the Government have made a political rather than a legal decision. The trade union movement has a certain attitude towards the question of registration. The Government's decisison has nothing to do with legality, as the hon. and learned Gentleman makes out.
      The Solicitor-General: This is not a decision prompted by what may or may not have taken place in discussions last week in considering the Bill. It was clear that the Bill made insufficient provision for the right of an organisation to cancel registration. It was also clear, on the question of timing under Clauses 74 and 75, that a whole series of decisions would have had to be taken within a very few months. We are making plain that the organisation registered now which qualifies for substantial benefits under the legislation remains so qualified, and it must, because it is right that it should, take a conscious decision, which it can take entirely freely, whether to withdraw its registration. That seems to be the right emphasis and right balance to achieve.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the union's decision to be taken in any particular way? Is it to be a general executive decision taken in accordance with its rules? Or can the general secretary take the decision? If so, what is meant by the words
      "evidenced in such manner as the Registrar may direct"?
      The Solicitor-General: A union takes and has power to take decisions in accordance with its rules. Different unions have different rules. Decisions will be taken in accordance with them. The Bill makes no attempt to alter the powers and obligations of a union, its officers and executive, under its existing rules, and provided the union takes a decision in accordance with its rules the legislation will not affect it.
      The provision to which the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) refers, namely, the requirement on the Registrar to cancel.
      "at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct"
      is the subject of Amendment (aaaaaa) and is not intended to restrict the union's power to operate under its constitution.

      261
      The proposed provisions are very close in form to those contained in Section 8 of the 1876 Act, which provided for a union applying for deregistration if it wished to do so and relates to the extent to which the Registrar must be satisfied by evidence about the decisions taken by the organisation. In other words, he could require a proper minute of the executive council or a properly certified decision signed by a union officer—something to enable him to be satisfied that the union have taken a decision in accordance with its rules. The provision is not intended to give the Registrar power to direct the way in which the decision should be made, as some comment in the Press would appear to indicate. The words
      "evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct"
      are a reproduction of the corresponding Section in the 1876 Act, save that that Act says
      "evidenced in such manner as the registrar shall direct from time to time".
      But there is no difference, and no difference is intended. There is no trap or snare or anything of that sort. The union can and must take a decision about registration or about cancelling registration in accordance with its rules.
      Mr. Orme: Is the Solicitor-General saying that the Registrar could object only if he felt that the rules had not been carried out correctly?
      The Solicitor-General: Yes. He would he entitled to satisfy himself that the request of the organisation was valid and that there was no reason why he should challenge it. He would merely need to be satisfied that the decision was made at the organisation's request, "evidenced in such manner" as carried conviction. But if someone produced on behalf of a powerful union a piece of scrap paper with a note on it saying "Unauthenticated", the Registrar would not regard that as being evidenced in such manner as he might direct. The organisation would have to comply with its rules and, as with any other decision of importance, no doubt the decision could, in accordance with the rules, be followed by other members of the organisation through the courts if they wished to do so. There is no intention to restrict or limit the power beyond that.
      Mr. Harold Walker: The Solicitor-General insists that the union must take the deregistration decision in accordance with its rules. It seems to me on a hasty perusal of my union's rule book that a change of rule would be required for that purpose and the rules of the union provide that the rules can be changed only every fifth year. The next year in which the rules revision conference of the A.E.F. meets is 1975. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the A.E.F. will not have the chance to deregister until 1975?
      The Solicitor-General: That is not the intention.
      Mr. Walker: Is that the effect?
      The Solicitor-General: Clause 71(5), which is related to enabling a union to comply with directions of the Registrar in other respects, gives a union power to alter its rules notwithstanding any restriction on the frequency with which a rules revision conference may take place. It is not the intention of the new Clause to impose a random or arbitrary restriction of that kind. If that is a widely recurring problem, no doubt it can be considered. The intention is that the organisation should be able to make a request for cancellation, and the Registrar's power is confined to satisfying himself that it is truly the decision of the organisation and not merely a random comment by someone without authority to make it.
      Mr. Norman Atkinson: There is a great deal of suspicion throughout the trade union movement that the new Clause has been designed so as to allow the Government in the next 12 months to insist that a ballot be carried out which would permit the union to contract out. That is the view of many trade unionists why the provision is worded in the curious way to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. Is that in the Government's mind? Would the Government like to see a trade union take a ballot of its members before a decision to contract out of registration is taken?
      The Solicitor-General: The law is not designed or intended to have that effect. The Government do not intend it to have that effect. The words
      "evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct"

      263
      are a repetition of Section 6 of the 1871 Act relating to the way in which the Registrar must be satisfied. Whether within its rules a union should ballot its members on a decision of this importance is something which the union would decide in accordance with its rules. Many people might think that for a decision of this importance it would be no bad thing for the union to be sure that it was reflecting the wishes of its membership. But no provision in the Bill nor in the new Clause has the effect of securing that. It is left to the organisation to comply with its rules. The hon. Gentleman's suspicion is entirely without foundation.
      Mr. Atkinson: If the Solicitor-General and the Government were able to advise trade unions on this point, would their advice be that they should conduct a ballot of members before contracting out of registration?
      4.0 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: I am not in a position to advise any given organisation. The hon. Gentleman is in a position to advise his own organisation. It has been emphasised time and time again that registration under the Bill is a means whereby a workers' organisation registered as a trade union qualifies for access to the new agencies set up under the Bill, qualifies for the immunity preserved for registered trade unions by Clause 85, and qualifies for limitation on awards of compensation against it. The Government think that it is right that any organisation now registered and any organisation which applies within six months of the passing of the Act should have no impediments placed in its way for it, on behalf of its members, to acquire those benefits and rights. That is the object of Clause 74.
      Beyond that, if an organisation were to decide, as it becomes free to do so under new Clause 12, that it would with its eyes open cast away that position, the organisation may well feel that its members ought to have their opinions canvassed and that they ought to have the matter fully explained to them before it took that action. However, that is a matter for the organisaion and for its membership and it is not something which the legislation seeks to define or restrict in any way.
      Mr. Iremonger: is a very important point which is essential to the operation of the Bill when enacted. If a union deregisters without having sounded the views of its members and if in fact a majority of its members wish to belong to a registered trade union, presumably their option would be to form a union themselves and register that.
      The Solicitor-General: There are a whole range of options which might arise. All those are matters which no doubt an organisation would bear in mind before reaching its decision as to what it did or did not do under new Clauses 11 and 12. The provisions here contained provide a clear choice and enable organisations to decide for themselves what their standing should be without depriving any organisation now registered of the advantages which will follow from its previous registration under the 1871 Act. It is on that basis that I commend the new Clauses to the House.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Clause will replace Clause 75. It is being discussed in association with Government Amendments Nos. 70 and 71. Government Amendment No. 70 would replace "one month" by "six months" in Clause 74.
      Like all the other parts of the Bill, to understand what is involved it is unfortunately essential continuously to go from one Clause to another. It is almost impossible to follow the cross-references in the Bill. I do not know how it will be possible for the average intelligent shop steward to understand the full ramifications of the Bill in view of the great number of cross-references which occur in it from beginning to end. I cannot understand how this can be considered seriously to improve industrial relations.
      The Clause places all existing registered trade unions on the provisional register and they will be transferred automatically to the premanent register, providing they are acceptable under the terms outlined by the Solicitor-General.
      The Solicitor-General said—it is important to note this carefully—that a union's registration would not lapse; it would have to take a conscious decision to come off the register. A little later the hon. and learned Gentleman said that de-registration will involve a conscious decision. This is the reverse of the

      265
      previous proposal, which was that after three months trade unions would automatically be deregistered. In this case they will have to decide that they wish to deregister.
      There is much more in this than the hon. and learned Gentleman is suggesting. The Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State constantly come forward with the apparently reasonable proposition that the objective is to help trade unions in their endeavours. This is what they are constantly trying to put across to the country. The first intention of new Clause 11 is to embarrass the T.U.C. and trade unions affiliated to it. Second, they intend to try to divide the traditional white collar unions from the blue collar unions. It is no good their trying to dress it up, because that is the intention of the Clause, and I will explain why.
      Mr. Iremonger rose—
      Mr. Heffer: Normally I would give way to hon. Members who carry some weight in this debate, but the hon. Gentleman carries no weight whatsoever in this matter. Therefore I will not give way. There are hon. Gentlemen who have sat throughout the debates on the Bill and who, whether we agree with them or not, at least have a contribution to make; and I would give way to them.
      Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order. I am not, I hope, hypersensitive or touchy, but the hon. Gentleman has been just a little less than entirely courteous to me and it might be fitting if he would give way for a moment.
      Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that that is not a point of order.
      Mr. Iremonger: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Heffer: No, not now. I might give way in a few minutes' time.
      I repeat that the Government's objectives are twofold: first, to embarrass the T.U.C. and the unions affiliated to it, and, second, to endeavour to divide the traditional white collar unions from the manual workers' unions. Despite the Government's efforts, I am afraid that their motives cannot be regarded as simon-pure. Their tactics are not to assist and accommodate the trade unions.
      266
      On the contrary, they are designed to sow discord in the trade union movement.
      I admit freely that there is a difference in tactics towards registration in the trade union movement, and that difference was expressed at last week's special Congress. There was a sizeable minority at that Congress—I say "sizeable"; in fact it was almost a majority—which wanted the T.U.C. to instruct its affiliates not to register, while the majority urged that the affiliated unions
      "… shall be strongly advised not to become registered."
      The resolution passed at the Congress agreed that
      "Before any union decides to apply to be entered on the provisional register, or to take any steps to remain on the provisional register, or thereafter to seek full registration, it shall inform the General Council of its reasons for doing so, and give the General Council the opportunity to express a view."
      It is essential for the Government to read not only the headlines in the newspapers, not only the columnists in the Sunday Press, most of whom I understand were briefed by the right hon. Gentleman or by members of his Department. It is also important for them to read the small print in the resolution carried at the special Congress. That points out clearly that the entire body agreed in that resolution that all the trade unions affiliated to the T.U.C. should be advised not to register and, if they decided to register, at least to discuss the matter with the General Council, which could express a view about it.
      I said just now that attempts were being made by the Government to divide one section of the trade union movement from the other—
      Mr. Iremonger: Perhaps this is a convenient moment for the hon. Gentleman to give way. I wanted to ask him about his use of the word "embarrassing"—[Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) wish to make a comment?
      Mr. John Fraser: Get on with it.
      Mr. Iremonger: I am sure that if I am not getting on with it to your satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, you will tell me

      267
      without assistance from the hon. Gentleman.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was discourteous enough to suggest that I had a slight interest in this matter. Perhaps I might remind him that I introduced a Bill on precisely the same lines as the Government's proposals on 30th July, 1957. I have been concerned with these matters for some time.
      I wanted to ask the hon. Gentleman about his suggestion that the Government's proposals were embarrassing to the trade union movement. Surely the embarrassment involved in having to make a difficult decision about which there are conflicting interests is just the sort of embarrassment that any democratically-elected body has to put up with from time to time.
      Mr. Heffer: That intervention proves how unwise it is to give way to an hon. Member on the benches opposite. Such interventions contribute absolutely nothing. I was aware that the hon. Gentleman had introduced a Bill in this House. Indeed, I think that he introduced one later than 1957, since I remember having the pleasure of voting against it.
      I repeat that whereas the Solicitor-General again said today that the Government were not prompted by any attitude towards the T.U.C., clearly this new Clause is prompted by just such an attitude. The Government knew that there were certain differences amongst unions in the T.U.C. on the subject of registration. They also knew that an attempt was to be made to take a decision that the affiliates of the T.U.C. should not register as a whole. Clearly the Government decided that if they could sow the seeds of discord between one section of the trade union movement and another they would do it. Obviously right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not accept that argument, but that is the real situation. That is why this Clause has been introduced. It is no good the Government trying to suggest that that is not so. If it was not the reason, why did they introduce it at all? We have heard no serious argument from the Solicitor-General to convince us that the Clause was essential, that it would help the trade union movement, and so on. Clearly it was
      268
      intended to sow discord in the ranks of the trade union movement.
      We on this side of the House and the trade union movement as a whole are opposed to the concept of registration. Our reasons are well known, and they are clearly outlined again in new Clause 11. A trade union must satisfy Clause 63, and subsection (2) clearly precludes the T.U.C. from being a registered union unless all its affiliated constituents are registered. It is interesting to note that when that is contrasted with Clause 67, under which employers have to register. no such stringent condition applies.
      Mr. David Mitchell: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point about Clause 63(2) not entitling the T.U.C. to become a registered trade union, will he explain what activity the T.U.C. might wish to carry on which it would not be able to carry on under the Bill as it now stands? As I understand it, the T.U.C. itself has never been a trade union in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman now uses the expression.
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. Heffer: My point is that, under the Bill, there are certain activities about which the T.U.C. could find itself in difficulty if it were not a registered union.
      Mr. Tom King: Such as?
      Mr. Heffer: Does the hon. Gentleman want me to go through all the Clauses? I draw his attention to Clauses 85, 86 and 87. There are so many. It is impossible for me to outline them all. The hon. Gentleman knows that as well as I do. There is a whole series of unfair industrial practices in which, quite unwittingly, the T.U.C. might become involved.
      Clearly, this is intended again to put pressure on the whole trade union movement in one form or another to accept registration.
      I say clearly, because this brings out the point which I made earlier, that the intention of new Clause 11 is to embarrass the Trades Union Congress. Some unions may decide, under pressure, merely to exist as trade unions, to register. In my opinion, most will not register. But this could again develop tensions within the T.U.C. That, in my opinion, is precisely what the new Clause is intended to do.

      269
      There has been growth in the white-collar unions. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like the fact that the white-collar unions are becoming allied to the blue-collar unions. In fact, the white-collar unions have joined the T.U.C. and are now part of that set-up. They were not in the past. It is that which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like and are afraid will develop in future.
      Mr. Tom King: Why not?
      Mr. Heffer: It is clear why not. It is because in the past certain of these organisations have tended to be the bastions of Conservative thinking. That is now crumbling. Because it is crumbling right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite want to try to solve this problem by attempting to split off the white-collar unions from the blue-collar unons. That is the intention behind the new Clause. It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite coming to the House with the purest of motives and not telling us the real facts behind the new Clause. In my opinion, the new Clause is designed to weaken that alliance.
      I repeat, it is interesting that under Clause 67 the employers, as federated organisations, do not have the same stringent conditions applied to them as the T.U.C. has under Clause 63. There are other objectives to registration which have been discussed many times in this House.
      I accept that the Government have joined forces with the Opposition to eliminate from Clause 64(4,b) the words,
      "and any other requirements imposed by the registrar as a condition of registration".
      The Government have accepted this proposal. I think that the Secretary of State has put his name at the head of an Amendment put down by my right hon. and hon. Friends. The terminology used was that there had been a meeting of minds on this issue. We accept that on this minor issue there has been a meeting of minds. We are grateful for this. However, at the risk of sounding churlish, it is by no means enough, because whether that Amendment has been accepted or not all the other facets of registration continue.
      270
      The trades unions are being offered concurrently the carrot and the stick to register. They are getting these two things at the same time whether they like it or not. Under new Clause 11 the unions will still have their rules vetted. The right hon. Gentleman spelt that out when he said that there were three stages. In the third stage we still come back to the situation that the rules of the unions will have to be vetted. Subsection (2,a) clearly states
      "that the organisation would have to alter its rules in order to be eligible for registration",
      and Clause 64 will still lay down:
      "Any such application shall be made in such form and manner as the registrar may require."
      Despite the meeting of minds, as it were, on the Amendment to Clause 64(4,b), the powers given to the Registrar will continue to be very wide.
      We are saying that because the new Clause replaces a previous Clause but retains the principle of registration, on that basis alone we would oppose it. But, in addition, because it is designed to weaken, divide and split the trade union movement on the basis or registration, we feel that it is particularly mischievous. On that basis my hon. Friends would not, of course, give the new Clause a Second Reading.
      Mr. Iremonger: There was not a single argument against it.
      Mr. Tom King: I echo the cry which I heard from my right. As in so many of the debates on the Bill, one finds on the Order Paper what seems a perfectly reasonable Government proposition. One therefore approaches the Chamber with a sense of pleasant anticipation to know what terrifying flaws and sinister bogeys will be produced by the Opposition to oppose what might appear to the impartial observer as a sensible provision.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was unable to find any pretext for new Clauses 11 and 12, except that they were sinister devices to obstruct or embarrass the workings of the T.U.C.
      I think I can enlighten the hon. Gentleman as to how these new Clauses arose. It would be generally agreed that when the Bill first appeared, and on full consideration in Committee, many hon. Members on this side of the House were

      271
      not happy about the arrangements regarding the provisional register, the timings and difficulties which could arise. These could raise far more problems than were necessary. I do not know what representations were made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I assure them that there was considerable pressure from my hon. Friends and myself to improve the method. I congratulate my right hon. Friend that he has recognised that this method could be and has been improved.
      No one can seriously suggest, despite the efforts made by the hon. Member for Walton, that this arrangement deprives anybody of their rights or alters the situation in any major way. I thought that hon. Members opposite were fully in favour of contracting out, and this would seem to carry that principle a stage further.
      The only point made by the hon. Member for Walton which I could establish and which seems quite without substance was that it was an attempt to divide the white-and the blue-collar unions. This may have been the outcome of the Congress at Croydon. However, to suggest that this is the intention of these reasonable new Clauses seems quite ludicrous.
      I made a sedentary intervention during the speech by the hon. Member for Walton, for which I should perhaps apologise. He explained that the white-collar unions had been regarded as the former bastions of Conservative thought. I increasingly recognise that there are changes in the pattern of life and perhaps some of the more traditional halls of Conservatism are not as established as they were. I am also increasingly convinced that some of the blue-collar unions and their members are more traditional bastions of Conservatism than their leadership might indicate. I commend the hon. Gentleman to bear that point more in mind. He will be surprised, as the polls have shown, how widespread is that support. Sometimes the polls, short of the ballot box, are the only way of discovering how people think on issues of this kind. [Interruption.] I am talking about the Industrial Relations Bill in this context. I do not pay so much attention to the polls, and I refuse to be accused of selectivity in that respect for there are good reasons to justify that thought.
      272
      We then move on to the really "sinister" clause which has been found by the Opposition in this quite terrifying suggestion, when cancellation is attempted by a union,
      "at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct".
      My right hon. and learned Friend surely nailed that suspicion. It is not only established form in the previous Act. Surely all hon. Members recognise that, because of the issues which are at stake here, the Registrar would be grossly irresponsible and it would be quite unfair to them if he did not have an established method of receiving any resignations from the register.
      4.30 p.m.
      The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) in an earlier debate mentioned the financial implications of non-registration. This is important. The Registrar might be in a very difficult situation, between the Inland Revenue and a union, over payment or reclaiming of tax, unless he had very clear records to show whether a union had decided to deregister.
      Mr. Raymond Gower: Is there not possibly another reason—that after the Bill has been in operation for a time registration may come to be regarded as a tremendous privilege, so that any union which lost this privilege without desiring to do so would deeply resent it? Thus, it is surely desirable that the Registrar should be utterly satisfied that this was the desire of the union.
      Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the matter even clearer. It is surely clear that it would be impossible not to have some clear and defined method under which a decision of such magnitude was taken. Undoubtedly, this decision could give rise to great feelings within a union, and it would need to be established and recorded without peradventure.
      But my hon. and learned Friend has gone further. The hon. Member for Walton made great play with the Croydon conference. I do not know how selective was the presentation of the speeches in "24 hours", and I do not know how many hon. Members saw its fairly long programme on the Croydon conference and the discussion afterwards. But I felt great encouragement following the discussion, which gave the impression

      273
      that the unions are increasingly beginning to recognise the benefits of registration. Mr. Jack Jones's comments were very guarded. He made it clear that he was not saying that his union would necessarily seek to deregister.
      I felt from this interview and discussion that there was a very sensible and reasonable change of attitude at work, that people were realising that the terrors of the Bill were not quite as awful as they had imagined, and that they were beginning to recognise, as certain commentators are, that the Bill will become law and that the question now is how to live with it. We shall no doubt hear more of that on Third Reading—
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Would the hon. Gentleman not therefore concede that the new Clause might enliven the attitude of mind which says that only political strikes can really battle with this, as against those who say that there are other means of questioning the Government's strategy? Might this not swing the balance back to those who say that this is the only formidable way in which the Government can be contested on a matter to which the whole trade union officialdom is fundamentally opposed, whether they register or deregister, contract in or contract out? That has been clearly established.
      Mr. King: I totally fail to follow the hon. Member. He has said that the only way in which they can face the situation is by political strikes, that, under new Clause 11, we are talking about registration and the transfer to the provisional register. But new Clause 12 clearly defines the ability to seek cancellation of an entry on the register. There was no suggestion of this from the hon. Member for Walton, who was desperately short of material and who would have jumped at any chance like this of widening the area of debate. The rights of unions are preserved under this. A correct union decision is in no way inhibited. If they wish to be deregistered, they will be able to do so. It is on those grounds—
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Member has said that he and his hon. Friends are the parents of this new Clause. If there is a substantial difference between contracting in and contracting out, which appears to he the difference envisaged
      274
      by the new Clause, would he tell us what it is? So far he has not done so. and neither has the Solicitor-General.
      Mr. King: The hon. Member has done something which many hon. Members have to face, but this is the first time that it has happened to me. He interrupted the last half sentence of my peroration.
      The differences simply are that there is the risk of default and the problem of fixing time limits between going on to the provisional register and going on to the permanent register. This provision will make it now the responsibility of the Registrar, and a union, by failure to act at any one time, will not miss out or be at a disadvantage from which it may be difficult to recover. The unions can continue with the least disturbance.
      The objective which I support, and which I know many of my hon. Friends support, throughout the Bill is that there should be the minimum disturbance to existing good industrial relations and the existing conduct of good unions. It is for that reason that I support the new Clauses.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: We have consistently opposed registration, not because in itself it is not a good thing—unions have been registered under the 1871 Act—but because this is registration which carries with it the right of a Government agency to write the rules of a union. Because of this the unions have opposed registration. Originally the Bill stipulated that unions would not be automatically registered but would have to apply for registration. On that basis, the Trades Union Congress decided—this was endorsed at Croydon—to recommend strongly to their affiliated member unions not to register under the Act.
      But this provision attempts to change that position. Automatically a union will be regarded as having registered unless it makes a conscious effort to secure de-registration. The situation has changed, therefore, because the Government have been afraid to face the fact that the unions would decide in large numbers not to register. So now they have turned face about and are saying, "You are registered whether you like it or not, and if you disagree you must make a conscious application before we will consider it".

      275
      The loose wording of the new Clause may allow situations in which unions cannot deregister because the Registrar has been given very wide powers under new Clause 12(1)(a) to decide what the terms should be for deregistration. He could say that he was not satisfied that an application represented the view of the union membership. It says that he must be provided with evidence which would lead him to believe that the request of the organisation is a bona fide request. So he could say to a union, for example, "You are bound to seek a ballot of your membership". He could say, "I will disregard any application from the national executive of a union" or, "In future there must be a 50 per cent. vote or a two-thirds per cent. vote". He could say almost anything. I therefore cannot understand why, the Registrar is given such wide powers under the new Clause to demand the type of evidence that would convince him that a union should be deregistered.
      The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr): I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to make bogeys where they do not exist. My hon. and learned Friend drew attention to the fact that the wording of the new Clause is almost identical, as far as evidence is concerned, to what was in the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965, which was passed under a Labour Government. The Building Societies Act, 1962, also refers to the registration of a society being cancelled at the society's request, if that is thought fit, and to the production of evidence in such manner as the central office may direct. The Friendly Societies Act, 1896, uses precisely the same phraseology. This is, therefore, well established phraseology, and it is well known that it does not carry the implications which the hon. Gentleman is trying to place on it.
      Mr. Fletcher: I am aware that it follows the wording of the 1871 Act, but under that Measure when an organisation applied for registration it was able to get benefits from being registered; from, for example, the income tax point of view if it provided benevolent grants and other payments. Under these provisions, however, there will be disadvantages for such a union. For example, its rules will, in essence, be written by
      276
      the Registrar. [Interruption.] He must agree the union's rules before it can be registered. The situation under this Measure compared with the past will be entirely different.
      Mr. Gower: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that much of this wording was included in "In Place of Strife", which was introduced by his right hon. Friend less than four years ago? Why does he accuse us of making the Registrar rewrite the unions' rules when these provisions are broadly in line with proposals introduced by the Labour Party?
      Mr. Fletcher: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly reminding us of "In Place of Strife" and that so-called affinity, which I do not see, between that and this Bill. My views on "In Place of Strife" should be known to the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower). I never supported it.
      Under this legislation the I.R.C. is given specific instructions on how to interpret the Bill. The Registrar is given no such instructions. For example, on the cooling-off period the High Court judge is told exactly the circumstances in which he can decide whether the Secretary of State should be allowed to take certain action and whether a strike is a danger to health, national defence or the economy. No such instructions are given to the Registrar.
      It would have been more honest for the Solicitor-General—he admitted that he would like to see a 50 per cent. membership vote taken on whether a union should register—to have stipulated these instructions in the new Clause. Without them, the Registrar will be able to make his own decisions on whether a union should register and, if so, whether it should be allowed to get out of registration. This will make it difficult for unions to become deregistered, for the Registrar might insist on keeping them registered.
      4.45 p.m.
      If unions decide on non-co-operation, they could agree to be registered—they would take a negative attitude because registration is automatic—but then not implement the Bill. For example, they could remain registered but when asked by the Registrar to provide copies of their rules for approval refuse to provide

      277
      them. The initiative for deregistration would then have to come from the Registrar, who would be obliged to say, "This union can no longer remain on the register because it is not implementing the Bill by refusing to submit a copy of its rules, which I wish to vet."
      The Government could find themselves in a lot of trouble over this and perhaps they are being too clever by half by insisting on the stipulation in the new Clause. By washing their hands of the decision whether a union should be registered, they may be putting themselves in very hot water. Indeed, the situation is likely to be worse under these provisions than under the Bill as originally drafted because the original draft stipulated that unions must make individual applications for reregistration. The new Clause will put even further obstacles in the way of the Bill being implemented and is likely to increase non-co-operation among unions.
      Mr. Adam Butler: I will correct only a few of the many errors which were perpetrated by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) in his list of suppositions. The first is about the Bill as previously drafted, particularly in respect of entry on to the provisional register by trade unions.
      Under Clause 74 unions will be entered on to the provisional register regardless, and it is under Clause 75, which we are repealling with the new Clause, that registration will automatically lapse after three months. It is about this point that I particularly wish to speak.
      My hon. and learned Friend's words about the need for a conscious decision to de-register is a vital part of this whole question of registration and deregistration. This is vital in the interests of democracy in the trade union movement and in the interests of individual union members. It is not reasonable for a decision which puts a union so much at risk to be taken unconsciously or unknown to its members.
      The Bill is complex and is certainly not fully understood throughout the trade union movement. A decision which affects, amongst other things, the funds of the unions which, if not registered, would be at risk in certain circumstances, and particularly which affects the access to the new legal agencies, must not be
      278
      taken unconsciously. Although it is not included in the Bill, I should consider favourably a requirement that there should be a ballot amongst members before deregistration took place, to ensure that members at least knew that their benefits and privileges under registration were being taken away.
      The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said—if I heard him correctly —that he did not want a ballot before a decision to deregister was taken. If he did not say that, he certainly implied it. That is typical, I regret, of some of the leadership of the trade union movement. They are not genuinely prepared to take into account what their members feel. We on this side of the House want to protect individual members from that attitude. It is for that reason that I have pleasure in supporting the new Clause.
      Mr. Orme: I intervene in the debate on new Clauses 11 and 12 because the whole concept of new Clause 12 is highly political. Why did the T.U.C. make this number one of the seven points just debated at the special Congress and recommend strongly against registration? Why was it the issue of the two vital battles which took place at the T.U.C., one on the Clause and one on the subject of further industrial action, if it is not important? Of course it is important. It is important because the Government consciously are taking away fundamental rights which have existed in the trade union movement since the original register was set up in 1871. It is a direct interference in the running and conduct of independent trade unions. It is no good the Solicitor-General using honeyed words to try to explain away this situation.
      It was interesting that the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) said that pressure had come from the Tory back benches not to give the trade unions more freedom but to reverse the existing procedure. As new Clauses 11 and 12 make very clear, unions now have to contract out as opposed to contracting in.
      Mr. Tom King: In what way do these allegedly harsh, repressive new Clauses 11 and 12 in any way diminish the rights or opportunities of trade unions?
      Mr. Orme: That is the whole purpose of the registration. This is the first step

      279
      of the Bill and where it all begins, in the form of registration.
      Mr. King: They can deregister.
      Mr. Orme: The Bill makes it very difficult. It actually financially penalises unions which deregister. It takes away rights established since the 1871 Act, and people talk about it not affecting the trade unions because they have the right to deregister.
      This is one of the most conscious political actions that the Government are taking. The Solicitor-General knows that it is political. It is aimed at the centre of the trade union movement. The trade unions are so bitterly opposed to registration because flowing from registration are not only the financial implications but the rights of the Registrar to interfere in the conduct and running of unions. Unions can no longer be free and independent but, like Spanish or Czech trade unions, they will come under the corporate State approach.
      The trade union movement in this country may be open to criticism. We on this side of the House have never defended it as being perfect, because no organisation in this country is perfect. But we believe that trade unions are the bastions of democracy, and because of that we and the trade unions believe that registration and all that flows from it—the right to interfere and to adjudicate over rules, and the rules that will be imposed—is wrong. When asked to give examples, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) asked, "Do you want me to name the 150 Clauses? Just look at Clauses 85, 86 and 87"—on unfair industrial practices. All this flows from the issue of registration.
      Mr. Tom King: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to avoid answering my question, but he has now rather gone on to a Third Reading speech. His objections to the Bill apply irrespective of new Clauses 11 and 12. My question was as to how new Clauses 11 and 12 make the Bill in any way more penal on the trade unions.
      Mr. Orme: I thought that I had answered that point without the remarks that the hon. Gentleman makes about my speech, which I should not deign to
      280
      make about that of the hon. Gentleman. I thought I had answered the point by what I said about contracting in and out. It is a tightening up of the situation. It is apparent. The hon. Gentleman must tell us of the endeavours of himself and his hon. Friends about the pressures on the subject of registration. There is no doubt that when the Government saw that the trade union movement could see a way of getting out of co-operating on the Bill, obviously the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State decided, therefore, to make it even more difficult to circumscribe the Bill by bringing in these Clauses and giving the Registrar the right, in new Clause 12(1), to peruse the decision of a union and, as the Solicitor-General said, the right, if necessary, to instruct that a ballot be taken.
      Who is this individual, the Registrar? Who is he that has a right to take this sort of action with independent organisations?
      Mr. Adam Butler: In the Bill there is no case that the Registrar could require a ballot to be taken in this case for registration or deregistration. But the hon. Gentleman referred to the trade unions as being the bastions of democracy. If that is so, would he favour a ballot to find out what the members of his union, in a democratic society, would like to do in the case of deregistration?
      Mr. Orme: In my union, if the members want to take such a decision, they would take it on any issue. I am objecting to their being forced by the Bill and the Government to do things to which they are completely opposed. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not written in words in the Bill that a ballot ought to be taken; neither does it say that a ballot shall not be taken. That is our point.
      In this important debate, I have tried to make the point about the T.U.C. very clear. Neither the Solicitor-General nor the Secretary of State has taken this issue on board. They do not appreciate that the decisions taken at Croydon were not a crumbling away of the opposition but that the T.U.C., in reaching the seven decisions, have said that it will mean non-co-operation and have strongly recommended non-registration. These are the issues that the T.U.C.

      281
      have had to decide. This body, which has always abided by the law has recommended that the trade unions should have nothing to do with the register or with the Bill. That is the issue, and that is why we are so totally opposed to new Clauses 11 and 12.
      5.0 p.m.
      Mr. David Mitchell: I have listened with growing interest to what the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and the other speakers have said. I am glad that the hon. Member for Salford, West recognises that trade unions are not perfect. I am only sorry that he went on to oppose any effort to ensure the raising of the standards of the minority to the best which already exists. In the week after we have seen the political strikes, where an endeavour was made to intimidate and to bring outside pressures to bear against the democratic decision of this House, I do not know how we can defend the trade unions as the bastion of democracy.
      Mr. Orme: The industrial strikes led by my union last Thursday and on 1st March—which I supported—were industrial action against an Industrial Relations Bill that will take away unions' rights. The trade union movement was defending democracy and its rights. It was not asking for anything, it was defending.
      Mr. Mitchell: On the strength of that, I suppose it could be said that those who drink and are opposed to legislation about drinking and driving have a right to go on strike to pressurise Parliament to accept their point of view. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the whole basis of democracy is that decisions are taken in this House and not through pressure from the streets.
      The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) said that he opposed registration because it enabled a Government agency to write the rules of a trade union. Those were his words, and there was no disclaimer from his hon. Friends. Having sat, as he has, through the debates on the Bill, he must know that what he says is blatantly untrue and a gross distortion of the contents of the Bill. He knows perfectly well that a trade union writes its own rules and the only purpose of registration is to ensure
      282
      that those rules comply with the standards laid down in the Bill. What the hon. Gentleman said is a gross distortion and I hope he realises the danger of making such speeches which go uncontradicted. He makes speeches to his local trade union, his constituents and his trades council on the same lines, and they all swallow it, hook, line and sinker—
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Mitchell: I shall be happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I would not dream of attacking him without giving him the right to reply.
      Mr. Fletcher: Clause 65 stipulates what must be incorporated into the rules of a union before it can be registered. The Registrar, therefore, has the power to say to unions, "Your rules must conform with Clause 61." As a consequence of this, the rules of the unions will not be decided democratically by the members of the unions but by the Registrar, and they will have to conform with what the Registrar considers is the correct interpretation of the Bill.
      Mr. Mitchell: I have listened to that with considerable interest. In order to comply with the requirements of Clause 65, one would be concerned with organisations of employers. With great respect, I think the hon. Gentleman is in error.
      As I said earlier, the hon. Gentleman is twisting the facts when he says that a Government agency will write the rules of a trade union. All that will happen is that the rules of a trade union will have to come up to the standards laid down in the Bill. The union writes its own rules. The standards with which the rules will have to conform are the standards which the majority of our best trade unions already observe in such matters as outside auditors, a proper right of appeal and a fair hearing for a member who is disciplined, and so on.
      We have consistently heard this gross distortion of fact. If it is allowed to go unanswered it will cause considerable damage in the country and, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, it will rebound on his own head when, in about six months' time, members of a trade union realise that the gross exaggerations

      283
      of Labour Members of Parliament have no substance in fact.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: I must apologise, I mentioned Clause 65 when I should have referred to Clause 61, which states:
      "The principles set out in the following provisions of this section shall be guiding prnciples in the conduct of every organisation of workers …"
      The so-called guiding principles set down by the Government have to be written into the rules of every union applying for registration. As a consequence, the rules of a union will be decided by the Registrar, not in accordance with the democratic wishes of the members of the union, but in accordance with the Bill and what the Government consider to be fair and unfair industrial practices. It is irrefutable that the Registrar will, in effect, be writing the rules of the union.
      Mr. Mitchell: I do not see how anybody could logically come to the conclusion which the hon. Gentleman came to in his interruption. Clause 61 contains a series of reasonable and innocuous requirements. The first one that catches my eye is that there shall be a secret ballot. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a secret ballot would be objectionable to trade unions in the election of their officers? Is he suggesting that a person who is disciplined should not have notice in writing of the charges which are laid against him? Is he suggesting that that person should not be afforded a full and fair hearing? The Bill sets down the standards which the best of our trade unions now enjoy, and the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is no intention, and no power within the Bill, for the Registrar to write the rules; he merely has to see that the organisation comes up to the standards set down.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), not for the first time, made an extraordinary speech. He said that he opposed the whole concept of registration and then, in the next breath, he complained that one of the hardest, toughest and most unfair parts of the Bill was that the T.U.C. could not register. How he can back both those horses in the same speech, I find difficult to understand. What does the T.U.C. want to do which registration would enable it to do and which the
      284
      Bill prevents it from doing? When I asked this of the hon. Gentleman in an intervention, he was kind enough to say that I had only to look at Clauses 85 and 86. I have looked at Clauses 85 and 86. He wants the T.U.C. to be able, under Clause 85, to induce a breach of contract to which it is not party, without notice, over the head of the trade union that is party to it. Does the hon. Gentleman really want the T.U.C.—I refer here to Clause 85 (1,b)—to go over the head of a constituent union? That is the only justification which one can draw from his reference to Clause 85.
      The hon. Gentleman charged the Government with endeavouring to divide the trade union movement and to sow dissension. No attempt by the Government to divide or to sow dissension among trade unions could be nearly as effective as the undemocratic decision to call political strikes last week and the action subsequently taken to victimise those who carried on working, and did not support those strikes.
      Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) is well known in the House for his sick jokes, and he returned to them today, though not in their original form when he used to talk about the executioner patting the patient on the head and saying, "Do not worry, it will soon be over, and it is quite painless". It is indicative of his whole approach of the Bill, and I take some of his remarks today as being in the same sick vein.
      Mr. David Mitchell: This is a case of mistaken identity. There are two Members with my name, and I have never perpetrated that joke, sick or otherwise. I never heard it until now.
      Mr. Atkinson: It was a variation. I was referring to the theme and basis of the hon. Gentleman's humour, which one might call a sort of "phenobarbed" humour. I shall not go into detail, but that is the spirit of his approach to the Bill.
      The hon. Gentleman forgets how much of the Bill is now superfluous. The T.U.C. having taken its decision about registration, Clauses 57 to 84 do not now have the meaning which they once had. We ought to recognise the seriousness of the decision taken by the T.U.C. Moreover, the Labour Party, before long,

      285
      when it is back in Government, will repeal the Act, if it ever becomes an Act. It is, therefore, temporary legislation, with a good measure of superfluous matter in Clauses 57 to 84. That is the true situation now.
      In one sense, it is profitable for me that the Government have introduced these two new Clauses, particularly new Clause No. 12, for I once predicted that the Government would bring in something like this because they would want to introduce compulsory ballots for trade unionists prior to a decision to deregister a union. I still stick by that, and I am prepared again to have a small wager with the hon. Member for Basingstoke about what will be the Registrar's attitude towards a compulsory ballot in such circumstances.
      I come to the question raised by several hon. Members about whether a ballot is a good thing or not, or whether we should support a ballot to decide whether a union should deregister, if that be the word. The trade unions are adamant in their attitude to the whole business of registration. This is why the vote was so overwhelming against any form of registration, why the unions generally decided as they did, and why my own union, in particular, took that line.
      5.15 p.m.
      The A.E.U. rule book, Rule 14, paragraph 13, lays down:
      "Whatever is agreed upon at the Rules Revision Meeting shall be binding upon all members."
      Because of the Bill, the Registrar will be compelled to alter that rule at the outset. The Rule will then have to read:
      "Whatever is required at the Rules Revision Meeting, or is required by the Registrar, shall be binding upon all members".
      That rule will be the first casualty, and this is why my union will never register, for it will be a condition of registration that that rule be altered in that way.
      My union's attitude is conditioned by the fact that a Conservative Government, or representatives of the employers, will, through the medium of registration and the Registrar, redesign the rule book and make the altered rules binding upon all members.
      Mrs. Peggy Fenner: Since the hon. Gentleman so pointedly says that this will be done by
      286
      a Conservative Government or employers' representatives, may I remind him that in the original proposals of his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) there was a requirement that unions should register? Obviously, this is not a political act by a Conservative Government, for the Labour Government intended the same, out of sheer necessity.
      Mr. Ted Fletcher: Tried to do it, but we stopped it.
      Mr. Atkinson: This is not the time to analyse the differences between the present Bill and the White Paper, "In Place of Strife", which, as the hon. Lady knows, was not a Bill. It was not proposed legislation.
      Mr. Orme: Nevertheless, we voted against it.
      Mr. Atkinson: The question of registration in these terms was not included in my right hon. Friend's Bill, and the whole purpose here is totally different. I do not want to go into the argument about consent politics, but the origin of what the hon. Lady is talking about is the concept of consent politics on this side of the House. There are great arguments about that, but that is not the point now. We are discussing the proposals of a Conservative Government and their need now to introduce compulsion in registration.
      The change to which I have referred would be only one of many changes which the Registrar would demand in the rules of the A.E.U., the Engineering Section of the A.U.E.W. That change alone would never be agreed by the membership of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, so that is the first answer on the question whether we support the idea of ballots.
      It is not suggested that there should be a ballot about whether such a change in the rules should be made. I do not hear hon. Members saying that the democratic process should be so extended that the Registrar would have no powers of compulsion and the matter should be left entirely to a ballot of members. They say that the Registrar should have compulsory powers, backed by the law, to force union members to do certain things. Yet they say that we should have a ballot on other things. They want to extend

      287
      democracy in certain directions but not in others. In other words, the Registrar should have compulsory powers, but the members should not have the right to decide what sort of rule changes are to be demanded by him.
      Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman said just now that under no circumstances would his union's membership approve of registration. Can he say on what authority, on what consultation with his members, he can tell us with such assurance that members of his union would never approve of registration? I strongly suspect—I shall be grateful if he can disprove this—that the maority of the members of his union would wish it to be registered.
      Mr. Atkinson: That is a fair question. I could make an equally bald statement that I was pretty sure that members of the A.E.U. would not by ballot agree to a £2 a week reduction in their wages. Conservative hon. Members could rightly ask what grounds I had for that assertion, but I have a curious sort of class instinct that makes me feel that a ballot of members on that matter would result in an overwhelming vote against such a reduction. Incidentally, that is the policy the Government are proposing at present, but that is beside the point.
      Mr. Orme: That is what it is all about.
      Mr. Atkinson: My hon. Friend is correct. We are entitled to make the assumption that the members would reach that kind of conclusion. That answers the whole question of the ballot.
      The other thing that the Registrar will not have is Rule 13 in the A.E.U. rule book, dealing with the function of shop stewards. This, too, is what the Bill is about: its purpose is to change the relationship between shop stewards and the executives of unions. When we examine Clause 79, and particularly Schedule 3, from which the Registrar will derive his instructions, we can understand clearly why he will want to change large sections of existing rule books. Rule 13 is a very important rule, which the Registrar cannot possibly accept. He would therefore demand that it be changed.
      Subsequent Clauses give detailed reasons why the Registrar cannot accept such rules dealing with the functions of
      288
      shop stewards. Under Clause 79 he is compelled to issue a public warning to a trade union for persistent breaches of trade unions rules and to lay a complaint before the Industrial Court. If he is to follow that procedure, certain parts of trade unions rules must be altered, because part of the purpose of this legislation is to demand that executives discipline shop stewards who attempt to defend their right at the point where they meet the employer. If the purpose is to disarm the shop stewards' movement, as I believe, then all the rules of any trade union that determine the functions of shop stewards must be radically changed so that the Registrar can carry out his functions.
      Therefore, it can be seen that one of the reasons why trade unions refuse to register is to maintain their rule books intact. The membership of the engineering section of the A.U.E.W. would never agree to the elimination of Rule 13, or to its drastic change, which would rob the shop steward of an elementary right to defend the members he represents against initiatives of employers that are detrimental to his members' interests. Therefore, there is a total resistance to registration because of the very nature of the Bill. That is why we argue against the proposed new Clauses 11 and 12, and 12 in particular.
      Some of us accurately predicted quite a long time ago not only that trade unions would not register but also that the Government would want to do something about the conditions under which the Registrar would allow a union to contract out of registration. The reason is that there is a curious wording in the proposed Clause. The Government could say that it is rather curious because it is 100 years old. We are celebrating this week, I think, the centenary of the first registration. As part of the centenary celebrations, we are opposing the Clause. The words are used in quite the opposite way to the original intention 100 years ago. Subsection (1)(a) of new Clause 12 says that the Registrar may cancel an entry
      "at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct,…"
      The provision can be put in that way only for the simple reason that the Registrar must have powers to discover whether the request to contract out is

      289
      official and whether it represents the will of the membership. The Government may say that that is necessary, but it is a curious state of affairs that if one of our members in Tottenham just drops him a note on a postcard to say that 1½ million members want to contract out of registration, the Registrar would take that seriously and initiate a number of moves to test the validity of that bit of paper. Of course, he would be concerned only about a request coming from a union on the required notepaper and signed by the person responsible for that union, so there is superflous wording here. What does the Solicitor-General mean?
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that an official letter, when there has been no ballot, would necessarily represent the views of the members? That is what the Registrar will have to take into account. There have been occasions, such as the recent one-day strikes, when no ballot was taken and it was not certain that the decision represented the will of the members.
      Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in those assumptions. First, if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the engineering industry and the leadership given by the A.U.E.W., the decision to take strike action on the two days resulted from a vote by the union's national committee, a rank-and-file policy-making body elected by the members, with 65 in favour and four against.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It was not a ballot.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: It is not in the rules.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It is.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman does not know the rules.
      Mr. Atkinson: The union has a national committee whose responsibility it is to decide policy. It decided by 65 to four to have the stoppage on two days, and therefore the executive was instructed to take that action.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I was challenged by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who said that I did not know the rules. It says firmly in
      290
      the rule book that in such a case if the national executive wants to test the members on any important issue, which includes a strike, but which could also include registration or non-registration under the Bill, it shall take a ballot of members unless there is no time to do so. There was plenty of time on the strikes, and there will be plenty of time on registration.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Rule 14, paragraph 15, on page 57 of the rule book, says:
      "The National Committee"—
      which is the national policy-making body composed of lay members, not the national executive—
      "shall be empowered to call or terminate a general strike when in their opinion time would not allow the members to be balloted".
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: That is what I said.
      Mr. Atkinson: There is no time on this occasion.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: There is plenty of time on registration.
      Mr. Atkinson: There is a democratic procedure for electing a rules revision committee, which is an extension of the national committee, and a democratic, rank-and-file appeals committee to which appeals can be submitted on such matters. That is the democratic structure of the union.
      I do not know whether you are equipped with a rule book, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but one of the things that is so enjoyable about these debates is that we have the most interesting discussions on A.U.E.W. rules. Perhaps we could add an A.U.E.W. rule book to your collection of books on procedure and your other reference books, to clear up some of the difficulties experienced by Conservative hon. Members.
      I did not want to lengthen the debate, but I wanted to make clear why we attach such importance to the whole question of registration and why the T.U.C. decided to advise its affiliated unions not to register. The reason is that we look upon the requirement as a direct interference with certain democratic rights. Moreover, there is something repulsive about having a Government who are not sympathetic to the aims of

      291
      the trade union movement re-writing its rules.
      The whole question is about the balance of bargaining power in industry. It is based upon the complaint of employers that that balance has shifted in favour of the trade unions and that it is now necessary to restrain the shop stewards' movement in particular and the whole of the trade union movement in general. To do that, the massive apparatus of registration is to be set up, designed solely to change the rules, which up until now it has been the democratic right of the unions to decide.
      5.30 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General: It has become fashionable for people arguing the same case as the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), including leaders of trade unions and the T.U.C., to say that everything would be all right in the Bill if only the Government would go back to Donovan. The hon. Gentleman will recollect that Donovan expressly recommended that status as a trade union should be confined to a body which registered as a trade union. Donovan made two alternative recommendations for compelling such registration—either by the withdrawal of privileges under the 1906 Act or, as the minority suggested, by the imposition of cash penalties. One of the consequences of registration was that a union should have rules dealing with a number of things. In addition, paragraph 654. referring to shop stewards, said that the rules should prescribe

      "(i) their term of office; and

      (ii) the authority charged with, and the manner of, issue and withdrawal of credentials."

      Paragraph 656 said:
      "The requirements as to rules of registered trade unions will henceforth be rather more extensive, and will call for more supervision on the part of the Registrar, than in the past."
      It provided for appeal to the industrial board in the event of arguments between unions and the Registrar as to whether the rules complied with the standards. How can the hon. Gentleman suggest that the adoption of that kind of provision for registration as a matter of course, with supervision by the Registrar of the rules of trade unions, including those rules dealing with the credentials of shop
      292
      stewards, is a monstrous and horrendous intrusion invented by the present Government?
      Mr. Atkinson: For precisely the reason that the Bill constitutes an over all threat to the trade unions. Donovan was not talking about registration for the purpose of making compulsory some of the terms of the Government's legislation. I have tried to restrain myself and not to be provoked into political comment, but it is not good enough for the hon. and learned Gentleman to reiterate the parrot cry we heard so often before 18th June—that, if given a chance, the Conservatives would carry out Labour Party policy. I take it that what he means by all these references to Labour Party or Labour Government documents is that, given a chance, the Conservatives would carry out the policy advocated by the Labour Government previously. I take it that there is complete acceptance of that fact—that we have complete agreement on it.
      In the same way, it is equally dishonest to talk about the recommendations of Donovan when, at the time, Donovan was not talking about the need to require unions to register in order to implement the terms of this Bill. Registration has become so obnoxious in the form in which it is required because of the terms of the Bill, because of its class nature.
      Mr. Dan Jones: The Government want Donovan only in parts.
      Mr. Atkinson: Precisely. They are using arguments put by Donovan and his recommendations in support of proposals which are in fact entirely different from those which were recommended by Donovan. The then Minister of Labour, when setting up the Donovan Commission, was not talking about the sort of Draconian ideas proposed in the Bill. This is why trade unions have set themselves against registration and, come hell or high water, no trade union will register under these terms. New Clause 12 is such that it ensures, if it ensures nothing else, that the largest of our trade unions will never register.
      Mr. John Page: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said that he had won some money on the new Clause earlier in the proceedings. I wonder whether it is within the rules of order for me to offer a wager

      293
      to him on the last statement of his peroration. I would say that within 12 months of the date that the registration provisions come into force at least 25 trade unions will have registered. If he wants to think over the sum involved—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: What odds?
      Mr. Page: Even money?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The Derby has not come yet. I think that we should keep to the terms of the new Clause.
      Mr. Page: Perhaps I can try to make a contract with the hon. Member for Tottenham afterwards. He always makes the most forward and straightforward contributions because he is never afraid to let cats out of the bag. To mix my metaphors a litle further, he has introduced a new kind of bogey man. Instead of the "Red under the Bed" we have the "Tory under the desk". The tale goes that, wherever the Registrar goes, he will be followed by "Big Brother" from industry wearing a silk hat and carrying a microscope, and that in this way we are stifling the just activities of the trade unions. [Interruption.] Will my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) not interrupt, because it makes my own speech a little difficult? Are you making a point?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have not made any point.
      Mr. Page: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The hon. Member for Tottenham said that many trade unions did not want to register and the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) said that registration gave disadvantages. If a trade union feels that it does not want to register and that registration would give disadvantages to it, it can always ask to be removed from the register. It seems to be perfectly straightforward. On the other hand, a trade union which believes that registration is nothing to be afraid of, and gives advantages, has the opportunity to register. All hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), are building up too much of a bogey about registration. I want to quote some words of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). The quotation is not from what she said
      294
      eighteen months ago or even nine months ago. It is from 10th February. She said, referring to the Donovan Commission:
      "It pointed out that there must be rules which deal adequately with the problems of elections and how a ballot is conducted if one is held and which deal adequately with rights of appeal, and so on. No one disputes that that is the end. There is nothing unacceptable in those principles. I, and no doubt many of my hon. Friends, would go further. I do not believe that there is any objection in principle to compulsory registration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 640.]
      There we are! The right hon. Lady is the leading spokesman of the Opposition on this Bill. What the Opposition object to is the fact of the unfair industrial practice in connection with registered and unregistered unions.
      The hon. Member for Walton said that there was a distinction in the new Clause in favour of the white collar workers. I did not quite follow his argument. But I put it to my hon. and learned Friend that there is a distinction in the new Clause against workers' organisations which wish to register on the special register. As it stands, the new Clause gives an opportunity for trade unions which are at present registered to continue their privileges for a period of six months, and this seems fair, sensible and reasonable. On that register they will be provisionally assumed to have the privileges of registration. Is any time limit to be enforced on the Registrar in accepting or refusing those organisations which wish to appear on the special register? Otherwise, perhaps it would he advantageous if there were a provisional special register as well, so as to get rid of the discrimination against those who wish to appear on the special register because of the privileges given to those on the ordinary register or on the provisional register under new Clauses 11 and 12.
      5.45 p m.
      The Solicitor-General: Bodies which are qualifying for the special register or may qualify for it are by definition those which have not yet registered under existing legislation, and they are in the same position as other workers' organisations which do not qualify for the special register and which also have not registered. Other workers' organisations have six months within which to apply for inclusion on the provisional register under

      295
      Clause 74, and any other organisation has the opportunity of applying for inclusion on the special register. It is true that it has to show that it prima facie fulfils the qualification conditions, but since these are bodies so far outside the scope of registration altogether and are given that period of time within which to apply and in which their registration as a company continues, the provisions seem more or less parallel.
      Mr. Page: I will read carefully in HANSARD tomorrow what my hon. and learned Friend said. The argument was used yesterday by hon. Members opposite that unions which register quickly would be in a privileged position as opposed to those which did not register. From that argument, it would seem, for example, that if the National Union of Public Employees were to register immediately, as no doubt it will, quite sensibly, it would then he at an advantage in demanding the privileges of representation of nurses and midwives as opposed to the colleges of those two organisations. However, no doubt this point will already have been thought of by the organisations concerned. I put it into the general argument to produce something new for the House to think about.
      Mr. Gower: The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) made the statement. "My union will never register". My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) quarrelled with him about the accuracy of his prophecy. I do not know which of them is nearer the truth, but I caution the hon. Gentleman that he must surely have found from his own experience in the House that it is unwise to use a word like "never". To use the word "never" is presenting a tremendous hostage to fortune. I heard is used in connection with events in Cyprus many years ago and it was used about events in Africa. In nearly every case, the person who said "never", regretted it later.
      Mr. Atkinson: I qualified it. It was not an open-ended use of the word. I said that I expected us to have another Labour Government soon, and that the Labour Party has committed itself to repeal the Bill and therefore it is only a short time that I am talking about.
      Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman may again be going ahead of events. In any
      296
      case, I am not sure that he is accurately stating the position of the Opposition. I have not seen any official statement by the Opposition collectively that they will repeal the Bill.
      Mr. Heffer: It was said on Second Reading.
      Mr. Gower: Nothing has been said about it since then and it was said by individuals and not by the Opposition generally or by their official spokesmen.
      The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and others have repeatedly asserted the value of democracy in the trade union movement, and we accept what they say; it is wonderful. At the same time, they express their fear that the Registrar may permit anything so undemocratic as a ballot. Apparently, in their view the democracy of the trade unions cannot possibly survive anything so undemocratic as a ballot.
      Mr. Thomas Swain: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not leaving out the National Union of Mineworkers, which has recently conducted a ballot.
      Mr. Gower: I am not leaving out anybody. I am merely observing that hon. Members opposite have expressed the sharp fear that registration may introduce a ballot, which is apparently inconsistent with the democratic spirit which pervades the trade union movement.
      I am amazed that the Opposition cannot accept that significant benefits are to be obtained from registration. The value of those benefits was underlined yesterday. The Opposition Front Bench pressed for the inclusion of bodies such as the College of Nursing which, so the Opposition said, should participate in these benefits on terms similar to those for what were described as the normal trade unions.
      Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman must read the Bill—and it is we who are frequently accused of misrepresenting the Bill. Let him understand very clearly that there are no benefits to be won from registration, but that severe penalties may be incurred for not being registered by unions which for 60 years have enjoyed privileges and immunities in the law of which they are now to be stripped as a consequence of not registering.
      Mr. Gower: I venture a prophecy, perhaps not so permanent as that of the hon. Member for Tottenham, that after the enactment of the Bill, more and more unions will recognise the valuable benefits to be obtained from registration.
      Mr. Albert Booth: The hon. Member has referred time and again to the benefits to be gained from registration. To help the House, will he state one benefit which a union may obtain by registration and which it does not now possess?
      Mr. Gower: There are numerous benefits. I will do what we were invited to do yesterday and refer to the numerous Clauses of the Bill. I clearly do not have time to give details, but there are numerous advantages which unions which register will enjoy.
      As a corollary, it would be serious for a union to decide to contract out, as it has been described. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) regretted the change in procedure from failing to contract in to formally contracting out. For any union, the decision not to register, to apply for deregistration, as it has been called, will be a serious matter. That is why it is right and proper that the Clause should enable unions to do so only after careful consideration of the consequences of not being registered. I disagree with the hon. Member for Darlington, for this procedure will enable the decision to be taken only after mature and serious consideration.
      What have been called the "penalties" of not registering are not real penalties. It merely happens that unions will have the right to decide, and those which register will have additional advantages. It is therefore appropriate that this should be a decision made with solemnity, and I welcome the change which the new Clause will make.
      The hon. Member for Darlington and the hon. Member for Salford, West asked who the Registrar would be. He will be a person appointed, as other registrars in similar positions have been appointed —the Registrar of Companies, the Registrar of Friendly Societies and others. All our experience leads us to believe that persons appointed to positions like
      298
      these conduct their duties with a great sense of responsibility.
      I cannot believe that anyone appointed a registrar under an Act of Parliament would be biassed against any party. It is not conceivable that the Registrar will be biassed in any way against a union or an employers' association. Our history in this respect shows that a registrar in an appointment like this will be deserving and worthy of the confidence of all parties in industry. The change is of great advantage and the fears expressed by the Opposition cannot be substantiated.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): As we are beginning to enter the final stages of this long and in some ways tortuous Report Stage, it is heartening to see quite a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have stayed the course all the way through, although they have not had to be here, as some of my hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite have had to be here, and they are still in good voice. My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) always speaks pertinently on these occasions and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) still shows the same enthusiasm in his speeches as on the first day. I disagree with almost every word he says, but I admire his pertinacity.
      There was one thing he said this afternoon in which I thought him absolutely right. He implied that registration was one of the main pillars of the Bill. Indeed it is, and we make no secret of that.
      Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman is taking a curtain call. We have not arrived at that yet. The hon. Gentleman is calling us back to take our farewells of the audience, but that is for tomorrow.
      Mr. Smith: We have not seen as much of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) as we have of the hon. Member for Salford, West, but we always welcome him to our proceedings, for he is always guaranteed to give us an entertaining if not particularly relevant speech.
      The hon. Member for Salford, West implied that registration was one of the main pillars of the Bill. It is. Incidentally, it has always been an objective

      299
      of the Government to maintain continuity between the present register and the register to be introduced by the Bill. We believe the new Clause to be a more efficient way to reach the objective. The Government are entitled to have second thoughts and have done so on a number of matters, and we believe the new provision to be advantageous.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is a very suspicious person. He said that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General was reasonable and helpful in his manner, but that that manner covered something sinister. He believed that there was more to it than my hon. and learned Friend's mollifying way of explaining these provisions.
      I emphasise to the House and anybody else interested in these provisions that we are not trying to embarrass the T.U.C. or the unions by these two new Clauses. We do not seek to be divisive. There is nothing sinister about our proposals. They are perfectly fair.
      6.0 p.m.
      I could understand the objections of hon. Members opposite to our proposals if registration were to be compulsory or if it were to be made law that unions could not resign if they wished. There is nothing in our proposals along those lines. It is open to any union on the register to contract out if it so wishes.
      We are glad that the Trades Union Congress took the more moderate line open to it last week and we hope that common sense will prevail on the question of registration. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) that there is hope in what happened at the conference last week. I am far more optimistic than is the hon. Member for Tottenham. Alas, because of my duties, I was not able to see either the direct relay or the late night summaries of the conference on television, but I have read the newspaper reports and spoken to people about it. They said that a growing sense of responsibility was shown and that there was hope for the future on the registration procedure. It is encouraging that the T.U.C. leadership at least is showing responsibility. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member
      300
      for Bridgwater that the free will of the union is in no way inhibited by the new Clause or by registration.
      We have always thought, and we still think, that trade unions would be ill advised to boycott the register and to contract out. We think that they would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces. But we do not intend to deny them the right to make that choice. This is a fundamental matter and they will be able to make their choice about it. If they are foolhardy enough to wish to contract out, that is up to them. We believe that it is very much in their interests that they should be registered.
      Mr. James Sillars: Now that the hon. Gentleman is speaking about the advantages which he sees in registration, perhaps he would tell us a little about Amendment No. 70 relating to Clause 74 which deals with an organisation not presently registered under the Trade Union Acts of 1871 to 1964 and which provides that within the period of six months it may make an application to be entered on the provisional register. What advantage will there be to a trade union to apply to go on the provisional register?
      Mr. Smith: In due course, if the organisation's rules satisfy the Registrar, it will be able to obtain full registration.
      Mr. Sillars: Last night, the Secretary of State said that if any organisation wished
      "to go straight on the permanent register, without having to go through the provisional register, that is open to it under Clause 64 ".[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 151.]
      Mr. Smith: It can do that if there is no doubt about its qualifications. The point about provisional registration is that if there is a doubt the Registrar will be able to look at the rules of the organisation and advise it. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) raised the pertinent and important question of the rules. I confirm that the unions will still write their own rules and that they must be up to a reasonable standard. The Registrar will not write the rules.
      Most of the organisations entered on the provisional register are likely to be eligible for full registration as trade unions

      301
      or employers' associations. They will meet the qualifications without any great difficulty. The hon. Member for Tottenham says that on no account will his union or any other union meet them. I think that he is mistaken. I believe that quite a number of unions will register. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) that in due course this will be looked on as a privilege by all the organisations involved and they will become fully fledged members of the register. I can see no difficulty arising concerning registration provided it is wanted by the unions. These provisions are not so arduous that they cannot be met. I should be amazed if any of the major, reputable and well-known unions did not qualify.
      Mr. Atkinson: Subsection 1(a) of new Clause No. 12 provides that the Registrar may cancel an entry
      "at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct".
      We accept that the application must be sent on the organisation's notepaper, but what else does the proposal mean? Why is it written in that way if it does not mean taking a ballot of the membership?
      Mr. Smith: My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General explained that point to the hon. Gentleman. However, there will be a separate debate on the Amendment.
      There is now an automatic transfer from the provisional register to the full register unless there are deficiencies which the Registrar can look into and give assistance on. However, there is provision in the new Clauses for cancellation on the application of the union to the Registrar either from the provisional register or from the main register. If registration is to remain voluntary—and we believe that it is an important principle —organisations must have the right to change their mind about whether they want to be registered.
      At the risk of incurring the wrath of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—because it is like a red rag to a bull to him—I should like briefly to go back to the proposals which the Labour Government brought forward with a great flurry of trumpets and which were a do-or-die affair for them. I wish to quote from paragraph 109 of "In Place of Strife"—[HON. MEMBERS:
      302
      "Oh."] I know that hon. Members opposite are thoroughly embarrassed by it and hate being reminded about it. I accept that the hon. Member for Salford, West has always been implacably opposed to registration. At the time that these proposals were produced, the Labour Government had a majority and they would have become law but for the fact that their leadership "chickened out" of the issue.
      Paragraph 109 of "In Place of Strife" says:
      "The Industrial Relations Bill will therefore propose that trade unions should register with a new Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations within a prescribed period."
      That is perfectly right. Further on it says:
      "Unions will be required to have rules governing certain matters (e.g. admission, discipline, disputes",
      and so on. Again, there is no contention about that. But then the paragraph says:
      "Refusal will lay a trade union open to a financial penalty by the Industrial Board."
      There are no financial penalties for non-registration in our proposals. We believe that it is important and in the interests of unions that they should be registered, but we shall not penalise financially those which do not register. The matter is open to them. It is a voluntary scheme. That is why the proposals in our Bill are better than the proposals in "In Place of Strife", and that is why I recommend my hon. Friends to support the two new Clauses.
      Mr. Harold Walker: I want to take up the point which is raised again and again about "In Place of Strife" and the former Government's Bill. I said last night, and it is obvious that I was correct in so saying, that every time that the Government get themselves into a debating fix their safe get-out is to fall back on "In Place of Strife" and the Bill which the House did not debate.
      It is important that the House should recognise two things. First, "In Place of Strife" was a White Paper and not a Bill. The Bill was radically different, for reasons which we all know; but it was a Bill which was never debated by the House. If the Government would like on a future occasion to allocate time so that we could debate the contents of that Bill, I for one would be absolutely

      303
      delighted to make a public comparison between the contents of that Bill and the contents of this Bill.
      I want to state very briefly why "In Place of Strife" was very different from the Bill which was subsequently presented to the House. I want to comment on the difference in the registration requirements referred to in "In Place of Strife". The Under-Secretary said that, unlike in "In Place of Strife", there are no penalties in this Bill for unions which refuse to register.
      In that case, what is all the fuss about in the trade union world? Why the significance which the Government attach to registration? The Government know full well that it is because of the penalties that arise from the deprivation of unregistered organisations of the immunities and protections provided by the law. These are much more severe than any fines are likely to be. They place much more severe restrictions upon organisations of workers and put them into the hands of the Registrar and into the rôle of the Registrar as provided for in the Bill and in that way are much more onerous than anything which we could have conceived.
      Much more important and significant about "In Place of Strife" was the fact that we said, before it was drafted and at every stage in its gestation, that if the T.U.C. were prepared to discuss with the then Government ways and means of tackling the disorder which undoubtedly exists in industrial relations we were prepared to modify our policy.
      The Tory Party has never fully acknowledged that. Indeed, I do not think that the Tories understand what happened in the summer of 1969 when the T.U.C. accepted—[Laughter.]—The sneers we are getting from hon. Members opposite only confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said in his opening remarks, namely, that the Government have clearly declared war and are hostile in their attitude to the T.U.C. The sneers we are getting are confirmation of that.
      The Tory Party has never acknowledged, and indeed has never understood, what happened in that summer when the T.U.C. accepted a rôle which hitherto had been denied to the T.U.C. and when, for the first time in its history, individual unions surrendered their
      304
      autonomy to the T.U.C. so that the T.U.C. could have a more effective rôle in industrial relations.
      If the Under-Secretary will talk with his officials at the Department and will look back at the record from June, 1969 to June, 1970, he will see that time and time again the T.U.C.'s disputes committee and Mr. Victor Feather, in particular, intervened in disputes in a way that it could not have done before to bring them to a speedy conclusion. That is something to which we pay tribute, but I am still waiting for many hon. Members opposite and for the Government generally to make the same acknowledgment of the service rendered by Mr. Victor Feather.
      One small point which might have been explained but which was not is the contradiction between the non-fee provision, where a union is willy-nilly transferred to the permanent register and the requirement to fork up £25 if it applies to go on to the register. In speaking of a contradiction, I am talking about the contrast between new Clause 11(5) and Clause 64(4).
      The Solicitor-General did his usual trick with Donovan. When the Government run out of steam on "In Place of Strife" they like to select a fragment of the Royal Commission's Report which will serve their needs of the moment. The Report is becoming rather like the Bible: anyone can quote it to suit the particular case and needs of the moment.
      I draw the Solicitor-General's attention, not to the paragraph which he quoted, but to paragraph 793 which states:
      "The conditions of registration would be the same as they are at present under existing legislation, modified by such alterations as Parliament hereafter thinks fit to make as a result of this report or for any other reason."
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite might say that that is the exercise that we are going through—proposing the modifications that Parliament thinks fit.
      The Commission then went on to give an example:
      "For example, future conditions might include filing a copy of the union's constitution (unless this is already embodied in the rules) and proof of a fee-paying membership."
      There is an enormous gulf between that approach and what is being put to us by the Government.
      The Solicitor-General: Will the hon. Gentleman read the next sentence?
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Walker: Yes, I intend to read to the end of the paragraph:
      "Again, we make recommendations in Chapter XI as to how the requirements of the law in relation to the rules of trade unions might be revised. All the existing provisions of the law would continue to apply to trade unions, including the protective provisions of the Trade Union Act 1871"—
      to be abolished by the Government—
      "the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875"—
      to be modified by the Government—
      "the Trade Disputes Acts 1906"—
      to be partly repealed by the Government; then the Act of 1965, which is to be repealed by the Government—
      "and the Trade Union Act 1913."
      All those Statutes would continue in force under the recommendations of the Royal Commission and would continue to apply to all the unions.
      I know that the Solicitor-General is bursting to get me to turn back to Chapter XI. I will quote him one or two particular passages from Chapter XI. The Commission said this in paragraph 656:
      "The Registrar already advises unions informally on the drafting and the re-drafting of rules, and we hope that this beneficial practice will continue. The possibility exists however that this agreement may at times arise between the Registrar and a trade union as to whether its rules comply with the revised requirements of the law. We think that such disagreements should be referred for settlement by the independent review body whose establishment we propose."
      The Royal Commission went on to say this in paragraph 658:
      "We envisage a review body consisting of three members, of whom two would be chosen from a panel of trade unionists…"
      What a contrast that is to the dictatorial authority and absolute power which is being given to the Registrar under the Government's proposals.
      It is a matter for regret that the Solicitor-General persists in his selective quotations from the Report of the Royal Commission and, incidentally, keeps on pretending to the House and the country at large—why he should accuse us of misrepresenting the Bill I do not know—that in this respect the Government are in line with Donovan, when clearly they are not. He suggests that the Govern-
      306
      ment are in line with Donovan in withdrawing the present immunities from unregistered bodies, when in fact it was a recommendation of only seven out of the 12 members of the Royal Commission.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman says that the recommendation for the withdrawal of immunity from unregistered unions was a recommendation of only seven members, implying that for that reason it should be disregarded. Would he, therefore, prefer the alternative recommendation suggested in paragraph 804 of Donovan by the minority of five—
      "The need for compulsory registration could be met by a provision that the members of the Executive Committee of a body which should, but does not, register as a union should be liable to a penalty for each day of default."?
      Which of the two Donovan recommendations does the hon. Gentleman prefer; and is it not the case that other hon. Gentlemen who are arguing in favour of Donovan reject it as soon as they are brought face to face with it?
      Mr. Walker: This is not the choice before the House, anyhow. The Solicitor-General is suggesting that we have to choose between the two alternatives presented by the divided Royal Commission. This is not the case. I wish that it were, because what it would imply is that we should be debating here a Bill based firmly on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I wish that we were. I wish that the issue before us was whether we accepted or rejected the recommendations of the Royal Commission. But that is not what the Solicitor-General is putting to us in his Bill. His Bill is generally inconsistent with the Donovan Report, and, in major respects, it flagrantly contradicts it. No wonder the hon. and learned Gentleman no longer maintains, as he did earlier, that his Bill is based on Donovan.
      In the course of the debate, I noticed that hon. Gentlemen opposite wriggled and tried to get off the hook on which my hon. Friend the Member for Walton and one or two others put them. Very fairly, my hon. Friends asked, why the change from Clause 75 to new Clauses 11 and 12? The best explanations that we had was that some hon. Members on the back benches opposite were sufficiently privileged to have the ear of their right

      307
      hon. Friend and hon. and learned Friend, and apparently had persuaded them. It is an extraordinary state of affairs when the Government apparently treat us as a rubber stamp and their own back benchers as a sounding board.
      In any event, this does not hold water. The only explanation which carries any weight is that put from this side of the House, that the only thing of significance that has taken place between the presentation of the Bill and the introduction of the new Clauses is that the T.U.C. has shown its hand clearly. It is obvious that the Government are playing a deadly game of poker with the T.U.C., trying to match it card for card. The stakes at the end of the day are the future of the trade unions and our industrial relations. It seems to me, as has been said from this side of the House, that the Government are trying deliberately to frustrate the declared policy of the T.U.C. My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) said that the Government have made a calculated political decision. In my view, it is one which indicates their attitude towards the T.U.C. They are determined to thwart and outwit the T.U.C. whenever they get the opportunity.
      Another element in the approach of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to this problem was exposed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), who drifts in. chips in his sixpenn'orth, and drifts out again. I make no apology for saying that in the hon. Gentleman's absence. Once he has made his criticisms, it is difficult to catch him in the House subsequently. He appeared clearly to relish the incentive that he thought that the new Clause provided for the formation of breakaway unions. That seemed to him to be one consequence of the new Clause. It is the fear of the growth of splinter organisations which has been a powerful factor in influencing certain of the white collar unions to demur at a policy of defying registration.
      The central theme of the speeches from this side of the House has been that registration is the keystone of the Government's policy. We have had that proudly proclaimed from the Treasury Bench—
      Mr. Dudley Smith: The hon. Gentleman is right. But it is not the keystone; it is one of the keystones of the Bill.
      Mr. Walker: I apologise if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I think that my hon. Friends have it right when they say that registration is the keystone of this whole edifice. It is clearly seen as such by the T.U.C. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West said that the T.U.C.'s opposition to the Bill focussed on this central point of registration. What is undeniable is that, if registration is seen as crucial to the Government's approach to the trade unions and industrial relations, then anything which contributes towards that structure of registration must be seen in its context. If, therefore, we are opposed to registration in its entirety, equally we must be opposed to it in its parts. This is one of the parts. It is yet another coercion to get the trade unions within the sheep pen of registration in order to make them subordinate and submissive to the Government's general policies. For that reason above all, we are opposed to the new Clauses and the Amendments.
      Perhaps I might refer again to this point about the requirements that a union has to satisfy to be eligible for registration. Time and time again, the Solicitor-General has said that the Registrar has only to satisfy himself that an organisation has the right objects. Let me draw his attention to the rule book of my own union, the A.E.F. The Bill does not talk merely of the right objects. Clause 57 refers to
      "…an organisation whose principal objects include the regulation of relations between workers of that description…"
      I wonder what the Registrar will say when he has before him a not untypical rule book such as that of my own union. I do not know whether the order in which objects are laid down in a rule book indicates any priority. In my own union, it does. Object No. 1 of my union is not concerned primarily with the terms and conditions of employment. It says:
      "The objects of the union shall be
      (a) The control of industry in the interests of the community…"
      Are the Government saying that they intend to give the Registrar power to influence or insist upon the deletion or subordination of such objectives in the rule books of unions?
      This is part of our apprehension about the rôle of the Registrar. Unions do

      309
      not exist only to improve and maintain the living standards of their members. They have longer-term objectives which are much wider. We object to the rôle provided for the Registrar in the Bill and in these new Clauses. For that reason,
      we shall oppose them in the Division lobby.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 241.

      Division No. 271.]

      AYES

      [6.28 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Farr, John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Fell, Anthony

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Kirk, Peter

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Fidler, Michael

      Kitson, Timothy

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Astor, John

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Knox, David

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lambton, Antony

      Awdrey, Daniel

      Fortescue, Tim

      Lane, David

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Foster, Sir John

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Fowler, Norman

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Balniel, Lord

      Fox, Marcus

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Batsford, Brian

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

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

      Bell, Ronald

      Fry, Peter

      Longden, Gilbert

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Galbraith, Hn. T, G.

      Loveridge, John

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Gibson-Watt, David

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Benyon, W.

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      McLaren, Martin

      Biffen, John

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Blaker, Peter

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Goodhart, Philip

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Body, Richard

      Goodhew, Victor

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Gorst, John

      Madel, David

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Gower, Raymond

      Maginnis, John E.

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gray, Hamish

      Marten, Neil

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Green, Alan

      Mather, Carol

      Braine, Bernard

      Grieve, Percy

      Maude, Angus

      Bray, Ronald

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mawby, Ray

      Brewis, John

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Grylls, Michael

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Gurden, Harold

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Bryan, Paul

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Miscampbell, Norman

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

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

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

      Buck, Antony

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Moate, Roger

      Burden, F. A.

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Molyneaux, James

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Money, Ernie

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hastings, Stephen

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Havers, Michael

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Channon, Paul

      Hawkins, Paul

      More, Jasper

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hay, John

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Heseltine, Michael

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hicks, Robert

      Mudd, David

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Murton, Oscar

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hiley, Joseph

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Cockeram, Eric

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

      Neave, Airey

      Cooke, Robert

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Coombs, Derek

      Holland, Philip

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Cooper, A. E.

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Normanton, Tom

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hordern, Peter

      Nott, John

      Costain, A. P.

      Hornby, Richard

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Critchley, Julian

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Crouch, David

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Osborn, John

      Crowder, F. P.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Curran, Charles

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Hunt, John

      Percival, Ian

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Dean, Paul

      James, David

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Dixon, Piers

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Jessel, Toby

      Pounder, Rafton

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Drayson, G. B.

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

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

      Dykes, Hugh

      Jopling, Michael

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Eden, Sir John

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Raison, Timothy

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

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Emery, Peter

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Eyre, Reginald

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Sproat, Iain

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Stainton, Keith

      Waddington, David

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Steel, David

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Wall, Patrick

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Walters, Dennis

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Stokes, John

      Warren, Kenneth

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Sutcliffe, John

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Rost, Peter

      Tapsell, Peter

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Royle, Anthony

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Russell, Sir Ronald

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

      Wiggin, Jerry

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Wilkinson, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Tebbit, Norman

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Sharples, Richard

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

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

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

      Worsley, Marcus

      Simeons, Charles

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Younger, Hn. George

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Trew, Peter

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

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Soref, Harold

      Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

      Mr. Walter Clegg and

      Speed, Keith

      van Straubenzee, W R.

      Mr. Hector Monro.

      Spence, John

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

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

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Driberg, Tom

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Ashley, Jack

      Dunnett, Jack

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Eadie, Alex

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Bagier, Cordon A. T.

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Judd, Frank

      Barnes, Michael

      Ellis, Tom

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Barnett, Joel

      English, Michael

      Kelley, Richard

      Beaney, Alan

      Evans, Fred

      Kerr, Russell

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Kinnock, Neil

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

      Lambie, David

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Lamond, James

      Bishop, E. S.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Latham, Arthur

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Foot, Michael

      Lawson, George

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Ford, Ben

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Booth, Albert

      Forrester, John

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Bradley, Tom

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Leonard, Dick

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

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lestor, Miss Joan

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

      Garrett, W. E.

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Ginsburg, David

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

      Buchan, Norman

      Golding, John

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Callaghan, Rt, Hn. James

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Grant, John D, (Islington, E.)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Cant, R. B.

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      McBride, Neil

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Hamling, William

      McElhone, Frank

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      McGuire, Michael

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Hardy, Peter

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Cohen, Stanley

      Harper, Joseph

      Mackie, John

      Coleman, Donald

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Maclennan, Robert

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Horam, John

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

      Cronin, John

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Marks, Kenneth

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Marquand, David

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

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Mason, Rt, Hn. Roy

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hughes, Rt, Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Meacher, Michael

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Mendelson, John

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Millan, Bruce

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Hunter, Adam

      Miner, Dr. M. S.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Janner, Greville

      Molloy, William

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Deakins, Eric

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

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Dempsey, James

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Doig, Peter

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Dormand, J. D.

      John, Brynmor

      Moyle, Roland

      312

      313

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Roberts, Rt. Hn Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Tinn, James

      Murray, R. K.

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Tomney, Frank

      Ogden, Eric

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

      Torney, Tom

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Tuck, Raphael

      O'Malley, Brian

      Roper, John

      Urwin, T. W.

      Oram, Bert

      Rose, Paul B.

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Orbach, Maurice

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

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

      Orme, Stanley

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Oswald, Thomas

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

      Wallace, George

      Palmer, Arthur

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Watkins, David

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Sillars, James

      Weitzman, David

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Silverman, Julius

      Wellbeloved, James

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Small, William

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Pendry, Tom

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Pentland, Norman

      Spearing, Nigel

      Whitlock, William

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Springs, Leslie

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Prescott, John

      Stallard, A. W.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Probert, Arthur

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Rankin, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Swain, Thomas

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

      Richard, Ivor

      Taverne, Dick

      Mr. Alan Fitch.

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

      Clause accordingly read a Second time.
      Mr. John Fraser: I beg to move Amendment No. (zzzzz) to the proposed Clause, in line 38, at end add:
      (6) Cancellation of registration pursuant to this section shall not affect the traditional tax exemption to any organisation of workers which would have been eligible to register under the Trades Union Act, 1871, in respect of provident benefits, for which they are now eligible under section 338 of the Income Tax and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment it will be in order to debate the following:
      Amendment (oooo) to new Clause 12, in line 9, at end add:
      (3) Such cancellation shall not affect the traditional tax exemption to any organisation of workers which would have been eligible to register under the Trades Union Act, 1871, in respect of provident benefits, for which they are now eligible under section 338 of the Income Tax and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970.
      New Clause 14—"Tax exemptions in respect of benefits".
      Mr. Fraser: The Under-Secretary of State in his winding up speech on the last debate said that no financial penalties would be attached to failure to register. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about that and the Amendment brings it out. There is a £5 million penalty for failure by trade unions to registar. That £5 million penality arises from the loss of tax exemptions which they will lose if they do not go on to the register.
      The Amendment will preserve for trade unions the tax exemptions which they
      314
      enjoy for their provident funds under Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970. That was a consolidating Act, and these benefits go back for about a century. So this is not a recent practice. We are not talking about strike funds or the day-to-day activities of a union but something which lies deep in the tradition of the trade union and working class movements—the tradition of self-help, the tradition going back even to the 17th century of the struggle against injustice, deprivation and sheer poverty.
      We are talking not of the financing of political action but of sums which provide for pensions and payments to people for sickness, incapacity, injury at work or unemployment, and pensions to people who had no pension other than the pittance paid by fellow union members. We are talking about benefits to widows and children upon the death of a member, contributions towards his funeral expenses and payment for the loss of the tools of his trade. These benefits have traditionally enjoyed exemption from tax of the investment funds which the union operates. This is what would be removed without the Amendment.
      This is a financial penalty, for failure to register, of £5 million, and it must not be allowed to go through. One of the reasons for a union registering at all under the 1871 Act was the benefit it got under these provisions. We are talking about the compassionate mutual funds of a union to provide for need, and this would not be a special privilege for

      315
      unions: these exemptions are exactly the same as are provided for friendly societies, insurance companies and industrial and provident societies. The Government propose to take away these benefits.
      The unions do one of two things. Either they hypothecate part of their investments and investment income or they take the amount of benefit which has been paid during the year and claim an income tax rebate for it. Because the 1970 Act repealed the 1871 Act, unless a union registers it will no longer get the exemption. There might even be a gap in the Bill whereby even unions which did register would not get the benefit, because the 1970 Act talks about unions which are registered, and they could only have registered with the Registrar under the 1971 Act. But if there is a gap here, I believe that it is an oversight.
      Failure to register under the Bill will deprive a union of tax exemption, and this would be a gross inequity. It would be a penal and savage attack not on the strike funds or other funds but on pensioners, widows and people who suffered from sickness or some other disaster. It would cost unions £5 million a year. It could affect pensions already being paid, because without these exemptions those pensions would have to be lowered in a time of rising costs. It will affect the administration of supplementary benefits. If a union pays unemployment, sickness or accident benefit a man on a very low income will not have to go for supplementation, but without these exemptions people might have to go for supplementation.
      6.45 p.m.
      Of course the Government may say that the union can get over this by registering, but there is enough compulsion to register already. To add this vicious provision would be totally iniquitous and it is not necessary to penalise those in need in order to achieve the Government's political objectives. There is no case for treating these bodies as leprous organisations to be robbed of these exemptions, to show parliamentary disapproval because their parent organisation is not registered.
      The Government have effectively cut off any other means of getting exemption. Unions which were not registered might have been able to protect their funds by registering as friendly societies or in-
      316
      dustrial and provident societies but for the fact that the Government have cleverly provided that an organisation of workers, not a trade union, may not be a friendly society or an industrial and provident society. So they have ensured that these benefits go only with registration.
      Perhaps once or twice I have been uncharitable to the Government. Perhaps they will accept the Amendment. But if they do not they will have set a new high water mark in malice, a new record, a new criteria for vengeance against the dependants of trade unionists as well as the trade unionists themselves.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I am not surprised that hon. Members opposite have raised this matter, which is very important for the unions. But our previous discussion on the new Clause showed that the Government are being helpful and registering unions automatically, which means that they are covered for all their benefits. So if they opt out of registration they will damage their own provident funds and create difficulties for their own members. They must balance this against registration.
      This is one of the reasons why the white-collar unions have said that they must register—because their provident funds will be more hardly hit than those of the manual workers, since they generally pay more benefits—
      Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman does not know what he is talking about.
      Mr. Lewis: Of course I know what I am talking about. If the hon. Gentleman waits he may learn something himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] At least he will learn that I know what I am talking about, if he learns nothing else.
      A certain union leader told me not long ago that the large manual workers' unions—I do not like this term, but it has been used by hon. Members opposite to differentiate these unions from the white-collar unions—do not intend to extend their provident funds. He told me that the unions take the view that the State should provide those services, and that the trade unions no longer wish to expand their pension, sickness, unemployment and other schemes. I regret that, because I think that the British trade

      317
      union movement would do itself a great deal of good if it were to expand these activities and if, say, in co-operation with the employers it increased the pensions paid to members.
      Hon. Members opposite may like to know from me that the engineering union pays a very small pension to its members, though it has recently increased it by a good percentage. Superannuated members used to get about 10s. or 12s., but that has now gone up to either 15s. or 17s. The railway unions pay even less. Such provident pensions are derisory but they have been kept low over the years because the unions have not expanded in this sphere. Therefore, when hon. Members complain that registration will damage those funds it can be fairly said that the unions themselves have not done very much to assist their members by developing the benefits those members might have been happy to have.
      Another good reason why they should expand is that at the moment the unions are almost wholly concerned with negotiating wages. The expansion of which I speak would give them another negotiating objective vis-à-vis the employers. There would be a good deal of sense in unions discussing with employers possibilities of increasing benefits other than wages, whether in the form of longer holidays, or pension and sickness benefits, or in other forms. The State sickness benefits are certainly low, but sick members receive even less from their trade unions. If workpeople are to have security it must be security that goes beyond wages, so that they are looked after when, perforce they have to stay away from work for sickness and, on retirement, may have an addition to the State pension. I can see a good deal of advantage in co-operation between unions and employers in increasing benefits of this kind.
      If the unions register, or remain on the register—do not opt out—they will not only be able to retain the present income tax advantages accruing to the benefit of their funds but can add to those advantages and, if they so wish, can increase their funds and the benefits flowing from them. I have been rather surprised that hon. Members opposite should complain about having to opt out of the legislation, because trade union members have to opt out of the political levy, if that is their wish.
      318
      We have been told that the Government are very wickedly trying to split the trade unions, but there is more precept than example in that accusation because the trade unions in collecting the political levy force upon their own members the obligation to opt out, otherwise the levy must be paid. The Government are doing precisely the same in respect of registration. There must be a physical act of coming out of registration just as there is a physical act of coming out of the political levy. Unions can retain their benefits if they retain their registration.
      Mr. Heffer: A member is told at the union branch when he joins that he can refuse to pay the political levy. If he does so, the form is given to him there and then. That is done on an individual basis, and how it can be equated with what is done on an organisation basis I do not understand.
      Mr. Lewis: It is very easy to equate, because the Registrar will be in touch with all the unions once they are on the provisional register. So they will get forms of one kind or another. The secretary of every union will have on his desk some document which will enable him to decide whether or not to go in.
      In an earlier debate on registration, a ballot was mentioned. I should have thought that the whole question of provident funds provided an additional reason for having a ballot. If unions are to opt out of registration they must clearly indicate to their members what will be the cost to them in terms of the effect on benefits or on the funds backing those benefits. In those circumstances it will be necessary to give members full information and, union members seeing the disadvantages accruing to them by lack of registration, I cannot imagine that there would be other than a majority who would want registration.
      In other words it is not acceptable that the general secretary of a trade union, or his committee, should make a judgment without informing the members and giving them full details of all the financial implications. If union leaders provided members with a full indication of those implications, I am sure that a ballot would come out in

      319
      favour of registration. If, on the other hand, a trade union leader were to seek to deregister by the back door, without asking his members, there would be a grave responsibility on him in taking action affecting the members' individual funds without getting the members' permission to do so.
      I support the new Clause. I do not accept the Amendment, because it is permissive. There is no obligation on unions to put their funds at jeopardy. They need not do so, provided they do not retain a dogmatic attitude to the Bill. When they register under this Measure their funds will be fully protected, and can increase. The unions can continue to develop their provident funds for the benefit of their members.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Orme: The major craft unions and unions with a craft basis will, in the main, be the hardest hit by these proposals. These organisations have established their own system of social security benefits over the years, which run parallel to, but are in no way designed to replace, the equivalent benefits paid by the State. The more modern unions tend to concentrate on the trade union aspects of their work rather than on providing all-round social benefits.
      We are discussing benefits which, because the subscriptions are small, cannot be large. Nevertheless, considerable sums of money are involved. It is almost as though the Secretary of State is setting out to create bitterness between himself and the trade union movement, whose funds will be put in jeopardy by the vindictiveness of the Government.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not the funds but the tax advantage which enable those funds to accrue that will be in jeopardy?
      Mr. Orme: That is only a refinement of what I said. If my union, the A.U.E.W., whose policy is not to register under these proposals, is faced with this difficulty, it will have to look seriously at redefining its entire membership and subscription set-up.
      It is interesting to note that the so-called defenders of widows, orphans and the sick on the benches opposite are not
      320
      in evidence today. They are the very people—the low wage earners, the unemployed and the sick—who will be primarily affected. I see these people when I attend my trade union branch meetings, which I try to do once a fortnight or certainly whenever possible. I take the chair and I see 30 or more superannuated members and those who act as visitors and take the money to other recipients.
      I see these things going on around me and I am made aware of the bitterness that the Government are creating by these proposals. Somebody might be sick or perhaps a member has lost his tools or has had them stolen and is claiming a grant for new tools. It is a microcosm of the Welfare State. Naturally it cannot rival or replace the Welfare State, but it operates parallel to it.
      I appreciate that the major social benefits must be paid by society as a whole. Nevertheless, the unions with which we are concerned succour those in need, including the unemployed. These benefits act as a supplement to those given by the State. The T.U.C. has estimated that £5 million will be in jeopardy by the removal of this tax exemption. This is deplorable.
      Members of my union have a choice open to them. Apprentices can pay a small subscription and qualify for limited benefits. When they become fully fledged craftsmen they can either go into what we call Section 1 and qualify for total benefits, including superannuation, or they can go into Section 5 and become just industrial members, but still with full status. The same applies to women members who wish to make subscriptions.
      In a union of 1,300,000 members people are coming into and leaving the industry all the time. Some members of my union are so closely associated with the organisation that even when leaving the industry they take what we term outer trade section membership, which enables them to continue to make subscriptions and maintain their right to superannuation at a later date. Often, purely out of affinity, they remain members of the union, though many of them will probably never return to the trade with which the union is primarily concerned.
      This is another way in which this wretched Bill will reduce democracy in

      321
      the trade union movement. As I say, £5 million which is paid in benefits, on a justifiable and equitable basis—as equitable as any friendly society—will be in jeopardly simply because the Government are adopting a suggestion in the minority report of the Donovan Commission which thought that this might be an inducement to get unions to register.
      Donovan also pointed out that 85 per cent. of trade unions opted voluntarily for registration under the 1871 Act. That was done without any coercion or persuasion. Now we are to have compulsory registration, with unions being forced to contract out if they do not wish to be registered. But if they do that, they will lose their schemes for social security benefits, which means that the Bill hits hardest at those who are least able to bear the burden.
      I warn the Minister that while he may be able to hurt these people, force trade unions to change their rules and force them to become industrial organisations unable to give the sort of benefits of which I have spoken—apart from strike benefits and membership rights—at the end of the day he will not win. He will leave behind a legacy of bitterness.
      Mr. R. Carr: I assure the hon. Gentleman that if I were going to do the sort of things he has been suggesting I certainly would not win. I would not deserve to win. But, then, I am not trying to do those things.
      Mr. Orme: In that case, why not accept our Amendment to the proposed Clause, which would avoid any difficulty? If he is not trying to do the things I have accused him of doing, why not leave the position as it is?
      Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman is implying that everything will be lost and that the Bill will be a big minus to the unions. Has he made an estimate of the extra revenue that may accrue to unions from agency shop contributions?
      Mr. Orme: A later Amendment appears on that subject and I hope to have time to discuss it.
      Mr. Tom King: Answer my question.
      Mr. Orme: I do not want to be sidetracked on to that issue, with which I will willingly deal if there is time later.
      322
      I want to make it clear that we are not speaking now about union contributions but about benefits. In jeopardy will be the social security benefits which members of unions now get. Many of these people have been paying for these benefits for years. It will be impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to convince them that something other than vindictiveness has induced the Government to introduce the new Clause.
      Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I was glad that the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) cleared up a point on Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970, which was puzzling me. That was the definition of "provident benefits". Under one reading of subsection (2), one might assume that strike pay could be paid. The phrase is
      "…or while out of work…"
      That is not identifying the cause why the member was out of work. But he has assured me that this is not the case and that this is an entirely separate fund, separate from the working income and the working funds of the union, and, therefore, should be treated differently.
      Plenty of financial penalties will arise from non-registration which will impinge upon the working income and working capital. For example, under the Friendly Societies Act it is possible at present to transfer property without stamp and without paying capital gains tax or anything of that sort. That will go under the new system if the trade union does not register. I support that decision. But when we come to the separate fund—for such it is or should be, and I believe it to be—of the provident benefits, the privilege of tax exemption should be available. It can be made available only if the body is identified clearly—otherwise it will become an abuse—and if it is registered in some way. It is essential if there is to be a tax exemption of the type required—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is a lawyer's argument."] It is a commonsense argument, and if the hon. Gentleman will wait, he will find that I am not as unsympathetic to his case as he might think. It has to be identified. If it is merely a loose organisation of workers, obviously there will be abuse. Under the present law, an unregistered trade union does not have the advantage of Section 338 of the Act of 1970. This

      323
      is because, in order to get such an advantage, obviously it must be clear and approved, and clear and approved in advance.
      Under Clause 141 a trade union as such cannot any longer register as a friendly society. That I support. It would be quite wrong for an organisation of masters and men, to use the old and outmoded phrase, to be able to register in future either as a friendly society or as a company, as many of them have in the past. But surely those trade unions which have these funds and wish to continue, as it were, to write insurance in the future, in the way movingly described by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), can set up a separate friendly society. What is wrong with that? They could set up a friendly society with the objectives of a provident or a friendly society, as the case may be. It could have the same personnel, no doubt, as its trustees. It could hive off its existing funds and it could carry on with the extremely good work mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
      I should have thought that any union which does not choose to register—foolishly, in my opinion, but it is not my opinion which matters—and thereby incurs all sorts of other financial detriments, such as I have mentioned earlier, nevertheless need not incur them because it can erect a friendly society devoted entirely to this object, but identified in people's minds and probably in other ways by having as its officers the former and existing members or officers of the trade union concerned. I see no legal objection to that. If they did that, the sting of what is an unworthy attack upon the compassion of the Conservative Party entirely disappears.
      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to be able to follow the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). I appreciate the purpose of his comments. I am grateful for them. It is not quite as simple as he suggests, in view of Clause 63. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would look at Clause 63, I should like to have his learned opinion on the matter. The Clause suggests that any organisation which is not in control of its property or funds is not a trade union in this sense. Therefore, it cannot
      324
      hive off, in the way that he suggests, its property and funds into a specially sponsored friendly society for the purpose of registering that society, because it defeats its objective—except that it is argued that the union is not registered and, therefore, that part of Clause 63 does not apply to it.
      The next stage is that to preserve its tax position, it is the federation business which enables the trade union to escape the penalties. In the case, for instance, of the A.U.E.W., it is held at present that its rule is a federation of rules. It is not a single union from 1st January, 1971, but a federation of four trade unions. The rules governing each section that now constitute the A.U.E.W. are a federation of rules. They have never been brought together. The amalgamation has never taken place. Therefore, in the sense that the Bill refers to a federation of trade unions, the A.U.E.W. is a federation, and it could be argued that as a federation, because it is not required to register, that federation could be acceptable under the terms of friendly societies or under the terms of the law governing friendly societies' investment and tax rebates.
      Similarly, the Transport and General Workers' Union has just concluded negotiations to come together with the Scottish Motormen. Legally, I understand that when those rules are brought together, that will be a federation of two unions, a small one and the large union of the Transport and General Workers. For the purpose of the Bill, on the question of registration as a friendly society, it is a federation. Therefore, because of the federated rules which govern its property and funds, it may be possible to continue its registration as a friendly society.
      If we fully understand the importance of what the hon. and learned Member for Darwen is saying and apply it to Clause 63 and look at the whole question of federated rules, we shall see that most trade unions are amalgams of some sort and, therefore, have federated arrangements, and that it is possible for them to register under those terms and still continue to claim income tax rebates, and so on, as federated groups.
      The second way is for the T.U.C. to set up a provident fund to which affiliated trade unions could transfer their property on a temporary basis. It is not beyond the wit of lawyers and accountants to

      325
      devise a mechanism to enable trade unions affiliated to the T.U.C. to continue to derive benefit from registration as friendly societies and to get round this particular provision. I see the Minister nodding in agreement. I take it that these are possibilities. I am canvassing the possibilities because it is obvious that the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) has said, they are pursuing a vendetta against organised workers. It would be contradictory to that vendetta if the Government conceded this Amendment. We cannot expect that the Amendment will be accepted, and it will, therefore, be necessary for trade unions to take legal advice and accountancy advice in setting up structures to enable them to maintain their position in terms of income tax rebate.
      The figure suggested by the T.U.C. is £5 million, but I believe the total is far higher than that. Most trade unions are deriving considerable sums from renting parts of newly-built property. The A.U.E.W. has long since discontinued using its funds to enable members to buy their own houses. It now puts all its available money into the building of new premises, most of which are rented out to other organisations. That is the income which enables the union to supplement its superannuation fund.
      Mention was made of the smallness of the benefit. That is true, but the contribution is very small. It is 4p per week. That is all a section 1 member pays for superannuation benefit, and he may derive from it 16s. per week for many years—
      Mr. Orme: Up to £1.
      Mr. Atkinson: The average is up to £1, but he gets that for 4p per week contribution. That is a better transaction than most insurance societies and even the Government scheme offer in terms of a return. That is dependent upon the income tax rebate and on the rent return.
      The Transport and General Workers Union puts its tax rebates and benefits under this Section of the 1970 Act as £750,000 a year. That is a lot of money. If that is so for the T. & G.W., the total amount for all the affiliated unions will he much more than £5 million. Even if the Government refuse to concede this
      326
      point about income tax rebates, all is not lost. It is possible for legal advisers and accountants to set up organisations which are capable of escaping from the penalties which appear to be imposed by the Bill.
      Mr. R. Carr: In my intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) I said that if the Government were trying to do the things of which they are accused they would not win and would not deserve to win, and they are not trying to do them. I resist these Amendments only because they are not necessary. The charges levelled against the Government in the opening speeches were either based on ignorance—which I certainly hope—or on hypocrisy and misrepresentation of a kind which I find nauseating. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) was much fairer in his appraisal of the situation.
      Of course we are not penalising widows, pensioners and other people who receive benefit on compassionate grounds from provident funds. It is long-established common practice to tie tax concessions for provident benefit activities to registration, so that there is a check—and surely there must be a check—on the organisation's financial worthiness and a general continuing check on its financial state of affairs. That is a principle which we must maintain.
      We offer unions two ways of meeting that requirement. First, they should register as a trade union as proposed under the Bill. That is not only in the public interest, it is easy, and we do not regard it as oppressive. It is much less oppressive than the method of registration originally put forward by the Labour Government. We believe that registration brings considerable benefits. We do not regard it as oppressive to say that that is one way in which trade unions can obtain the continuance of their provident fund activities with full tax exemption. If—misguidedly as we believe, and unnecessarily misguidedly—a union chooses to cancel its registration, there is nothing to stop it hiving off its provident funds, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) said, into separate organisations, registering them as friendly societies and thereby achieving

      327
      the present degree of registration which we believe to be the minimum required for provident fund activities for the long-term protection of the beneficiaries.
      This is a fuss over nothing. There are two perfectly legitimate ways of meeting this requirement. There is the existing one of registering a provident society, in which case it is necessary to form a provident society, and registering as a trade union and, as a registered trade union, getting an exemption as at the moment. Both these ways achieve the proper exemption which the Government wish to be available for the beneficiaries of genuine provident funds.
      Mr. Atkinson: Has the right hon. Gentleman read and closely studied the remarks of the Solicitor-General on the fifth allotted day when at the end of the debate he spoke in great detail about registration and went on to say why he thought it was not possible, without changes being made, for a trade union to register as a friendly society?
      Mr. Carr: I take that point. It is not possible, as I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen said, for a trade union also to register as a friendly society. It is possible for a union which decides not to register under the Bill but to remain an unregistered organisation of workers to hive off its provident funds and to form a friendly society. I do not think the House would wish me to go into details, but I have sought careful advice and any fears the hon. Gentleman has on those grounds are unfounded. There is no obstacle to forming a friendly society and dealing with the matter in that way.
      Mr. John Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about a separate endowment fund used for the payment of benefits. What happens in practice is that some trade unions do not have a separate capital fund but make an income tax claim at the end of the financial year in respect of the benefits which they have actually paid out. It is not, therefore, possible to transfer the assets, because the assets are not in a separate fund in the first place. Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the 1871 Act does not require the perusal and auditing of accounts of a registered trade union, and that that privilege has been in
      328
      existence for 100 years? If the right hon. Gentleman is worried about the accountancy aspect, that can be dealt with by a separate Amendment to the effect that the funds should be audited. Neither of his arguments carries a great deal of weight.
      Mr. Carr: I do not pretend to be technical on the subject of provident funds, but if a provident fund were not separated from the general fund I should have thought, as a normal, commonsense view, it ought to be and the sooner it is separated, the better. Otherwise, if it is all part of the general capital fund, what would prevent a union engaged in a protracted industrial dispute—I do not for a moment believe that unions would deliberately act irresponsibly, but I pose the question—using up money which had been put aside for provident purposes in order to fight that industrial dispute? That would not be proper in the interests of beneficiaries or potential beneficiaries. I am not suggesting that that happens, but I am pointing out that there cannot be any hardship or insuperable difficulty—and I think it absolutely right in principle—in separately identifying the funds devoted to the provident purposes of the union.
      In another context, Clause 139 of the Bill encourages the separation of funds. If they do not do it already for what I regard as that good and beneficial reason, I am sure that unions will wish to separate these funds because, if a union becomes liable for compensation, quite rightly and properly, one must give it power to separate its industrial fighting fund, so to speak, and thus make immune from possible loss through compensation payments the amount of money which is devoted to provident purposes. It would be wrong if the Bill did not give unions the opportunity to separate out their provident funds for that purpose as well.
      I assure the House that the pensions of widows and all the other beneficiaries are perfectly easily protectable under the Bill if it is enacted in its present form.
      7.30 p.m.
      Mrs. Castle: That rather complacent speech from the Secretary of State is typical of the Government's attitude throughout. Under the Bill as it stands, trade unions will suffer financial penalties by losing the tax exemption for a side of

      329
      their activities which has nothing whatever to do with their negotiating work. I am interested to see that the right hon. Gentleman rejects the approach of his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis), who, I thought, believed that he was interpreting the Government's mind when he said that it was quite right that a union which was wicked enough not to register under the Bill should lose tax benefits in respect of all its work.
      The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford is the faithful mirror of what most Tories think they will get out of the Bill. We had a revelation of the grassroots attitude when, admonishing the trade unions, he said, "What are they grumbling about? They need not put their funds in jeopardy if they do not adopt a dogmatic attitude to the Bill". That is the pure doctrine of the "State licence to operate" concept which permeates the Bill.
      It was, therefore, a refreshing relief to hear the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) approach the matter in a more objective way and agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) that we were dealing here with quite separate types of activity on the part of trade unions which, said he, should be treated differently. The hon. and learned Gentleman at least had the grace and courtesy to recognise that, if a union engages in what are near-charitable activities, it ought to have the appropriate tax treatment in respect of those activities.
      Our complaint is that, contrary to what the Secretary of State says, the Bill does not reflect that principle enunciated by the hon. and learned Member for Darwen. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was quite simple, and that all a union had to do was to set up a separate friendly society fund. But that, to put it at its lightest, would be inconvenient.
      Yesterday, we had a long debate about how one should treat professional associations which, it was argued, had a dual nature and dual capacity. It was important, we were told, that the Bill should lean over backwards so to adjust the law as to enable those professional bodies to exercise their two different functions without inconvenience. We were told that there were organisations in this country, limited companies or chartered bodies,
      330
      which engaged in both negotiating activities and what hon. Members opposite clearly seemed to think were more reputable activities, namely, educational work or activity coming under the vague formula, the public good, associated with the chartered body.
      Because it was difficult for such bodies to carry on those two activities under the Bill with proper protection and immunity, the right hon. Gentleman had to introduce three complicated new Clauses setting up a special register. When it was said that the special register would apply to a body which was already a limited company as well as having negotiating activities but that it should not apply to a limited company in the future, and when we asked what was the distinction in principle, and why should not the B.M.A. be told to reorganise its affairs so as to cease to be a limited company the Solicitor-General's answer was that it would cause inconvenience to the B.M.A.
      We have here an absolutely parallel situation. We are not talking about the negotiating side of a trade union's work. We are talking about its provident and benefit side, its charitable work.
      Mr. R. Carr: I think that the right hon. Lady is pursuing a misconceived argument. What the Government were saying yesterday was not that the B.M.A., the Royal College of Nursing and so on could go on pursuing all their industrial relations activities, with all their present privileges, without registering. We said, "If you want to do that, you must register, and we are here making it possible for you to register". To some extent, we are making the British Medical Association, for example, reorganise its affairs. If it wants to continue doing what it is doing at the moment, it will have to register, for otherwise it will not have its present protections.
      What we say to the unions in this case is this: "If you register, you do nothing; you just go on as you do at the moment. If, on the other hand, you wish not to register, you must separate this off and make it a friendly society".
      Mrs. Castle: What the right hon. Gentleman said to the B.M.A. was, "We will provide a special form of registration under the Bill that will enable you to

      331
      continue your activities without the inconvenience of rearranging them." Our Amendment asks for exactly the same thing on behalf of the trade unions. The right hon. Gentleman insisted that to enjoy tax exemptions for their provident benefit fund unions must be registered in some form or another. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood suggested that there were other ways of controlling those funds so that there was no abuse, so I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has established that that is unavoidable. But if the right hon. Gentleman says that such tax exemptions must be tied to registration, we have offered him a form of registration in the Amendment, namely, that they should be tied to those unions which register under the 1871 Act. That can be called a special register, purely for the provident benefit funds of trade unions.
      It is a little revealing that the right hon. Gentleman sees no difficulty in having special registers for special groups of professional people but refuses to allow the continuation of registration under the 1871 Act as the qualification for this side of the unions' activities alone.
      We are not at this stage arguing about whether unions are right to say that they will not register under the Bill. It is outrageous to ask them to register. The House knows our views, and I will not repeat them.
      The hon. and learned Member for Darwen and the right hon. Gentleman both said that it is right to say that the provident benefit activities, the friendly society activities, of trade unions are different from their negotiating activities and should be treated differently. If that is the principle, it is up to the right hon. Gentleman to find a way for it to be embodied in the Bill, and not tell the trade unions, "It is simple for you. Either you register—and if you are sensible you will—or you must reorganise your affairs into a separate friendly society fund." That is financial blackmail of the trade unions. There can be no other phrase for it, because they are being told, "Unless you do that you face the loss of millions of pounds of revenue. You must do the adjusting. I am not prepared to adjust my Bill." If the right hon. Gentleman gives us the principle, he must give us the means by a device in the Bill, just
      332
      as yesterday he gave the means to the B.M.A., the Royal College of Nursing, the chartered engineers and the rest. If he does not give the means there will be two types of treatment in his approach for two different types of people.
      If the right hon. Gentleman wants to dispel what he clearly considers to be outrageous misrepresentations by us about his motives and methods, we once again offer him a very simple way to prove his good will and his good faith in the matter. He admits that it is outrageous if trade unions have to lose these tax exemptions.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. Lady knows that what she is saying is absolute rubbish. The situation clearly is that the special groups we talked about yesterday in connection with the special register must register none the less. The special register was created simply for activities that were not concerned with funds which dealt with sickness benefits, pensions and the like but were quite separate. Those groups must register just the same. Is the right hon. Lady saying that if we had another kind of register, but still a register under the Bill, giving it a different name, she would advise all the trade unions to register under it? They have still the option.
      Mrs. Castle: I do not want an intervention by the hon. Gentleman to turn into a speech. I leave the House to judge whether it is I or the hon. Gentleman who is talking nonsense. When it is said that the B.M.A. must register, my answer is, "Yes, certainly. But it does not have to register on the same register as trade unions. It must register on a special register set up to help it through the difficulties caused by its dual capacity." In the Amendment we are asking not that the unions should not register to get the tax exemptions for their friendly society funds but that, like the B.M.A., they should not have to register on the main register but should register under the 1871 Act, purely for the purpose of drawing the tax exemption for their provident benefit funds. The parallel between my argument and the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the B.M.A. is exact. If he wishes to dispel the deep-rooted belief that there is discrimination here in his whole instinctive approach against the trade unions,

      333
      he has a very simple way of doing it. He can accept our Amendment and create for trades union friendly society funds a special register.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Grylls: The right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has made a lot of fuss about the inconvenience of the alternative method of looking after the provident funds of the unions. She is making a mountain out of a molehill. It is clear that the unions have two avenues. If they do not choose to take the avenue of registration, they have the other avenue, and so the provident funds are absolutely secure. If they wish to take the more difficult avenue and not to register, that is entirely a decision of their own making. The inconvenience about which the right hon. Lady talked is created not by the Government in the Bill but by the trade unions which decide to take that path.
      I have been astounded by all the claims about worries over registration. Labour right hon. and hon. Members, claiming to represent unions—in some instances, by suggestion, claiming to represent many millions of members, I think falsely—say that some of the unions will shrink from registration. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said that his union would shrink from it. I cannot understand what they are frightened about.
      The unions, as regards tax concessions, are in no different position from a company under the Companies Act, 1948. For example, I.C.I. does not find itself hindered because its articles of association have to be examined by the Registrar of Companies. It is right that unions asking for the same privileges should see that their rules are examined in a similar way.
      The provision has been called a method of taking away £5 million from the trade unions. It should be made clear that there is no question of that. My right hon. Friend said that the unions have an absolute protection either by registration or by hiving off. Surely, it is a cardinal rule that a person or company claiming taxation relief should have to comply with certain regulations to enjoy that privilege. All that the Government are asking the unions and other organisations to
      334
      do is to submit to the perfectly fair and reasonable requirements of the Bill if they wish to have their funds protected in the way which we think is right. It is perfectly proper that there should be public checks of such funds.
      Rather than being a threat to the unions, the provision is the reverse. A good case could be made out for saying that this is a way of protecting the funds. The rules can take care of that, by seeing that they can be examined.
      There are advantages in registration, not least the tax advantage. The unions have nothing to lose but everything to gain by registration. Labour hon. Members cannot have it both ways. They cannot talk at one moment about the unions losing £5 million, and a so-called threat to the provident funds, and then say that they have nothing to gain by registration. They have everything to gain by registration under the Bill. But if they do not choose to register they can protect their provident funds adequately in the other way suggested, by hiving them off.
      Mr. R. Carr: With the leave of the House, I should like to say a very few words more. I want to avoid misunderstanding between the two sides of the House on this problem, which is quite separate from our main controversies about industrial relations.
      The right hon. Lady drew a comparison between the Government's action yesterday in relation to a special register for certain bodies and our action today. We proposed a special register for them because there was no other way in which they could register and continue the industrial relations part of their activities with the protection they now enjoy. If we had not provided it they would have had to choose between continuing one part of their activities—industrial relations—and giving up the others, and holding to the others and giving up their traditional industrial relations activities. That did not seem either necessary or fair, so we provided them with the means of registering. But the registration is no easier. Such bodies still have to satisfy the principles laid down in Clause 61 and to satisfy the Registrar that they have rules on all the items laid down in Schedule 3. I proposed that special register only because, it was necessary.

      335
      I assure the House that if it were necessary to set up a special register for trade unions which wished not to register in the industrial relations sense, so that they could continue the other half of their activities, their provident fund activities, I would propose a special register. But it is not necessary. I have gone into this most carefully. I am told that there is no technical, constitutional or legal difficulty. I am assured on technical advice that the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1965 or the Friendly Societies Act 1896 is available for registering for the provident funds of unions which do not wish to register under the Bill in the industrial relations sense. Therefore, there is a special register in existence.
      Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the problems that a trade union will have, run as it is in the main by thousands of voluntary workers, in splitting the two funds and administering them separately for perhaps 1,300,000 members, some entitled to payments and some not? It is a job of such magnitude that it will be almost impossible to administer.
      Mr. Carr: That is a matter about which we can no doubt argue, but I believe that the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the position. I believe that, one way or the other, the provident funds of unions should be separately identifiable and separately accountable for, and if they are not so already, then it is right that they should become so in future.
      Mr. Atkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is correcting the Solicitor-General in the statement which the hon. and learned Gentleman made earlier? I am glad to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman is returning because he can listen to my question. I remind the Solicitor-General that, in answer to me, he confirmed that an unregistered union would not be able to take benefit from various Acts in order to seek tax rebates as a result of investment of its provident funds. As reported in HANSARD of 10th February, he spelt out clearly that unregistered unions could not derive benefit in the way which the Secretary of State now suggests. I take it that the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General have put their heads together and that the Secretary of State is
      336
      correcting what the Solicitor-General said earlier.
      Mr. Carr: I do not believe that it is a correction. If my hon. and learned Friend thinks that I am confirming wrongly, I am sure that he will not fail to say so. A trade union, an organisation of workers, as such cannot do the things my hon. and learned Friend say they cannot do. I repeat that they can hive off their provident funds and activities and get the protection of the tax exemptions they enjoy at the moment.
      Mrs. Castle: We have before had statements by the Solicitor-General which later have either had to be corrected or, alternatively, endorsed. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the trade unions, which are profoundly concerned about this matter, have studied what was said by the Solicitor-General on 10th February as reported in columns 659 and 660 of HANSARD of that date, and have received advice that it was both the intention of the Government that they should cease to enjoy friendly society benefits and that they would de facto so cease. The Solicitor-General concluded on that occasion:
      "Under the 1871 Act, registration enables a trade union to enjoy the benefits of a friendly society in respect of provident funds, while registration under the Bill would carry the same consequences, but it would not be admissible for an unregistered organisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 660.]
      That was the policy stand of the Solicitor-General, and now the Secretary of State says that we are making a lot of fuss about what is a completely innocent purpose of the Government. He says that they would not dream of making sure that provident funds ceased to enjoy tax exemptions. The Government are again talking with a double voice and the House is again being misled.
      Mr. Carr: Since we are being accused of misleading the House, I must again try to make clear that we are not. What my hon. and learned Friend said in the context of that debate, and what I repeat today, is that an unregistered organisation as such cannot do the things which my hon. and learned Friend said that it cannot do. In that, he was quite right and I confirm it. But there is nothing to prevent the unregistered organisation from doing what I have suggested—hiving

      337
      off its provident funds and activities and registering under one of the Acts provided for such activities—if it gives them any pleasure, I remind hon. Members opposite that both these Acts were passed by the Labour Government—and also enjoying the benefits which they enjoy at the moment. Under those Acts, there is still tax exemption available and all these organisations have to do is take advantage of them.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Atkinson: It is not as easy as that. What the Solicitor-General was doing on 10th February was confirming the claim I had made that non-registration would collectively cost the trade unions more
      than £5 million. The hon. and learned Gentleman said then, "It is too bad; that is the cost of non-registration." He went on to spell out in detail the reasons why unregistered unions would not be able to take the benefits from the investment of their provident funds. He said, "It is too bad; that is the price which unregistered unions must pay." We are glad to hear that the Secretary of State has corrected that and has put the Solicitor-General right, and that therefore we can perhaps pass on to other provisions.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—
      The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 287.

      Division No. 272.]

      AYES

      [8.1 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Driberg, Tom

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Ashley, Jack

      Dunnett, Jack

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Eadie, Alex

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Judd, Frank

      Barnes, Michael

      Ellis, Tom

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Barnett, Joel

      English, Michael

      Kelley, Richard

      Beaney, Alan

      Evans, Fred

      Kerr, Russell

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Kinnock, Neil

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

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

      Lambie, David

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Lamond, James

      Bishop, E. S.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Latham, Arthur

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Foot, Michael

      Lawson, George

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Ford, Ben

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Booth, Albert

      Forrester, John

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Leonard, Dick

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

      Freeson, Reginald

      Lestor, Miss Joan

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

      Garrett, W. E.

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Buchan, Norman

      Ginsburg, David

      Lipton, Marcus

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

      Golding, John

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Loughlin, Charles

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Cant, R. B.

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Carmichael, Neil

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      McBride, Neil

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Hamilton, William(Fife, W.)

      McElhone, Frank

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      McGuire, Michael

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Hardy, Peter

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Harper, Joseph

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Cohen, Stanley

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mackie, John

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hart, At. Hn. Judith

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hattersley, Roy

      Maclennan, Robert

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hooson, Emlyn

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

      Cronin, John

      Horam, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Marquand, David

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

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Dalyell, Tam

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Meacher, Michael

      Darling, Rt Hn. George

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Mendelson, John

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Millan, Bruce

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hunter, Adam

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Janner, Greville

      Molloy, William

      Deakins, Eric

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

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Dempsey, James

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Doig, Peter

      John, Brynmor

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Dormark, J. D.

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

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Moyle, Roland

      Richard, Ivor

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Tinn, James

      Murray, Ronald King

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Tomney, Frank

      Ogden, Eric

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Torney, Tom

      O'Halloran, Michael

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

      Tuck, Raphael

      O'Malley, Brian

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Oram, Bert

      Roper, John

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Orbach, Maurice

      Rose, Paul B.

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

      Orme, Stanley

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Wallace, George

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Watkins, David

      Palmer, Arthur

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Weitzman, David

      Pardoe, John

      Sillars, James

      Wellbeloved, James

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Silverman, Julius

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Skinner, Dennis

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Small, William

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Whitlock, William

      Pendry, Tom

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Pentland, Norman

      Stallard, A. W.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Steel, David

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Prescott, John

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Strang, Gavin

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Rankin, John

      Swain, Thomas

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Taverne, Dick

      Mr. William Hamling and

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

      Mr. Donald Coleman.

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Critchley, Julian

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Crouch, David

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Curran, Charles

      Hastings, Stephen

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Havers, Michael

      Astor, John

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

      Hawkins, Paul

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Dean, Paul

      Hay, John

      Awdry, Daniel

      Dixon, Piers

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Heseltine, Michael

      Balniel, Lord

      Drayson, G. B.

      Hicks, Robert

      Batsford, Brian

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Bell, Ronald

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hiley, Joseph

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Eden, Sir John

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

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Benyon, W.

      Elliot, Capt Walter (Carshalton)

      Holland, Philip

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Biffen, John

      Emery, Peter

      Hornby, Richard

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Blaker, Peter

      Farr, John

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Fell, Anthony

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Body, Richard

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Fidler, Michael

      Hunt, John

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Bowden, Andrew

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Braine, Bernard

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      James, David

      Bray, Ronald

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Brewis, John

      Fortescue, Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Foster, Sir John

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fowler, Norman

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Fox, Marcus

      Jopling, Michael

      Bryan, Paul

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

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

      Fry, Peter

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Buck, Antony

      Calbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Gardner, Edward

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Burden, F. A.

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Kimball, Marcus

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Channon, Paul

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Kirk, Peter

      Chapman, Sydney

      Goodhart, Philip

      Kitson, Timothy

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Gorst, John

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Gower, Raymond

      Knox, David

      Churchill, W. S.

      Gray, Hamish

      Lambton, Antony

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Green, Alan

      Lane, David

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Grieve, Percy

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Cockeram, Eric

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Cooke, Robert

      Grylls, Michael

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Coombs, Derek

      Gummer, Selwyn

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

      Cooper, A. E.

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Longden, Gilbert

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Loveridge, John

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Costain, A. P.

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      340

      341

      McLaren, Martin

      Pounder, Rafton

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Sutcliffe, John

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Tapseil, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

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

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Madel, David

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Taylor Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Marten, Neil

      Raison, Timothy

      Tebbit, Norman

      Mather, Carol

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Maude, Angus

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Thomas, John Stradlmg (Monmouth)

      Mawby, Ray

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

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

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Tilney, John

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Trafford, Dr Anthony

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Trew, Peter

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Tugendhat, Christopher

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

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Moate, Roger

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Moryneaux, James

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Money, Ernie

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Waddington, David

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Rost, Peter

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Monroe, Hector

      Royle, Anthony

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Wall, Patrick

      More, Jasper

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Walters, Dennis

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Warren, Kenneth

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Sharples, Richard

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Mudd, David

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

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Murton, Oscar

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Simeons, Charles

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Neave, Airey

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Wilkinson, John

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Sheet, T. H. H.

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Normanton, Tom

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

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Nott, John

      Soref, Harold

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Speed, Keith

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Spence, John

      Worsley, Marcus

      Osborn, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Stainton, Keith

      Younger, Hn. George

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Percival, Ian

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Mr. Victor Goodhew and

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Mr. Walter Clegg.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Stokes, John

      Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—
      The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 237.

      Division No. 273.]

      AYES

      [8.13 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

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

      Eden, Sir John

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Buck, Antony

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Burden, F. A.

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

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Emery, Peter

      Astor, John

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Eyre, Reginald

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Farr, John

      Awdry, Daniel

      Chapman, Sydney

      Fell, Anthony

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Fidler, Michael

      Balniel, Lord

      Churchill, W. S.

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Batsford, Brian

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Bell, Ronald

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Cooke, Robert

      Fortescue, Tim

      Benyon, W.

      Coombs, Derek

      Foster, Sir John

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Cooper, A. E.

      Fowler, Norman

      Biffen, John

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Fox, Marcus

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Cormack, Patrick

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

      Blaker, Peter

      Costain, A. P.

      Fry, Peter

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Critchley, Julian

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Body, Richard

      Crouch, David

      Gardner, Edward

      Boscawen, Robert

      Crowder, F. P.

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Curran, Charles

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Bowden, Andrew

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Braine, Bernard

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

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Bray, Ronald

      Dean, Paul

      Goodhart, Philip

      Brewis, John

      Dixon, Piers

      Goodhew, Victor

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Gorst, John

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Gower, Raymond

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Gray, Hamish

      Bryan, Paul

      Dykes, Hugh

      Green, Alan

      Grieve, Percy

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Madel, David

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Crylls, Michael

      Maginnis, John E.

      Scott, Nicholas

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Marten, Neil

      Sharpies, Richard

      Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

      Mather, Carol

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

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Maude, Angus

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Mawby, Ray

      Simeons, Charles

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Soref, Harold

      Havers, Michael

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Speed, Keith

      Hawkins, Paul

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

      Spence, John

      Hay, John

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Sproat, Iain

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Moate, Roger

      Stainton, Keith

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Molyneaux, James

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Heseltine, Michael

      Money, Ernie

      Steel, David

      Hicks, Robert

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Monro, Hector

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Hiley, Joseph

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

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

      More, Jasper

      Stokes, John

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Holland, Philip

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Sutcliffe, John

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Mudd, David

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Hordern, Peter

      Murton, Oscar

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

      Hornby, Richard

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Neave, Airey

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Tebbit, Norman

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Normanton, Tom

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Nott, John

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Hunt, John

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

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Tilney, John

      James, David

      Osborn, John

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Trew, Peter

      Jessel, Toby

      Pardoe, John

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Percival, Ian

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Joplirg, Michael

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Waddington, David

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Pounder, Rafton

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Walt, Patrick

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

      Walters, Dennis

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Warren, Kenneth

      Kirk, Peter

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Kitson, Timothy

      Raison, Timothy

      White, Roger (Cravesend)

      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. Hn. Sir David

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Woodnutt, Mark

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

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Worsley, Marcus

      Longden, Gilbert

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Loveridge, John

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Younger, Hn. George

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      McLaren, Martin

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Rost, Peter

      Mr. Walter Clegg.

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Royle, Anthony

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Booth, Albert

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Ashley, Jack

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

      Cohen, Stanley

      Ashton, Joe

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

      Concannon, J. D.

      Atkinson, Norman

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Buchan, Norman

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Barnes, Michael

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

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Barnett, Joel

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Beaney, Alan

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Cronin, John

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Cant, R. B.

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

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Carmichael, Neil

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bishop, E. S.

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      344

      345

      Davidson, Arthur

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

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Davies, Denzll (Llanelly)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Pendry, Tom

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Pentland, Norman

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Judd, Frank

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Prescott, John

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Kelley, Richard

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Deakins, Eric

      Kerr, Russell

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Dempsey, James

      Kinnock, Neil

      Probert, Arthur

      Doig, Peter

      Lambie, David

      Rankin, John

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lamond, James

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Latham, Arthur

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Douglas-Marat, Bruce

      Lawson, George

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Driberg, Tom

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Richard, Ivor

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Leonard, Dick

      Roberts.Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

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

      ENis, Tom

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      English, Michael

      Lipton, Marcus

      Roper, John

      Evans, Fred

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Rose, Paul B.

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Loughlin, Charles

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

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

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Foot, Michael

      McBride, Neil

      Silliars, James

      Ford, Ben

      McCartney, Hugh

      Silverman, Julius

      Forrester, John

      McElhone, Frank

      Skinner, Dennis

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      McGuire, Michael

      Small, William

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mackenzie, Cregor

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mackie, John

      Spearing, Nigel

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Ginsburg, David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Stallard, A. W.

      Golding, John

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Gourlay, Harry

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

      Strang, Gavin

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Marquand, David

      Swain, Thomas

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Taverne, Dick

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Meacher, Michael

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

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Mendelson, John

      Tinn, James

      Hardy, Peter

      Mikardo, Ian

      Tomney, Frank

      Harper, Joseph

      Millan, Bruce

      Torney, Tom

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Tuck, Raphael

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Hattersley, Roy

      Molloy, William

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenehawe)

      Wallace, George

      Horam, John

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Watkins, David

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Weitzman, David

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Moyle, Roland

      Wellbeloved, James

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Murray, Ronald King

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Ogden, Eric

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Whitlock, William

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Hunter, Adam

      Oram, Bert

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

      Orbach, Maurice

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Janner, Greville

      Orme, Stanley

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

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

      Oswald, Thomas

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      John, Brynmor

      Palmer, Arthur

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

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Mr. Donald Coleman and

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Mr. William Hamling.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    New Clause 12

      CANCELLATION BY REGISTRAR ON REQUEST OR WHERE ORGANISATION CEASES TO EXIST
      (1) The registrar may at any time cancel the entry of an organisation in the provisional register, or the registration of an organisation under this Act as a trade union or as an employers' association,—

      (a) at the request of the organisation, evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct, or

      346

      (b) if the registrar is satisfied that the organisation has ceased to exist.

      (2) Where the registrar exercises the power conferred by the preceding subsection, he shall cause notice of the cancellation to be published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Brought up, and read the First and Second time.
      Mr. Ronald King Murray: I beg to move Amendment

      347
      (aaaaaa) to the proposed Clause, in line 4, leave out
      'evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct'.
      The views of both sides of the House have already been canvassed on this matter. The words which we propose to leave out may have been innocent enough in 1871 and could be introduced again. That is not our objection. They appear in Section 8 of the Trade Union Act Amendment Act, 1876, and it cannot be said that there is anything peculiarly sinister about them. But the situation concerning trade union law in 1876 was very different from what it is in 1971 and very different from what it will be when the Bill is enacted.
      First, in 1876, the Registrar did not have the powers which the Registrar will have under Clauses 61 and 64 to determine to some extent what rules a trade union will have and to lay down conditions of a kind which we do not yet know and which a trade union will have to fulfil before it is permitted to register under the Bill. So the Registrar will have discretionary powers of interference and will be able to lay down conditions for the entry of trade unions. Such discretionary powers did not exist in the 1876 Act.
      Second, the position of trade unions has completely altered since 1876. Nobody here today would be able to make a fair presentation of the powers, functions and limitations of trade unions without taking into account, for example, the vital 1906 Act, which in many ways transformed the unions and made it possible for them to function in the industrial sphere in the way in which they have done. Therefore, a pre-1906 union was an entirely different creature from a post-1906 union, as has been emphasised in many of our debates.
      It follows that for these two reasons the registrar's power in 1876 was an entirely different power from the power the Registrar will get under the Bill in 1971. Not only will the Registrar under this Bill have powers and discretion altogether different from those which his colleague had in 1876, but by the same token the trade unions are losing powers; because, in so far as the Registrar can determine rules and lay down conditions,
      348
      it necessarily follows that the union itself has not full sovereignty over its rules and must subject itself to some extent to conditions laid down by the Registrar. Therefore, the trade unions have lost some of their sovereignty—that is the point of the Bill as presented by the Government—and the Registrar has gained considerably in powers and discretion.
      For these reasons alone, I am entitled to say that the words
      "evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct"
      though perfectly innocuous and innocent in 1871 and 1876 may have an entirely different connotation and effect today. It is my firm view that those words, which were innocent and innocuous then, cannot be regarded in the same light today.
      8.30 p.m.
      Registration under the 1876 Act allowed for withdrawal by a union which was so registered. The provision, which is the same provision as that in new Clause 12(1)(a)—
      "evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct"
      was followed after the 1876 Act by directions by the Registrar, under that Act and under the 1871 Act, as to how a union which was registered might withdraw and cancel its certificate of registry. There was a statutory form.
      I have been fortunate enough to have been given a copy of this statutory form by an hon. Friend who did some research on the subject. I have here Form J, which is the appropriate statutory form under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1964 providing for a request to withdraw or cancel a certificate of registry.
      So, if we want to discover what is the practical effect of the words
      "evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct"
      we can do no better than look at Form J for the appropriate steps under the Trade Union Acts, 1871 to 1964. The form provides, first, for the name of the trade union and its registered number. It then is addressed to the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies or his Scottish counterpart.
      The form proceeds:
      "(1) The above-named Trade Union desires that its certificate of registry under the Trade

      349
      Union Acts may be withdrawn [or cancelled] on the following ground."
      Here the person entering the form and filling it up is invited to
      "State reason for desiring withdrawal or cancelling of certificate of registry."
      That knocks a hole in the presentation by the Government spokesman, because this is an additional factor. It is not simply a question of a trade union reaching the view that it should cancel its registration and then intimating that decision in an appropriate manner to the Registrar. It is a question of the Registrar being given reason or grounds. This goes far beyond a mere registration of a decision which the union reaches within its own rules and within the four corners of its own meetings.
      The form proceeds:
      "on the following ground … and at a general meeting … it was resolved as follows:
      (1) That the Trustees be authorised to request the Chief [or Assistant Registrar] to withdraw [or cancel] the certificate of registry of this Trade Union".
      So again we go beyond the office bearers of the union to a general meeting and beyond the general meeting and the office bearers to the trustees. That goes to show just how far a direction of this kind may extend.
      Nobody on this side will accept the assurances which were given by the Government Front Bench that this is the innocuous provision that it appears to be.
      However, I do not want to be taken as saying that there is something sinister or ulterior about that. I cannot say that. It is possible that this provision could be read by a Registrar in a perfectly reasonable way. I merely say that if the words
      "evidenced in such manner as the registrar may direct"
      remain they will allow the Registrar at least to follow the precedent of his predecessor under the 1871 to 1964 Acts. That is the best that can happen. At the worst, it would seem to me to be giving the Registrar an entirely free discretion, as far as I can see within the four corners of the Bill as amended by the new Clause, to give such directions as he may think fit to unions after the passing of the Act.
      I conceive that this could go very far. The Registrar might require not merely a ballot but a certain majority. He might
      350
      interfere in the most specific and direct way with the internal organisation of a union in this respect. That would not carry him into the sort of interference he can make under Clauses 61 and 64. This would be an additional interference. But it plainly would have this effect. It would make it more difficult for unions to contract out.
      The Government have sought to present this provision in an attractive form. As one of my hon. Friends said, it has been done with honeyed words. However, behind those honeyed words the reality is that the provision will slow down, reduce or even take away the right of a trade union to get out of registration. Instead of a union contracting into registration, which is the way in which this was presented, this is a form of contracting out. What is more, it is a form of contracting out with obstacles. It is made difficult to contract out, and there is nothing to stop the Registrar increasing the obstacles at his discretion. For those reasons, we consider that the words should be deleted.
      It may be that the Government will say that the words mean nothing sinister. Let us see the colour of their money. If all that they are after is that there should be a written request by an authorised person, why not make an Amendment to that effect instead of putting in words which seem to increase the power of the Registrar? I urge the Government to think again and, if they will not, I am afraid that I shall have to advise my hon. Friends to oppose the new Clause and to insist on our Amendment.
      The Solicitor-General: The hon. and learned Gentleman invited the Government to allow the Opposition to see the colour of our money. I am proposing to enable right hon. and hon. Members opposite to do that.
      The fears which the hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined and which are provoked by these words are, like so many of the fears and anxieties expressed from the benches opposite, without foundation and fanciful. When this matter was referred to in our previous debate, I explained that these words are intended to achieve no more than that the request to withdraw should be evidenced so that the Registrar may be satisfied that such a request has been made.

      351
      The hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledges that this is the form in which it has operated since 1876. He has drawn attention to Form J and suggested that this illustrates the sinister nature of the things which could be read into this provision. If one looks at Form J as it is printed in the Appendix to Citrine's Trade Union Law, the phrase which alarms the hon. and learned Gentleman,
      "… and at a general meeting …",
      has a note attached to it,
      "If not at a general meeting, state in what manner the request has been determined upon."
      The form makes it plain that the organisation can determine the request. It merely has to say on the form that that is what has happened.
      The only intention of the provision in new Clause 12(1,a) is that the organisation should have requested cancellation. The hon. and learned Gentleman sought to suggest that the same form of words may have changed its meaning with the passage of time. However, it appears in the Building Societies Act, 1962, and in the Industrial and Provident Societies
      Act, 1965, enacted by the last Government. No one sought to suggest anything sinister in those connotations.
      There is nothing sinister at all. There is no scope for anything sinister. But, in order to assure the Opposition that this intention is indeed the Government's intention, I advise the House to accept the Amendment. We were challenged to show the colour of our money, and we show it. I do it seriously to assure the Opposition and the trade union movement that there are no sinister implications to be found lurking in this phraseology. The intention is to make it plain that, at the request of the organisation, it may have its registration cancelled. On that basis, and laying our money on the table, money which is as sound as a bell and as honest and well founded as money can be, I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's challenge and invite the House to accept the Amendment.
      Amendment to the proposed Clause agreed to.
      Question put, That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill:—
      The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 234.

      Division No. 274.]

      AYES

      [8.40 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Fortescue, Tim

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Foster, Sir John

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Fowler, Norman

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fox, Marcus

      Astor, John

      CIegg, Walter

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

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Cockeram, Eric

      Fry, Peter

      Awdry, Daniel

      Cooke, Robert

      Calbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Coombs, Derek

      Gardner, Edward

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Cooper, A. E.

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Batsford, Brian

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Bell, Ronald

      Cormack, Patrick

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Costain, A. P.

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Critchley, Julian

      Goodhart, Philip

      Benyon, W.

      Crouch, David

      Gorst, John

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Crowder, F. P.

      Gower, Raymond

      Biffen, John

      Curran, Charles

      Gray, Hamish

      Biggs-Davison, John

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaJ.-Gen.

      Green, Alan

      Blaker, Peter

      Dean, Paul

      Grieve, Percy

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Dixon, Piers

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Body, Richard

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Grylls, Michael

      Boscawen, Robert

      Drayson, G. B.

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Halt, John (Wycombe)

      Braine, Bernard

      Dykes, Hugh

      Hall-Davis, A. C. F.

      Bray, Ronald

      Eden, Sir John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Brewis, John

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Harmam, John (Exeter)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

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

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Bryan, Paul

      Emery, Pew

      Haselhurst, Alan

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

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hastings, Stephen

      Buck, Antony

      Farr, John

      Havers, Michael

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Fell, Anthony

      Hawkins, Paul

      Burden, F. A.

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Fidler, Michael

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Hicks, Robert

      Cary, Sir Robert

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Hiley, Joseph

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

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Moate, Roger

      Sheet, T. H. H.

      Holland, Philip

      Molyneaux, James

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

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Money, Ernie

      Soref, Harold

      Hornby, Richard

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Speed, Keith

      Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Monro, Hector

      Spence, John

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Sproat, Iain

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      More, Jasper

      Stainton, Keith

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Hunt, John

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Mudd, David

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      James, David

      Murton, Oscar

      Stokes, John

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Jessel, Toby

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Sutcliffe, John

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Normanton, Tom

      Tapsell, Peter

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Nott, John

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Joplin, Michael

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

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

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Orr, Capt, L. P. S.

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Percival, Ian

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Kimball, Marcus

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Tilney, John

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Pounder, Rafton

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Kirk, Peter

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Trew, Peter

      Kitson, Timothy

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

      Tugendhat, Chirstopher

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Knox, David

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Lambton, Antony

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Lane, David

      Raison, Timothy

      Waddington, David

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsmouth, Langstone)

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Walters, Dennis

      Longden, Gilbert

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Loveridge, John

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Warren, Kenneth

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      McLaren, Martin

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      White, Roger (Cravesend)

      Mclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Madel, David

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Wilkinson, John

      Maginnis, John E.

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Emest

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Marten, Neil

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Woodhouee, Hn, Christopher

      Mather, Carol

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Maude, Angus

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Worsley, Marcus

      Mawby, Ray

      St. John-stevas, Norman

      Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Scott, Nicholas

      Younger, Hon. George

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Sharples, Richard

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Mr. Victor Goodhew.

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

      Simeons, Charles

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Driberg, Tom

      Ashley, Jack

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Ashton, Joe

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Eadie, Alex

      Bagier, Cordon A. T.

      Cohen, Stanley

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Barnes, Michael

      Coleman, Donald

      Barnett, Joel

      Conlan, Bernard

      Ellis, Tom

      Beaney, Alan

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      English, Michael

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Evans, Fred

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cronin, John

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

      Bishop, E. S.

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Foot, Michael

      Booth, Albert

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Ford, Ben

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Forrester, John

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

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

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

      Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Buchan, Norman

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Ginsburg, David

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

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Golding, John

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Deakins, Eric

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Dempsey, James

      Gourlay, Harry

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Doig, Peter

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Cant, R. B.

      Dormand, J. D.

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      354

      355

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      McBride, Neil

      Richard, Ivor

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Hamling, William

      McElhone, Frank

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Hardy, Peter

      McGuire, Michael

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

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

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Mackie, John

      Roper, John

      Hattersley, Roy

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Horam, John

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

      Sillars, James

      Howell, Denis (Small Health)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Silverman, Julius

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Marquand, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Small, William

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Meacher, Michael

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Mendelson, John

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hunter, Adam

      Mikardo, Ian

      Stallard, A. W.

      lrvine,Rt.Hn.SirArrhur(Edge Hill)

      Millan, Bruce

      Steel, David

      Janner, Greville

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

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

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Strang, Gavin

      John, Brynmor

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

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

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Swain, Thomas

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Taverne, Dick

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Moyle, Roland

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

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Jones, Dan, Burnley)

      Ogden, Eric

      Tinn, James

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

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Tomney, Frank

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Torney, Tom

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Oram, Bert

      Tuck, Raphael

      Judd, Frank

      Orbach, Maurice

      Urwin, T. W.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Orme, Stanley

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Kelley, Richard

      Oswald, Thomas

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Kerr, Russell

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Wallace, George

      Kinnock, Neil

      Palmer, Arthur

      Watkins, David

      Lambie, David

      Pardoe, John

      Weitzman, David

      Lamond, James

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Latham, Arthur

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Lawson, George

      Pavitt, Laurie

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Peart, Rt. Hn, Fred

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Pendry, Tom

      Whitlock, William

      Leonard, Dick

      Pentland, Norman

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Lester, Miss Joan

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Prescott, John

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Carlisle)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Probert, Arthur

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Rankin, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Mr. J. D. Concannon and

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

    New Clause 13

      EXAMINATION AND APPROVAL OF CHANGES IN RULES
      (1) As soon as practicable after the registrar has, in pursuance of section 82(3) of this Act, registered a change in the rules of an organisation, he shall examine the rules as they have effect in consequence of that change (in this section referred to as 'the amended rules'); and, if on such examination it appears to him that the amended rules are defective in any of the ways specified in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 71(1) of this Act, he shall serve on the organisation a notice indicating what alterations in the amended rules are needed for the purpose of remedying the defect.
      (2) The provisions of subsections (2) to (4) of section 71 and the provisions of section 72 of this Act shall have effect in relation to a notice served under subsection (1) of this section as they have effect in relation to a
      356
      notice served under section 71(1) of this Act, as if in those provisions—

      (a) any reference to a notice served under section 71(1) were a reference to a notice served under subsection (1) of this section. and

      (b) any reference to the rules were a reference to the amended rules.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of the Clause is to ensure that the rules of a registered organisation remain subject to the provisions of the Bill even if the rules are changed to meet the changing circumstances of the organisation. Clause 71 provides that soon after the organisation is registered the Registrar shall examine its rules and inform it of any ways in which they are

      357
      inconsistent with the guiding principles as set out in Clause 61 or Clause 65, as the case may be, and the requirements of Schedule 3, and he will allow the organisation a reasonable time in which to make the necessary alterations.
      Once the Registrar has been able to approve the rules of an organisation and is content that they satisfy the Bill's requirements, it is unlikely that the organisation will intentionally adopt another set of rules which do not meet these requirements. It is, after all, in the interests of the organisation itself, and of its members, that it should have a clear and precise set of rules which safeguard the rights of members, and this is what the Registrar will be seeking to achieve.
      However, organisations do need to alter their rules from time to time to meet changes in their circumstances; for example, to reflect changes in the decision-making structure. Any new rules adopted for this kind of reason might, inadvertently perhaps, reduce the rights of members or he inconsistent with other existing rules and, therefore, lead to a lack of clarity in the rules as a whole. It is necessary, therefore, to provide that alterations to rules and new rules adopted by a registered organisation shall be examined and approved by the Registrar in exactly the same way as are the rules which the organisation has at the time of registration.
      The Clause is short, but it is important. I appreciate that the Opposition are against registration—we have debated the subject repeatedly. I do not accept their viewpoint but I realise their opposition. However, I am sure that, given registration, it will be seen that this is a common sense provision and one to which real objection cannot be taken. It makes the Bill logical. It is, therefore, important that any changes to rules which flow in due course shall be examined by the Registrar. In those circumstances, I hope that the House will accept the new Clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause accordingly read the Second time.
      Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Peter Blaker(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you verify the timing at which to lock the doors?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I have just verified the timing; the clock stuck. Therefore, I will call the Division again.
      The House having divided: Ayes 271, Noes 221.
      Clause accordingly added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 15

      PROVISIONS AS TO POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
      (1) Any organisation of workers which requires any member to make any contribution to the political fund of a trade union unless he has at some time after the commencement of this Act expressed, by notice in writing, his willingness to contribute to that fund, shall not be eligible for registration as a trade union under this Act.
      (2) Any organisation of employers, any of whose member firms make, after the commencement of this Act, a political contribution in any financial year, without the written consent of a majority of all the shareholders
      362
      eligible to vote, shall not be eligible for registration as an employers' federation under this Act.—[Mr. Pardoe.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. John Pardoe: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Subsection (1) deals with contracting in and contracting out of the trade union levy, and subsection (2) has to do with the whole business of political contributions made by companies to the Conservative Party.
      There will be some who feel that the Clause is unnecessarily restrictive, that

      363
      my intention is to try to limit the sums of money available to politics, and particularly to the Labour Party. I can only plead innocence to that charge. I do so as an ex-treasurer of a political party and one who has, therefore, had the sad task of trying to raise money for politics in Britain. My aim is in no sense to limit the amount of money available for politics. It is to expand that amount of money by setting forth an alternative, though one which, unfortunately, cannot be fully set forth within the terms of an amendment to this Bill.
      My other purpose is to draw attention to the grave financial-political problem which all three parties represented in the House face. While there may be hon. Members on both sides, and especially among the Labour Opposition, who feel that this is an attack on what some Conservative propagandists have called Labour's Moscow gold, this is in fact not so. I part company from the fund raisers of the Conservative Party in my belief that Labour is undoubtedly the poorer of the two parties.
      Mr. Dan Jones: Very much so.
      Mr. Pardoe: Very much the poorer, as the hon. Gentleman says. What I am getting at here is that, even if one believes that the Conservative Party is built on untold sums of money, it is in possession of far smaller funds than it needs to do an adequate job in our political system. I shall prove that by reference to its most recent set of accounts, those ending March, 1970, and going back some little way.
      9.15 p.m.
      To turn for a moment to the Labour Party, I remind the Official Opposition that all is not for the best in the best of all possible worlds in the Labour Party's cash. I hope that hon. Members on this side, in considering the new Clause, will realise that something must be done. Even if they do not accept that the Bill as it stands must be done, they ought to accept that something must be done in this connection, for they are Members of Parliament of a party which is chronically short of cash, in a desperate financial position, and quite unable to measure up to the standards of a democratic Opposition in a modern democratic society.
      364
      Here, I throw a few quotations in to the debate. The Times of 25th November, 1970, reported that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who is the treasurer of the Labour Party, had warned the Finance Committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party that if the Government ran their full term of office the Labour Party could have a deficit of £500,000 by the next General Election. He said:
      "The annual deficit on the accounts for the year 1971 was estimated at £121,000, rising to £175,000 for 1972 and £250,000 for 1973."
      These are substantial sums, considering that over the past few years the Labour Party's income has been of the order of £500,000. He added:
      "Income must be doubled in the next year or it should at least be raised to £750,000 a year."
      That is the target, but even at £750,000 a year I believe that the Labour Party would be capable of doing far less under the present system than it should do as a militant Opposition party.
      There are also the remarks of the Labour Party's fund-raising adviser, Mr. Oliver Stuchbury, when he resigned. The Times reported him as saying that
      "financially and organisationally the Party is in a critically unhappy position."
      I am not surprised that he resigned. Virtually none of his proposals ever reached the National Executive, let alone got off the ground. He said:
      "Although an increase in the union affiliation fees is expected to see the Party safely through 1971, the organisers expect a further deficit in 1972 unless ways of raising funds can be found."
      To translate this into the real problems of political organisation, perhaps it is as well to quote at this stage the views of Mr. Ronald Hayward, the National Agent of the Labour Party. Speaking at Taunton only a few days ago to the South-West Regional Council, he said:
      "You are living in cloud cuckooland. It is time the kidology stopped."
      He said that at the end of this year, not taking into account any increased postal charges, the party would have a deficit of £82,000, adding,
      "If that deficit runs for the next four years at that rate and in the year of the General Election assuming that the Government runs its full course, we shall be £250,000 in the red."

      365
      Those are just some recent comments about the major Opposition party's finances. As I pointed out in two very detailed articles in The Times in 1969, not only the Labour Party but the Conservative Party is short of money. Those of us who live in the penury of the Liberal Party often look with covetous eyes at the huge golden coffers of Smith Square and wonder what it does with all the money.
      Mr. David Steel: Does my hon. Friend agree that in accordance with the customs of the House he should declare his interest an an ex-treasurer of the Liberal Party?
      Mr. Pardoe: If my hon. Friend had forsaken his tournedos Rossini as early as I did he would have been present to hear me say that. Perhaps I should also declare my interest as a contributor to the Liberal Party.
      It is not just the Labour and Liberal Parties that are chronically short of cash. In its latest accounts, for the year 1970, the Conservative Party states quite clearly that its income has fallen substantially short of expenditure, and the same was true of the year ended 31st March, 1969.
      Mr. James Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman taking into account the Conservative Party funds at constituency level? Does he know that in one constituency in Scotland two employers paid the Conservative candidate's total General Election expenses? Should not that money be added to the national fund of the Conservative Party?
      Mr. Pardoe: Yes, indeed. It is extremely difficult to make an accurate assessment of exactly what any party's funds are—any party. I have tried to make an estimate in the past. There are substantial undercover contributions to the Labour Party by the trade unions, and, for all I know, even by certain organisations to the Liberal Party at constituency level. To answer the hon. Gentleman's point I should like to quote from a pamphlet produced by the Conservative Central Office, which sets out what it thinks is an ideal budget for a local constituency party. It amounts to about £5,570. I think my hon. Friend
      366
      would agree that that is a lot of money by our standards. Of course, it is not a lot of money by the standards of the North Cornwall Liberal Association, but it is by the standards of most Liberal Parties and of most Labour Parties.
      When one breaks the figure down into the recommended expenditure, as is done in the leaflet, one sees that a very large part of it goes on administration and in the contribution to headquarters. The amount available for political in-fighting and political education at local level is ludicrously small. Whether these sums are available at local constituency level, and from whatever source they are available, and whether they are available to the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or the Liberal Party, the total amount of money available to democracy in this country is far too little.
      What is interesting is that this is not so in other countries. Dictators spend vast sums shoring up their own system. Is it too much to ask of British democrats that they should spend more than the price of a packet of cigarettes to make their system functiion properly? Mr. Ronald J. Heidenheimer, in his, "Comparative Party Finance", has devised a formula which links political expenditure to the number of votes cast and the average hourly wage. He shows that the index of expenditure against Britain is 0·64; in Germany, it is 0·95; in the United States, it is 1·12; in India, it is 1·25. We then come right up to countries like Italy, where it is 4·5, the Philippines, where it is 16, and Israel—the mostest—where it is 20·5 per cent. I should add that these figures are from the early 1960s. In other words, Israel is spending on its political system per head of the population, in relation to its hourly wage rate and the number of votes cast, very nearly 200 per cent. above the British. This does not seem to be a satisfactory way of conducting our politics.
      I believe, from a study of these figures, that we have to change the system in some way, and that brings me to the specific proposal in the new Clause. Unfortunately, I must admit that the terms of the new Clause would undoubtedly restrict the amount of money, but it would restrict it because it would force the Labour Party to derive the bulk of its funds from those trade

      367
      union members who were actually prepared—ideologically prepared, presumably—to go out and sign a form which said, "I will give my political contributions to the Labour Party." That may be most unwelcome to many members of the Labour Party, but if they feel that the present system is affording them the kind of finance they need to run a modern political party they are, as Mr. Hayward said, living in cloud cuckooland. They have not enough to run a penny-farthing machine—and they lost the last Election on postal votes alone. If they had had the amount of money they ought to have to run a modern political party, they would not have lost the last election.
      The only reason we are debating this Bill is, presumably, that the Labour Party lost the last election. One might be cynical, of course, and say that the reason we are debating it is that they left it to the Conservative Party to introduce it, which they would not have done if they had had funds independent of their trade union connections. I maintain that, whatever the total amount of money available for politics in Britain, it is wrong for any political party, or for both major political parties, to be dependent on a vested interest to produce the cash.
      The Labour Party is so dependent on the trade union connection for its money because of the incredible feebleness of its local constituency parties. Over 85 per cent. of its money has to come from the trade unions. If it had to depend solely on its contributions from the constituencies and from individual contributors, the money available to it would be less than the amount available to the Liberal Party from similar sources, which shows how dangerous this all is.
      Mr. Denis Skinner: The hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier that he should declare his interest as onetime treasurer of the Liberal Party. In view of the fact that he is talking about trade union vested interests, should not he declare his interest in respect of the National Association of Schoolmasters, from which he receives a retainer of £350 a year?
      Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Gentleman has it wrong. I receive a retainer of £400. It is not a bad case, but it is possible to divine because the Liberal Party keeps a record in the Chief Whip's office and it
      368
      is there for all to see. I have declared that interest in a large number of debates in the House. I did not appreciate that what I get from the N.A.S. was directly relevant to the political fund, but I do not deny it. In fact, from time to time in this House I have gloried in the fact that I derive income from a trade union source.
      Mr. David Steel: While the Liberal Party publishes such interests, neither the Labour Party nor the Conservative Party has followed suit.
      Mr. Pardoe: The Liberal Party keeps an open register of all its vested interests. If anyone wants to see which trade unions I advise—
      Mr. Skinner: God help them!
      Mr. Pardoe: —they can easily find out. Despite what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says, those unions have been remarkable in increasing their membership. But I will not get sidetracked into that aspect. I apologise to the hon. Member for not declaring my interest to him. I did not know that I had an interest in this debate in such terms.
      Mr. Skinner: Get on with it.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Member interrupted me; I did not interrupt him.
      It is true that the Bill would restrict income, because if the Labour Party were to rely entirely on the contributions of those who physically sign a form to say that they want to contribute, it might get much less money than it now gets. Similarly, I strongly suspect that if the Conservative Party had to depend on the wishes of the shareholders of the companies which subscribe to it, it, too, would derive a much smaller income.
      I have looked at the system carefully to see why the suggested alternative is necessary. The system ensures that individual giving is made easy for the individual. Both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party greatly depend on giving because of the sheer difficulty of raising individual contributions. Every party treasurer does these calculations in his bath. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) said the other day that every Labour supporter

      369
      should give a day's wages to the Labour Party. We had the 10-bob Tories of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) when he was Chairman of the Conservative Party. The General Secretary of the Labour Party, Sir Harry Nicholas, suggested £5 per Labour Party member. That follows the genre of the party treasurer who sits in his bath and conjures up figures saying, "If only everybody would give me the price of a pint of beer once a week, all my problems would be solved".
      The problem is the sheer difficulty of collecting the money, and so the Labour Party inevitably collects its money from the trade unions and 65 per cent. of the Conservative Party's money comes in contributions—I cannot swear to the figures for 1970, because I have not yet had time to do them, but that was the amount for 1969.
      Mr. Gower: The hon. Gentleman has clearly gone into this matter with considerable care. No doubt he will concede that in the average constituency the Conservative association probably collects more by door-to-door collection from individual members of the party than does any other party.
      Mr. Pardoe: What the Conservative Party collects from its members is a moot point. It is difficult to assess it exactly. Research conducted by the Conservative Central Office in 1967 showed that about 15 per cent. of Conservative Party supporters, those who said, "I would vote for the Conservative Party if there were a General Election tomorrow", said that they contributed to the party and about one-third of all Conservative supporters said that they would contribute if asked.
      The problem is the asking. The Conservative Party is so dependent on its big business contributions and the Labour Party so dependent on its trade union contributions because of the difficulty of asking. That is why I should like the Government to step in, although not to provide money from the tax revenue as such to political parties. The idea of a Government subsidy to political parties raises a feeling of horror in this country, although we ought to admit that in our democracy substantial sums are now paid to it by the Government. The cost of the returning officer's expenses, of
      370
      the electoral register and of the postal ballot papers runs into millions of pounds and this money must be raised under the American system by individual parties and individual contributions. The State is already paying a substantial slice of the cost of elections partly through the free post, partly by free television and by other methods. If we could devise a system which enabled the individual to contribute to a political party through a State system, it would free us from the problem of the over-dependence of our two major parties on their vested interests.
      Let us not get this wrong. It is not universal in the world that political parties depend on vested interests. The Canadian political parties do not depend on vested interests for their political funds. The majority of companies in America contribute to both major political parties. Some contribute to all three. The majority of Canadian trade unions contribute to both political parties.
      Mr. Dan Jones: What is the difference between them?
      Mr. Pardoe: I have no doubt that Canadians believe passionately that there is a difference between Trudeau and the other mob.
      Mr. Dan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that we are discussing the Industrial Relations Bill and not the Political Relations Bill?
      Mr. Pardoe: The hon. Gentleman has, I suppose, virtually raised a point of order which perhaps—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order which was passing through my mind.
      Mr. Pardoe: That does not entirely surprise me, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty of discussing party finances in the House is extreme, as any hon. Member who tries to raise the issue will find.
      The new Clause clearly states that it would be a qualification for registration that a trade union should behave in the way referred to in the Clause—that it should opt for contracting in rather than contracting out. It states in the second part that no employers' association could exist if one of its members refused to toe the line and give its shareholders an option on whether they wanted to contribute to a political party. I accept

      371
      that these two things are not equivalent and exactly comparable.
      However, the major point of the new Clause is that the principle of contracting in rather than contracting out is right, not only for trade unions and the Labour Party but for shareholders and the companies which contribute to the Conservative Party. Democracy in this country would be far healthier if that system were accepted and if the two major parties ceased to have such a close financial connection with their vested interests group. Political parties in other countries already function under this system. There is no reason to suppose that our political parties would not be able to do so.
      I hope that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Dan Jones) and his colleagues realise that their party is in desperate financial trouble and is doing far less than the proper job of opposition because it is in financial trouble. One of the main reasons why the Government have come to power with a series of half-baked, half-thought-out policies to put into practice is that they did not have the funds capable of setting up a proper and adequately serviced research department. This situation is dangerous in opposition and in government.
      This is a fundamental problem of British democracy which we should solve. Whether we can solve it as a result of a debate on a new Clause to the Industrial Relations Bill is open to question. But if the hon. Member—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. What is not open to question is whether the hon. Gentleman can continue with this line. He must stick to the new Clause.
      Mr. Pardoe: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that it was clear that my remarks had reached their peroration. I was trying to say that, although the Clause has in the view of some people undoubted disadvantages, to our way of thinking it accepts the basic principle which should be enshrined in any democratic political financing system, which is that individuals should be given the right to contract in rather than to contract out and that individual shareholders should be given the right to say whether their company should contribute to a political party.
      Mr. Nicholas Scott: We are having a slight digression from the main argument about the Bill. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) on his ingenuity on managing with the Clause to raise this subject for debate. I should like to have a longer debate on this subject at another time, and it might have been more appropriate to have done so. However, we have the time and we might as well spend it discussing the Clause.
      I have much sympathy with much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the financing of political parties and political activities in Britain, but where the Clause falls down is that, having argued that all three political parties are desperately short of money, the Clause would, if it were added to the Bill, make them even more short of money and thus bring them up against the reality of the need to finance themselves in a different way. This adds fuel to the point that we need a different approach to this outside the terms of the Bill.
      The Clause falls down because, in addition to its shortcoming of reducing the money which would be available to political parties, it seems also to question whether politics is a legitimate activity for trade unions to engage in on behalf of their members by supporting a political party and for a company to embark on on behalf of its interests. I question this approach.
      Whatever other arrangements we were to come to about the financing of political activities, I do not believe that it is not a legitimate activity for a company or for a trade union to support a political party if it believes that it is in the interests of that company or that union to do so.
      The basic principles of contracting in and contracting out have been discussed for a long time, certainly for as long as I have been involved in politics. It has been a matter for discussion within my party whether members of trade unions should have to contract in or contract out of the political levy. I have always resisted the idea that the Conservative Party ought to amend the law in this way. In any case, I believe that it would boomerang if the Conservative Party sought to do so.

      373
      The Labour Party, with its act of political spite, or what it imagined to be an act of political spite, in forcing the disclosure of company contributions led to a situation in which the Conservative Party raised more money in the following year than it had ever done before in its history. This shows how these things can rebound.
      Partly because it would boomerang, and partly because I believe that it is a legitimate activity for a trade union to be able to support a political party if it believes that it is in the interests of its members to do so, I have always resisted this change.
      Whether it is in the interests of the trade union movement to support almost exclusively one political party rather than to support different candidates in different constituencies who they think have an interest in trade union matters is another question and one which the trade unions alone can decide. Now that under the terms of the Bill the closed shop has been virtually abolished except for very narrow exemptions which we have allowed, the whole question of contracting in and contracting out becomes much less serious and much less fundamental.
      9.45 p.m.
      As for companies, of course, a shareholder has a way out in that, if he does not like the company in which he holds shares subscribing to the Conservative Party or any other fund, he can sell his shares and invest in another company. Some hon. Members hold strong feelings about activities of firms which have interests in other parts of the world. If a shareholder in such a firm feels sufficiently strongly about its policy, he may even sell his shares at a loss, and the financial loss resulting will probably not influence his decision.
      In my view, this Clause is not a serious attempt to overcome the problem of financing political parties and controlling their expenditure. We have absurdly stringent controls on expenditure at local constituency level, but no control over the national expenditure of a party. That has always seemed to me to be an immense anomaly.
      However, there is an alternative solution to the one put forward by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. It is one which I understand is being considered seriously in the United States. Some sort of subvention might be made to the par-
      374
      ties, possibly based on their seat strength in this House—
      Mr. Gower: Is not there a serious danger that that will discourage the emergence of new political parties and give a wrong persistence in the existence of an older party?
      Mr. Scott: This is straying from the new Clause. If it discouraged the emergence of new political parties, it would be only a slight extra disincentive. Our whole political system operates against not only the creation of new parties but even the resurgence of old parties which have fallen on hard times.
      I cannot support the Clause. It is not that I do not believe that the question of financing political activities is a serious one to which we as a democracy should turn our minds. It is that I do not think that the Clause goes any way towards it. It makes the situation worse rather than better. For that reason, while I appreciate the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, I shall have to vote against the Second Reading of his Clause if it goes to a Division.
      Mr. Joseph Ashton: It is remarkable that we should have to resort to these sorts of tactics on an Industrial Relations Bill in order to debate a matter like this. I appreciate that the Liberal Party has few opportunities to obtain publicity, but it seems to manage very well in terms of its size. It is understandable that the leader of the party has to use a party political broadcast to hold out the begging bowl and ask his audience to send him £1.
      The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) divulged his sponsorship and his vested interests. I will do the same. I am a member of the Draughtmen's and Allied Technicians' Association, which pays my constituency £420 a year. I ask hon. Members to note that it does not pay me. The money goes to the constituency. It was said that the schoolmasters' association paid the hon. Gentleman. In the case of trade union Members, none of them gets a penny from his union. The money is paid directly to the constituencies.
      If anyone thinks that it is possible to run a constituency on £420 a year, he has another think coming. I have a full-time agent and, together with premises and attendant expenses, the constituency

      375
      costs between £3,000 and £4,000 a year. Clearly, £420 cannot cover the expenses of a constituency like mine. Let us put the matter into its proper proportion.
      Mr. Gower: Is not it a fact, however, that the N.U.T., for example, assists hon. Members on both sides in much the same manner as that described by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe)?
      Mr. Ashton: That is probably true. However, I was talking about our respective sponsorships.
      I want to take up a point which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North raised about contracting in. Contracting in already exists. Whenever a man joins a union, in effect he contracts in. He is given a form which says that the subscriptions are so much a week and that it will be a penny a week if he wishes to pay the political levy. At the time of joining a union a man can decide whether to contract in or not. Incidentally, in my trade union only 38 per cent. of the membership pay the political levy. I think that if we changed the system that percentage would not alter very much. The average trade unionist is no fool. When he joins the union and is told that it is so much extra to pay the political levy, he decides then whether to contract in or out.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: If it is a matter of such small import, why did the Labour Party when in power between 1945 and 1951 bother to change the law?
      Mr. Ashton: We bothered to change the law because the unions thought that it would be better from an administrative point of view to reverse the procedure. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that trade unionists never contract out. Throughout discussions on the Bill an atmosphere seems to have been created that trade unionists are fools, morons and mugs who do what their shop stewards tell them to do, just like a bunch of sheep—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They are not. Many people disagreed with the strike last Thursday, while accepting that it was within the unions' rules to strike. There is a lot of talk about ballots before strikes. No union can ask its members to come out on strike if it is breaking the rules. If
      376
      the rules say that there must be a ballot then they can only be changed at annual conference.
      If a trade unionist does not like what the Labour Party is doing, he can contract out of paying the political levy. Many trade unionists contract out. In fact, 2,000 members of my union contracted out when the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was making his famous river Tiber flowing with much blood speech of two or three years ago. They may have thought that he was right. He may have conned them all the way down the line. I do not dispute this. But most of them joined again and contracted in about six months afterwards.
      This is the way things go. Percentages go up and down. The average political levy paying member is no fool. He takes all these things into account when deciding whether to contract in or out. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North would find that if these proposals were carried out they would not make one per cent. difference. They never have. There have been ups and downs over many years concerning the percentage of union members who contract in or out. The percentage varies very little. There are ebbs and flows of 2 to 3 per cent., but in the main the average stays about the same.
      The major parties have a much better system than that used by Lloyd George when he used to sell honours. He used to tout around saying, "For £10,000 I will give you a knighthood".
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot get on to the sale of honours.
      Mr. Ashton: I should like to point out some of the other political purposes for which trade union funds are used. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North seems to have the impression that if a trade union collects a penny from each member as political levy it automatically goes to the Labour Party. It does not. The funds collected as political levy by trade unions are retained by them. Those funds do not go directly to the Labour Party.
      If a trade union wishes to affiliate to the Labour Party then a proportion of that penny a week which is collected is retained by the branch. Not all unions are affiliated. The N.U.T., which the hon.

      377
      Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) mentioned, N.A.L.G.O. and such unions might be affiliated to the T.U.C. and pay their affiliation fees, but they are not affiliated to the Labour Party. However, they do have a political fund.
      My union, which collects political levies on the percentage of its members, retains that fund. In most constituency and union affiliates to the local Labour Party, it is left to the local branch. The head office does not say to the union branch in Bournemouth, "Affiliate to the Bournemouth Labour Party". The branch itself chooses whether to affiliate or not. If it affiliates, then, as I say, a proportion of that penny a week which is collected is retained by the branch.
      The hon. Member said that these things are not published, but they are. It is common knowledge in my union that perhaps only half the money collected for the political levy actually goes to the Labour Party. The other half is retained and given to many other organisations, like Shelter, for instance.
      Mr. Orme: Would my hon. Friend not agree also that many of the educational activities undertaken by unions—political education, but covering a wide field—which involve members of all political persuasions, are carried out by unions from this fund?
      Mr. Ashton: This is true. We welcome this debate to clear up many false assumptions made by the Press. If we had had more notice, I could have read out a list of the political contributions made by many unions. But only 50 per cent. goes to the Labour Party. Much of the rest goes to political parties abroad, fighting for their existence in countries like Greece—
      Mr. Orme: Or South Africa.
      Mr. Ashton: Yes, South Africa, where donations are made to people involved in politics.
      I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member said about the financing of politics. I have a personal theory that Members of Parliament should be paid a fixed sum to help with constituency work. Many of us need to employ an agent and a typist and to hire an office, and that is for the benefit of Parliament and the public, and not for the benefit of politics. Many hon. Members on our side,
      378
      and perhaps in the Conservative Party, have to pay out of their own pockets to rent an office or a school where constituents can come to see them.
      Hon. Members on this side have to make a contribution out of their own pockets to party funds, which is not morally right but is often necessary. It is probably the same for hon. Members opposite—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is making a very interesting point, for which I think there may be a lot of sympathy, but I do not think that it is strictly relevant to the new Clause.
      Mr. Ashton: I take the point, Mr. Speaker.
      This question of sponsorship by unions and of funds in general should be examined further by a Select Committee. As the Liberals say, they divulge their interests. I would divulge mine, as would many on this side of the House, and this would remove the continual sniping. But I am certain that reducing the funds of the other two parties to the level of the Liberal Party, or to the state at which we were dependent on knocking on doors and begging sixpences to run a political campaign or an election, would not benefit the country or elections. It might be more democratic, as the hon. Member said, and there are some constituencies which could manage without it, but in the long run, this suggestion would do politics no good at all.
      10.0 p.m.
      Mr. Grylls: On the face of it, new Clause 15 is attractive and I agree with many of the things which my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) said about it. On the surface, it might seem to many people that there was justice on the side of making people have to opt in rather than out. But there is sometimes unjustified criticism of the way in which unions use their political funds, but they are already under considerable control under the 1913 Act. They have to have a ballot before they can support a parliamentary candidate or similar political activities.
      But many people think that contracting out would probably be fairer. History has been ambivalent. After the General Strike, it was made necessary for people to contract in to the political levy rather

      379
      than out of it. As hon. Members opposite have said, in 1946 the then Labour Government reversed the process, and it was entertaining to hear the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) say that that change was made for administrative convenience. The House must draw its own conclusion about that.
      I believe that there would be pressure on the Government to look again at this point if political strikes against the Government were allowed to continue and get out of control. It would be unfortunate if the sort of strike we saw on Thursday against the Bill were to be repeated, but the proposal in the new Clause would receive more support from the public as a whole. I therefore hope that the trade union extremist minority which has engaged in these political strikes will draw the lesson.
      Mr. James Tinn: Will the hon. Member tell the House what form of protest against this legislation is legitimate? Political strikes are apparently ruled out, speeches from this side have been criticised, as has voting through the night—all these things are said to be wrong: what are we supposed to do against the Bill?
      Mr. Grylls: Not many on this side have criticised the Opposition for making us vote throughout the night. That is a right which the Opposition have. And they have an absolute right in this House to put forward their case, and no one on this side has ever denied that right. What we have criticised and, I believe, will continue to criticise, is the action of trade union militants, without any question of a ballot, putting trade unionists under the pressure of having to suffer fines or even losing their jobs for refusing to go on one-day political strikes against, for example, this Bill—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. That may or may not be true, but I do not think that it is in order on this Clause.
      Mr. Grylls: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
      There is something in what was said by the Society of Conservative Lawyers in its evidence to the Donovan Commission—that it would be a good and fair idea that the trade union membership application form should make it perfectly
      380
      clear that if applicants did not wish to contribute to the political levy they could opt out from doing so. That seems to be an attractive idea.
      Subsection (2) refers, presumably, to contributions made to the Tory Party by employers. It suggests that there should be a ballot, as it were, of shareholders before any such money was handed over to the Tory Party, or it may well be—
      Sir Edward Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that at some company levels substantial sums are manifestly contributed to the Labour Party? Contributions are not made only to the Conservative Party.
      Mr. Grylls: It would be very rash for anyone to say that all money donated by companies automatically went to the Tory Party. It is quite possible that money is given to the Liberal Party, and perhaps to such organisations as the Fabian Society as well.
      If one accepted the proposal in subsection (2) and left the matter entirely in the hands of shareholders, a lather strange thing would happen. In a number of big public companies where large blocks of shares are owned by institution funds and by pension funds we would have the managers of those funds taking, as it were, a political decision, which would be very unfortunate.
      The directors of companies should be free to make the decisions which they consider are in the best interests of their companies and shareholders. If the decisions they make are, in the opinion of the shareholders, not the right decisions, then they have the option of attending annual general meetings and sacking the directors. Directors should be free, within the law, to take whatever decisions they believe are best. If they feel, for example, that a Labour Government would be to their advantage, they should be free to make contributions to the funds of that party.
      There is a strange quirk here. If the proposal of hon. Gentlemen opposite were accepted and if it were left to shareholders to decide what amount should be contributed to which political party, the Conservative Party would probably receive more, because I concede that the vast majority of shareholders are probably sympathetic to Conservative policies.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Tell that to the Rolls-Royce shareholders.
      Mr. Grylls: Many directors have probably held back from giving money to the Conservative Party or any other party because they do not want to become involved in politics. Despite these remarks, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South that it would be useful for the House to have a general debate on this subject. However, it is not convenient to have such a debate at this stage.
      Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I support the new Clause for reasons other than those so far advanced. It is relevant to the Bill and to the debate which has occupied so much of our time in recent weeks if for no other reason than the saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune.
      It is significant that since the General Election the big debates have not been about the cut-down in the social services or the changes that have taken place in the social atmosphere of the nation but about the basis of industrial relations. It is, therefore, important to consider the new Clause in that light and to ask why the Labour Party has particularly selected industrial relations for the big debate when the people generally are far more interested in, for example, cuts in the social services and the different approach to the social services which the Government have announced.
      First and foremost, we must remember that the Labour Party is the political arm of the trade union movement—[Interruption.]—which subscribes to the funds of the party. If any Labour hon. Member wishes to be perfectly honest, he will not only agree with that but will not support the new Clause because if it were adopted, and if contracting in came about instead contracting out, the Labour Party could not function in the way it does.
      Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. and learned Gentleman has committed the sin of the undistributed middle, as it were. The point is not our selecting this Bill for attack. The Government are, by the Measure, forcing people to accept future alterations and cuts in various services in such a way that they will not be able to demonstrate against those cuts. In other words, we are fighting the Bill not just for the sake
      382
      of putting up a fight but to strengthen, rather than weaken, as the Bill would do, the ability of the working class to put up a fight.
      Mr. Hooson: Nevertheless, the Labour Party is the political arm of the trade union movement, just as the Tory Party is largely the political arm of capital. [Interruption.] We are discussing—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman has to say. I am having some difficulty at the moment.
      Mr. Hooson: I am glad that you do, Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. A modicum of politeness is expected, even from the Chair.
      Mr. Hooson: I am grateful for those small crumbs of comfort. As I was saying before I was interrupted—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Chair never interrupts.
      Mr. Hooson: I was not referring to the Chair, as the hon. Gentleman knows. We have to face reality. One of the great problems is that the country is split between "them" and "us" in the sense that the cleavage between capital and labour is becoming deeper because both capital and labour are concentrating on having a political arm as an extension of their industrial base. It can be argued the other way, that the trade unions are the industrial arm of the Labour Party and that the employers' associations are the industrial arm of the Tory Party.
      We are discussing something that goes to the very root of our industrial relations, namely the enormous vested interest that has built up over the years. Whatever the merits of the case, there is a blind attitude towards industrial relations, governed to a degree by the vested interests already established.
      I understand perfectly the Labour Party attitude towards contracting in. If in 1906 the Liberals had not allowed contracting out as opposed to contracting in, when the balance of power was completely in favour of capital and against labour, the Labour Party could never have built up its base in the first place. It would have been very difficult to do it then. But the situation today is totally different. We are in an educated country

      383
      where earnings are very much higher and where the disparity between the power of labour and the power of capital is nothing like what it was in those days.
      Sir E. Brown rose—
      Mr. Hooson: I will give way in a moment. I understand the attitude of the Labour Party, which does not want contracting in because it fears that with contracting in, the party could not exist on the base that it does today.
      I want to turn attention not so much to contracting in and contracting out, which has been argued so often over the years, but to the position of the Conservative Party, because they are the people who have maintained in the Bill that they are concerned with the rights of the individual. They have said that we need more democracy, that the group approach is wrong basically and that it is time to redress the balance between the power of the group and that of the individual.
      How can they justify their attitude towards the Amendment and say that they are now in favour of contracting in as opposed to contracting out? That is what they are saying in reply to the Amendment. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. To get the kind of State in which we have true democracy, in which a man is not forced to support what the majority want and is entitled to make his own political contribution, why should he be required by a trade union simply to pay the political levy, the result being that all are paying for the politics of the majority? It also follows that it must be wrong for directors to decide which political party should receive contributions from limited companies. Why should they be allowed to decide this? Why should not shareholders, very often involved in charities, and so on, be consulted on political contributions to the Tory Party?
      While we have a situation in which 80 per cent. of Labour Party funds come from the trade unions, the trade unions will control the thinking and acting of the Labour Party. While 65 per cent. of Tory Party funds come from big industry, big industry will control the thinking and acting of the Tory Party.
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. David Mitchell: Nonsense.
      Mr. Hooson: Of course it is true. The two major parties have a joint vested interest in opposing this democratic Amendment which would ensure that democracy would work and no longer would people be compelled to contribute to something to which they do not subscribe.
      Mr. Grylls: It is nonsense to say that we are not concerned with the rights of individuals. I tried to make it absolutely clear that I favoured the idea that anyone applying to join a trade union should be able to contract out and that that right should be printed on the application form. That is protecting the rights of the individual.
      Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member no doubt tried to make it absolutely clear, but his effort was a total failure. I could not follow it at all. Any realistic trade union member on this side of the House will know that with contracting in, as opposed to contracting out, the Labour Party would be in the greatest difficulty.
      Mr. Bidwell: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that in practice his argument is contradictory? There appear to be a lot of people who have contracted out of the Liberal Party during the last 20 years.
      Mr. Hooson: I will tell the hon. Member a fact, which is that more people contribute individually to the Liberal Party than individually contribute to the Labour Party. The Liberal Party raises more funds voluntarily than does the Labour Party.
      The new Clause goes to the root of the evil whereby the country is getting more and more divided between capital and labour, and that will continue while we have a financial political control over the industrial aims of the political parties.
      Mr. Kinsey: We have just heard the third vested interest to speak in the debate, and the debate has been reduced to a sordid political squabble. I am disappointed that the Liberals, who have shown good sense and whose speeches I have admired in these debates should have introduced this topic, which is irrelevant to the matters we are discussing. The Liberals have introduced a jarring political note of a financial nature. This shows the total incomprehension of the mover of the Amendment.

      385
      We appreciate that there is a political divide, but no political note of financial interest has until now been introduced—
      Mr. Hooson: Is the hon. Gentleman still under the impression that the Bill is a non-political Bill?
      Mr. Kinsey: I said that the Liberals had introduced a jarring political note on a financial basis which has not so far been brought in. So far a great political issue has divided us, but it has not been connected with finance.
      It would have been easy for the Government to have introduced a Clause concerned with contracting out or contracting in had they wished to do so. That the Government have not done so is an indication of their good intentions. With so much still to discuss, it is a pity that we should have a discussion about the political funds of the parties. I do not know what the country will think about introducing this subject at this time. It is wrong that we should be debating the political levy when we should be dealing with much more nationally important issues.
      It is wrong that the trade unions should be the source of contributions for one political party when the democratic makeup of the membership of trade unions is a cross-section of all parties, and, what is more, since we are a democratic nation, a cross-section of a changing pattern of political thought.
      But we should not be talking about that tonight, and. I am only sorry that such matters have been introduced. I suppose that, in one sense, my whole political being would urge me to support the new Clause, but I reject it as wrong and out of context with the great matters which we are debating now. This House should be rising above such petty party matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] It really should. This is a bigger discussion than that. The Bill is designed to improve industrial relations. It will be one of the greatest Measures which the House has passed, and it is wrong to downgrade it by politically motivated spite.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we began the debate on this new Clause at five minutes past nine, and
      386
      that there are many other matters which the House would wish to discuss.
      Mr. Buchan: I promise to be brief, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal Party has gone wrong because it has not read its own new Clause. It says that unless people are allowed to contract out—this is not a debate about contracting in or contracting out—a trade union would not be allowed to register under the Bill. But what on earth makes the Liberal Party think that trade unions want to register? It seems ridiculous. The Liberal bench have produced a paper tiger, and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) do not understand what the last three months of debate have been about. That is their first gross error.
      Their second error is even more serious, that is, their curious equating of the trade union movement, with its individual members, with the monied interests of the Tory Party. There is no relationship. On the one hand, it is a question of cash, of big finance—£100,000 from the brewers, £100.000 from the ironmasters, and so on. There is no equivalence between that and the individual members of the trade union movement. The one is an expression of aggressive power, power which is used by the faceless men in the board rooms, for instance, the power to hire and fire. That is where the money comes from, and it is used to strengthen that power.
      Mr. Scott rose—
      Mr. Buchan: I will give way in a moment.
      Hon. Members: Give way.
      Mr. Buchan: I have some respect for the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) and I will give way to him. On the other hand, there are the activities of the trade unions, which are widely known to everyone. Much has been said about big business being the political arm of the Tory Party, equating that somehow with the concept of the trade unions as the industrial arm of the Labour Party. Again the analogy is totally false.
      The trade unions are composed of individuals, as is the Labour Party. It is another method of organisation among exactly the same people within our move-

      387
      ment. There is no difference between Johnnie Smith who attends the Labour Party conference on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union and Johnnie Smith who attends on behalf of his local Labour Party. [Interruption.] If there is no difference, there is no point in setting them up in different wings. We are dealing with human beings. This is where the Liberal Party is wrong. The leader of the Liberal Party, who is muttering away—no doubt, it is one of his famous impressions—does not understand that we are dealing in our movement with human beings, and, on the other side, with the power which comes from cash.
      Mr. Scott: If the right to hire and fire is the root of the power of those who are supposed to control the Conservative Party, is it not strange that within this Bill the Conservative Party, for the first time in the history of industrial relations, is providing for appeals against unfair dismissal?
      Mr. Buchan: I am sorry I gave way, because the hon. Gentleman has not understood the argument. We are saying that the apparent equality created in the two subsections is no equality, that on the one hand the Clause is concerned with a small number of people with a great deal of power and on the other with a large number of individuals whose only power is in the fact that they come together to be organised. That is the fundamental difference.
      The second difference which I was pointing out when the hon. Gentleman intervened was the enormous power given to a small number of people by their wealth. Through the power of hire and
      388
      fire, they can control the lives of individual people, whose power is made up by getting together in their organisations. It is nonsense for the hon. Member for Paddington, South to suggest—the backwoodsmen behind him would be astonished to hear it—that what the Bill tries to do is to protect the rights of the workers against the type of people who have been financing the Tory Party. When we mention trigger words like "shop steward", we hear Tory backbenchers baying. There is no love for the ordinary people expressed by them. The hon. Gentleman is an honest lad. As I have told him before, he should give that gang up.
      It is not a question in the Clause, any more than in the Bill, of the problem of contracting out or contracting in. As the months have gone by, the people have realised the enormity inherent in the Bill and the fantastic infringement of individual liberty it brings about. They have realised that one of the safeguards against the faceless ones whose contributions to the Tory Party we saw being totted up before, during and after the election, is precisely the right to form their protective organisations, whether through a political party or a trade union, and to come together to defend their common rights against the power of the Tory Party and their supporters.
      It is sad to find the Liberal Party throwing itself into this vacuum of thought. They should think back to their radical past. They should not worry about one or two black spots in Lloyd George's record, with the sale of honours and so on, but should think back to that past and join in the real fight in this country, which is against the Tory Party.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not want to be rude to the Liberals, who up to now have shown a good deal of political acumen in the way in which they have judged the Bill and have voted in the Division Lobby. Some of the speeches from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) have been among the best in our series of debates. Hon. Members will agree about that, even if they do not agree with the philosophy which he expounded.
      The speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) proved that the proposed new Clause had very little to do with the Bill. At times, it seemed almost tantamount to special pleading. They say that those who are obsessed with money are often near bankruptcy. I do not know whether that is the Liberal Party situation, but it has undergone a good deal of financial difficulty. If that is the situation, I sympathise with it, because the hon. Gentleman made the point—and it was one of the few things he said with which I agree—that in reality all political parties are fairly poor, particularly compared with those in other countries. Perhaps we should do something about that.
      The hon. Gentleman said that he was not seeking to limit the funds available to political parties. There is a good deal of liberal illogicality about that, because, apart from what the second part of his proposed Clause would do, there would certainly be a severe limitation on the Labour Party's funds if it came into operation.
      I agree with the shrewd observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott). In some ways we have discussed this matter rather superficially, but it is healthy for a democracy that properly-established political parties should have reasonably good incomes to keep them efficient. It is right that we should have an efficient Government party and an efficient Opposition party and also minority parties like the Liberal Party. It would be a sad day for democracy if one or more of the political parties went more or less out of politics because of insufficient funds. It is a point that we should all bear in mind.
      390
      10.30 p.m.
      A number of hon. Members referred to company contributions. One of my hon. Friends referred to what he called the political spite of the Labour Government in making necessary disclosure of the political contributions of limited companies. I do not know whether it was political spite, but the Labour Government did us a good turn because donations have gone up since then. Fortunately, companies have had the courage of their convictions and have been able to say, "This money has been made freely available to a political end." The information has to be shown in the annual report and it is open to any shareholder who disagrees to move his shares to another company. Quite often, the companies which make these donations are efficient and doing very well, so the man who sells his shares may well be penalising himself.
      There is an even bigger point about this. The individual shareholders can attend the annual meeting and challenge the decision. I have seen it done. It happened to be a member of the Liberal Party who did it. She declared herself to be a Liberal and said she wished that the Liberal Party could have a donation from the company. There is nothing wrong in that. It is open to any individual shareholder to make his protest at the right time.
      Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman says that companies have had a good return for their investments in the Tory Party through the return of a Tory Government. Would he extend that principle also to the brewers, who gave £100,000 and are now getting State pubs flogged to them?
      Mr. Smith: I am coming to that point. I was saying that the individual shareholder is free to opt out if he disagrees with a political donation. It is a judgment of management as to whether a company should make a donation, and I believe that the majority of the companies which make contributions do so because they accept that the country and industry will be more efficiently run by a Conservative Government and that it is obviously in the interests of industry that there should be a Conservative Government. It is a matter of judgment. Hon.

      391
      Members opposite think it is the wrong judgment; I think it is the right judgment. The individual shareholder can contract out if he wishes.
      I would like to see more trade unionists contributing to Conservative Party funds. There are more Tory voters and supporters among trade unionists than hon. Members opposite sometimes suspect. There is a contentious point on the question of whether there should be contracting in or contracting out. I hope that as time goes on more and more people will contract out. It is their democratic right to do so.
      Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman says that individual shareholders can contract out of paying political donations to the Conservative Party. How can a shareholder in a unit trust contract out? How can a local authority superannuation fund contract out? How can all the other institutional shareholders —sometimes trade union superannuation funds—contract out from paying political contributions to the Tory Party in these circumstances, even though it is in opposition to the principles they hold?
      Mr. Smith: I have explained that the individual can sell his shares. But by doing so he may be penalising himself because if it is a flourishing and successful company it will not be to his advantage to sell. I say that there is nothing to stop trade unionists contributing to the Tory Party or the Labour Party or the Liberal Party. There is nothing to stop companies from contributing to the Labour Party or even to the Liberal Party if they can be persuaded to do so. It is important that there should be a free flow of donations to all the various parties from those who are prepared to support them and who think that they can do a good job in a democracy.
      We must resist the new Clause. It is the Government's view that political fund issues are unconnected with industrial relations and should therefore not be dealt with in the Bill. The Bill makes only marginal changes in the procedure set out in the 1913 Act for safeguarding the rights of members. I appreciate and understand the arguments of the Liberal Parts as a publicity exercise, and I do not criticise them for that, but this is not the way in which to tackle the problem.
      392
      We are grateful for the light relief which Liberal Members have provided. For those of us who have toiled on the Bill for many hours over 16 or 17 days and who may not have had to concentrate so hard on this issue, this debate has been a bit of a rest.
      Mr. Hooson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that this is not a matter to be dealt with in the Industrial Relations Bill. Contracting out was dealt with in the Trade Dispute Act, 1906, which is the whole foundation of trade union law.
      Mr. Smith: It is the Government's view that this question ought not to be dealt with in this Bill. There are other ways of tackling issues of this sort, and perhaps Parliament will have the opportunity to do so in due course, but I agree that it does not do any harm to ventilate these matters in this way. I know that Liberals have consderable feelings on the subject. I hope that, having ventilated their feelings, they will stay the rest of the night to vote, preferably on my side, but, if they cannot do that, on the other, at least not going home to bed as they usually do.
      Mr. Heffer: Unlike the Under-Secretary, I do not mind being rude to the Liberals. To use the term used by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), I thought the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) impeccably reactionary from beginning to end. The speeches from the Liberals were better Tory speeches than we have heard from hon. Members opposite. There is no reason why I should not be rude to the Liberals because on this Bill their basic traditions have been jettisoned.
      I do not regard this proposal as offering light relief. It has some importance, even though it is only dimly related to the Bill. We could have a valuable discussion on the whole subject of political financing on another occasion. I hope that the Under-Secretary did not mean to imply that we could expect a Bill introducing something like the Liberal proposal. I assure him that the trade union movement will take clear note of that possible implication. I hope that he did not mean it, but we shall watch it carefully.
      Mr. David Steel: Would the hon. Gentleman like to add to that expression

      393
      of hope that we may debate the subject on a future occasion that the Opposition will give a Supply Day for the purpose?
      Mr. Heffer: I am neither the Leader of the Opposition nor in the Shadow Cabinet, and I cannot say what the likely position about a Supply Day will be.
      Mr. Harold Walker: Not next week.
      Mr. Heffer: That may be well understood.
      The hon. Member for Cornwall, North was absolutely correct when he admitted that there is no comparison between the trade union contributions, the political levy, and the contributions made by the shareholders of companies to Tory Party funds. I want to make clear why there is a political levy. Let us look at the historical reasons for the political levy. An hon. Member opposite said that the Labour Party was the political arm of the trade union movement. That is partly true and partly untrue. But the Labour Party was created as a result of actions of the trade union movement in association with a number of political Socialist groups, and the reason for that arose directly from industrial struggles. To that extent, this matter has a definite relevance to the Bill.
      What led to the development of the Labour Party was the Taff Vale decision. Until then, the trade unions had put their trust in the Liberal Party, and they discovered that their trust was not entirely safe. They had to recognise that it was necessary for the trade unions to have people in the House who would speak and act on their behalf.
      Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Liberal Party was responsible for the Taff Vale judgment and that he will recognise that one of the first things the Liberal Government did was to reverse it.
      Mr. Heffer: If the right hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber during our debates he would have heard me make the point that the people who were members of the Liberal Party at the beginning of this century would be spinning round in their graves at the attitude taken by the Liberal Party today in view of what the Liberal Party did for the trade union movement. I have made that point so
      394
      many times that I am reluctant at this late hour to make it again, but perhaps it must be made from time to time.
      I return to the argument that the trade union movement felt it necessary to have representatives in the House. The Labour Party is not a purely trade union party. It is a trade union party up to a point. But it is basically a socialist party because there was a merging of a number of organisations to create and form the Labour Party.
      The political levy arises out of that situation. The political levy is not paid by every trade union member. One of my hon. Friends made it clear that when a person joins a trade union the branch secretary or whoever is responsible for his enrolment informs him that if he does not want to pay the political levy he can contract out. But because of the policies adopted by hon. Members opposite from 1927 until they were repealed in 1946, when I joined the trade union movement I had to contract in to the Labour Party. We reversed the situation only because it was administratively right to do so and because it put the Labour Party back in the position it was in when it was created by the trade union movement. Why not? We have nothing to be ashamed of. We are proud of the history of the Labour Party and of the trade union movement in creating it. So let us get that clear.
      There are one or two other points that I need to make—
      10.45 p.m.
      Mr. Bidwell: Before my hon. Friend leaves the historical seminar, may I ask him to bear in mind that it was the Osborne judgment which brought about the separation of union funds, because one trade unionist took that action finally to the House of Lords? It was no wish of the trade union movement, as my hon. Friend has correctly said, that there should be such a separation of funds. It certainly does not apply to company activities. There is no comparison.
      Mr. Heffer: I did not want to go too far into the historical seminar. I felt that the House could bear only so much about that.
      For our part, concerning the question of political funds, there are certain obvious attractions in some of the suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman and, no doubt, at some future time political

      395
      parties will look at the question of subsidies or subventions. Something may well come out of this in the dim and distant future.
      Whatever comes out of that idea, however, I hope that no one will suggest that we should adopt the American method because, if we did the chances of ordinary working people ever entering the House of Commons would be nil. If we believe in democracy we should dismiss any such idea. I hope that no hon. Member would like to go along with that proposal.
      We say that the Amendment is totally irrelevant to the Bill. We have some Amendments down which are relevant to it, and I trust that we can get on to them at the earliest possible moment.
      Mr. Russell Johnston: I make no apology for speaking. I deny totally the suggestion which has just been made by the Front Bench spokesman for the Labour Party that the matter is totally irrelevant. Equally, I deny what the Minister said about its being light relief. It is not a question of light relief, nor is it irrelevant to industrial relations in any way.
      For us on the Liberal Bench the position of the Conservative Party is extraordinary. Anyone who went to any Conservative meeting over the last five, 10 or 15 years and asked the Conservative spokesman what he thought about contracting in and contracting out would have got a definite and decisive answer. It would be in favour of our Amendment.
      Mr. Dudley Smith: I realise that there are strong feelings on these issues both on the Opposition side and on this side of the House, but they are not relevant to our discussion about reforming industrial relations.
      Mr. Johnston: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) has alluded to the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, and the fact that it appeared to be of some relevance then. Its relevance has not diminished greatly with the passage of the years.
      I want to make only three brief points. What hon. Members of both parties must, and should, recognise tonight is that the Amendment is about the fact that we in this party believe that political contribu-
      396
      tions should be made without any question of pressure. It is quite simply that.
      The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is shaking his head slightly—
      Mr. Reg Prentice: Vigorously.
      Mr. Johnston: It was not very vigorous. The hon. Member said earlier that his trade union did not make a personal contribution to him—it was nothing as sordid or personal—but made a contribution instead to his constituency association. It seems to be that there is a deep and profound moral difference. Fiddlesticks, I would say to the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Ashton: I made that point because the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), when challenged about the fact that he had not disclosed that he received £400 from the Schoolmasters Association, admitted it but did not say whether he received it personally.
      Mr. Johnston: The two things are unrelated. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North was talking about a contribution that he received as an individual Member of the House, which had nothing to do with his constituency. Nevertheless, he made it public. The contribution in the case of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw is directly directed to getting him elected.
      For the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who is usually a very honest and forthright character, to say apparently without blushing that the Labour Party in 1946 reversed the position of contracting out and made it contracting in because it was administratively right to do so—
      Mr. Buchan: And?
      Mr. Johnston: Because it was administratively right to do so, was the argument the hon. Member for Walton adduced and the argument that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw adduced, and there was no "and".
      Mr. Buchan: There was.
      Mr. Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman wants an "and" he must stand and say so.
      Mr. Heffer: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman gets a hearing aid from the National Health Service. After saying that

      397
      it was administratively correct, I went on to say that it put the position back to the position that existed before 1927 and this was the traditional position of the Labour Party and it was right to do that.
      Mr. Johnston: Simply because people have an urge to re-create a conservative position does not seem to me particularly acceptable. However, we are digressing. The fundamental point here is that we know that the political contribution made to a trade union is frequently made for reasons of apathy or disinterest and sometimes—we all know that this is true—because of communal pressure within the union which makes an individual member very reluctant to contract out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is not nonsense. It is much less nonsense than for the hon. Member for Walton to say that the Labour Party reversed the position in the 1940s, for administrative convenience. That is a ridiculous argument.
      It was surprising to hear the Under-Secretary defending the status quo in this instance, though not perhaps generally. The hon. Gentleman said that it is important that all political parties receive finance in some way. We know that this is a very important element in the financing of the Labour Party. I do not deny that. Nevertheless, I say that it is a wrong way of getting money.
      Turning to the question of companies and the Conservative Party—
      Mr. Heffer: It should be made clear that this is not a matter of raising money. By paying the political levy, members of trade unions join the Labour Party as affiliated members. This is a matter of party membership, and not merely a means of raising money.
      Mr. Johnston: With respect, that may be clear to the hon. Gentleman, but still I deny it. I cannot accept that the Labour Party feels that it is as simple as that. Occasionally, I act as an administrator and a bureaucrat, and I cannot see any difference between allowing a person to contract in and allowing him to contract out when he signs a form. It is rubbish to suggest that there is some great fundamental difference.
      The Labour Party depends for much of its money even upon the indolence of people or the communal pressure that is put upon them—
      Mr. Bidwell: To get any feeling of the historical background of the situation, one has to go back to the Lib-Lab period, when Members of Parliament were not paid and when the trade unions made it possible for working men to come to this House. At that time, the Liberal Party supported the present situation of political funds. It is because the Liberals are no longer true to their liberal traditions that they are such a shambles in this House and amount to so little.
      Mr. Johnston: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the position at the beginning of the century and that today are very different. The financial disparity was very different. There was a real necessity for monetary support to be given to Lib-Lab trade union Members of this House. I do not accept that that is valid today.
      The argument adduced by the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) that a shareholder who objected to a political contribution being made could easily withdraw his shares is not a very valid one. There is a distinction between the commercial activity of a company and the political activity of a company. It is an important distinction. If an individual looks at a company commercially and sees that it is doing well and bringing him a relatively good income, obviously its commercial undertaking is sound and he is willing to leave his money with it. But he is placed in an invidious and unreasonable position if the directors of the company decide upon a political act which he finds unacceptable and which is not related to the commercial progress of the company.
      In this Amendment, which is very fair to both sides, all that we seek to do is to allow a shareholder in such a position to have a say in what is being done.
      Mr. Thomas Swain: May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that he may safely conclude his speech now since 100 per cent. of his party membership is present?
      Mr. Johnston: The hon. Gentleman's perspicacity is boundless.
      This is a two-part Amendment designed very simply to try to ensure that contributions to political parties are made freely and without any pressure. That, surely, in this House is a desirable objective.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 5, Noes 272.

      Division No. 275.]

      AYES

      [8.55 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Bryan, Paul

      Drayson, G. B.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

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

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Buck, Antony

      Dykes, Hugh

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Eden, Sir John

      Astor, John

      Burden, F. A.

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Cary, Sir Robert

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

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Emery, Peter

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Eyre, Reginald

      Batsford, Brian

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Farr, John

      Bali, Ronald

      Churchill, W. S.

      Fell, Anthony

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cosport)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Fidler, Michael

      Benyon, W.

      CIegg, Watter

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Cockeram, Eric

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Biffen, John

      Cooke, Robert

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Coombs, Derek

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Blaker, Peter

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Fortescue, Tim

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Foster, Sir John

      Body, Richard

      Costain, A. P.

      Fowler, Norman

      Boscawen, Robert

      Critchley, Julian

      Fox, Marcus

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Crouch, David

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

      Bowden, Andrew

      Crowder, F. P.

      Fry, Peter

      Braine, Bernard

      Curran, Charles

      Gardner, Edward

      Bray, Ronald

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

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Brewis, John

      Dean, Paul

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Dixon, Piers

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Goodhart, Philip

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Gorst, John

      McLaren, Martin

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Cower, Raymond

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Scott, Nicholas

      Gray, Hamish

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Green, Alan

      Madel, David

      Sharpies, Richard

      Grieve, Percy

      Maginnis, John E.

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

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Grylls, Michael

      Marten, Neil

      Simeons, Charles

      Cummer, Selwyn

      Mather, Carol

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Maude, Angus

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Halt-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mawby, Ray

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

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Soref, Harold

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Speed, Keith

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Spences, John

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Sproat, Iain

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stainton, Keith

      Hastings, Stephen

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

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Havers, Michael

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Steel, David

      Hay, John

      Moate, Roger

      Stewart-Smith, D. C. (Belper)

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Molyneaux, James

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Money, Emle

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Hicks, Robert

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Stokes, John

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Monro, Hector

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Hiley, Joseph

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Sutcliffe, John

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

      More, Jasper

      Tapsell, Peter

      Hilt, James (Southampton, Test)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Holland, Philip

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Mudd, David

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Hornby, Richard

      Murton, Oscar

      Tebbit, Norman

      Homsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Normanton, Tom

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Tilney, John

      Hunt, John

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Osborn, John

      Trew, Peter

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      James, David

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Percival, Ian

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Jessel, Toby

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Waddington, David

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Pink, R, Bonner

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Pounder, Ration

      Wall, Patrick

      Jopling, Michael

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Walters, Dennis

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

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

      Warren, Kenneth

      Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Kimball, Marcus

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Raison, Timothy

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Kirk, Peter

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Kitson, Timothy

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Knox, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Lambton, Antony

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Lane, David

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Worsley, Marcus

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Younger, Hn. George

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

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

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Longden, Gilbert

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Mr. Victor Goodhew and

      Loveridge, John

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Mr. Paul Hawkins.

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Rossl, Hugh (Homsey)

      NOES

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Coleman, Donald

      Allen, Scholefield

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

      Concannon, J. D.

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis,

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

      Conlan, Bernard

      Ashley, Jack

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Ashton, Joe

      Buchan, Norman

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Atkinson, Norman

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

      Crewshaw, Richard

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Cronin, John

      Barnes, Michael

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Barnett, Joel

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

      Beaney, Alan

      Cant, R. B.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bern, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Carmichael, Neil

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

      Booth, Albert

      Cohen, Stanley

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      360

      361

      Deakins, Eric

      Kelley, Richard

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Dempsey, James

      Kerr, Russell

      Prescott, John

      Doig, Peter

      Kinnock, Neil

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lambie, David

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Latham, Arthur

      Probert, Arthur

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lawson, George

      Rankin, John

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Richard, Ivor

      Ellis, Tom

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      English, Michael

      Lipton, Marcus

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Evans, Fred

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Loughlin, Charles

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

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

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Roper, John

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McBride, Neil

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Foot, Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Ford, Ben

      McElhone, Frank

      Sillars, James

      Forrester, John

      McGuire, Michael

      Silverman, Julius

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Skinner, Dennis

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mackie, John

      Small, William

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Mackintosh, John p.

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Ginsburg, David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Spearing, Nigel

      Golding, John

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

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

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Marquand, David

      Strang, Gavin

      Hamilton, James (BothweII)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Meacher, Michael

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Hamling, William

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Swain, Thomas

      Hardy, Peter

      Mendelson, John

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

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Millan, Bruce

      Tinn, James

      Hattersley, Roy

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Tomney, Frank

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Torney, Tom

      Horam, John

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Moyle, Roland

      Wallace, George

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Watkins, David

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Weitzman, David

      Hunter, Adam

      Ogden, Eric

      Wellbeloved, James

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

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Well, William (Walsall, N.)

      Janner, Greville

      O'Malley, Brian

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

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

      Oram, Bert

      Whitehead, Philip

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Whitlock, William

      John, Brynmor

      Orme, Stanley

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Johnson, James (K'stonon-Hull, W.)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Jones, Cwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Judd, Frank

      Pentland, Norman

      Mr. Kenneth Marks.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      [For Division List 276 see col. 453.]
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that it will be noted that in the last Division all good Tories came to the help of the Labour Party.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that that is not a point of order for the Chair.

    Clause 3

      APPROVAL BY PARLIAMENT OF CODE OF PRACTICE AND REVISIONS OF CODE
      Mr. Paul B. Rose: I beg to move Amendment No. 126, in page 2, line 36, after 'Parliament', insert
      proposals for a draft code of practice in order to debate and amend the principles to be embodied in'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can take Amendment No. 127. in page 3, line 6, after 'Commission', insert 'and Parliament'.
      Mr. Rose: It is a very sad and perhaps apt commentary on the working of the guillotine that at 12 minutes past eleven o'clock on the final day of the Report stage we on this side are given the opportunity for the very first time to debate one of our own Amendments to the original Bill; and not to the second Bill presented to us by the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, who might well be termed the "Industrial Relations (No. 2) Bill". We have debated 15 new Clauses, but so far we have not been allowed to debate one of our Amendments. Now, less than three-quarters of an hour before the Report stage finishes and the Bill goes to another place, we are allowed to revert to an important matter which was debated to some extent in Committee, when hon. Members on both sides voiced concern that a very important code of practice was not to be debated as part of the Bill, but would be subject to an affirmative Resolution.
      That procedure means that the House will have precisely one and a half hours in which to debate a code which is not
      400
      only to govern fair practice in industry but is to be allowed as evidence in a court of law, and the breach of which will inevitably mean that the person in breach will be held to be guilty of an unfair industrial practice. Not only that, but the Order will not be capable of amendment. Therefore, whether we call this code the "highway code", as did the Under-Secretary of State, or whether we call it the "Marquess of Queensberry rules for trade union bashing", or any other name, we shall, if the Clause goes through unamended, be precluded from debating the principles—
      Mr. Adam Butler: If I understood the hon. Gentleman aright, he said that a breach of the code would be an unfair industrial practice, but he will agree that the code has no binding legality.
      11.15 p.m.
      Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman should look carefully at Clause 4, which states
      "… any such code of practice shall be admissible in evidence, and …
      any provision of such a code of practice which appears to the Court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in the proceedings shall be taken into account by the Court or tribunal in determining that question."
      A breach of the Highway Code invariably results in a conviction, as a visit to any court on any day will demonstrate. Our view is that a breach of this code will almost inevitably result in an adverse decision against the person in breach.
      Mr. Butler: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that a breach of this code would be an unfair industrial practice?
      Mr. Rose: It would result in a finding of unfair industrial practice in the way that a breach of the Highway Code inevitably results in a finding of, say, careless driving or driving without due care. If the hon. Gentleman will read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates in Committee he will agree that hon. Members on both sides have put this interpretation on the Bill.
      When we refer to a consultative document we recall the consultation we had over the Bill. It is not good enough that everybody in this House has been consulted. We gather that professional organisations have exerted much influence lately. They, along with the C.B.I. and the C.I.R., have been consulted about this code of practice point, but not this

      401
      House. The Amendment would enable us to spend a whole day, if necessary, considering the code prior to it being put forward as an Order. We could examine it in detail and, if necessary, suggest amendments.
      It is a denigration of this House for this code of practice to be debated outside this Chamber with all sorts of organisations, leaving us with a proposed one and a half hours after ten o'clock to debate the issue, and then without the possibility of amending it. I gather that under Clause 3(1) another Order would be necessary if the original Order needed amending.
      The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is concerned over this sort of problem, where parent legislation contains far-reaching powers offering the Government a blank cheque and the House only one and a half hours to consider what is proposed. Unfortunately, before that short debate takes place we will not have the slightest notion of what is contained in the draft code of practice. It illustrates a very serious constitutional danger with regard to subordinate legislation, a danger which ought to commend itself not only to hon. Members on this side of the House who are opposed to the Bill, but also to those who are concerned about the supremacy of Parliament and the dangers of subordinate legislation and of giving a blank cheque to any Government of the day in this way.
      Taken with the first Amendment, which would provide for a debate prior to the laying of the Order before the House, there is a second Amendment, No. 127. It follows logically from the first Amendment and the principle is precisely the same: that the drafting of the code would follow consultation with the C.I.R.—that is right and proper, because my right hon. Friend created the C.I.R., which was described by Mr. George Woodcock as the greatest advance in industrial relations in his lifetime. The C.I.R. is already being sabotaged by the Government by the imposition of the N.I.R.C. upon it, which has already led to two resignations. It is right and proper that the C.I.R. should be consulted, but it ought to be also right and proper that the House should be consulted before the draft is laid before it.
      402
      I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, at this late hour, with 40 minutes to go, to say that this is a debate as much about the sovereignty of Parliament as about the Bill. If he is really concerned about the reputation and rights of the House, he will be prepared to discuss the contents of a code of such wide reaching importance over the whole of industry and a code about which there is a considerable controversy, as he knows, not only in the House but also outside it. This is not a matter to be pushed into an odd one and a half hours late at night. The House ought to have an opportunity of debating the subject and of making constructive suggestions to the right hon. Gentleman.
      I commend the Amendment to the right hon. Gentleman. By accepting it, he would not be accepting any change in the code of practice in advance. All that he would be accepting is the principle that the House should be consulted and have the right to debate it and to take precedence over outside bodies which apparently have far more influence upon the Government than the democratically elected Members of the House.
      I urge the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will not just look into these Amendments and tell us that he did not find our arguments very weighty, but that he will also heed the words of some of his hon. Friends who were disturbed about the matter, and say that he will give way on this matter, that there will be room and time for a debate, and that he will listen to the views of the House before adopting his draft code of practice. He can do that by accepting the Amendments.
      Mr. Adam Butler: I agree entirely with the importance of the code of practice. I look forward with anticipation to its early appearance in the House.
      It recognises the voluntary nature, which is at the basis of the Bill. Perhaps for that reason one could question the extent of the debate which is necessary. The points which it will bring out are those which have been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during the past few years, not only at Conservative Party conferences but on other occasions. It will deal with recommendations and advice to both sides of industry as to how they should conduct their affairs, especially on the vital

      403
      matter of communications—an O.K. word, but one which means letting the participants in industry know what is going on.
      I hope that there will be recommendations on works councils, for instance, certainly with firms above a certain size, works councils which are not involved just with the minutiae of business but which are searching for help and advice from all sides of industry. I would look for an extension not of worker representation on executive boards, but of worker representation, shareholder representation and management representation on advisory boards in industry, which is the German practice. This has a political consequence but, more important, all sides of industry have an important contribution to make towards the management of companies. These are some of the things I look for in the code of practice.
      I hope that the debate will be very wide. I particularly hope that the T.U.C. will overcome its inhibitions about consultation with the Government on this point, and that my right hon. Friend, having published the terms of the code of practice, will give not weeks but months to debate in the country with the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and other bodies.
      I must accent the voluntary nature of the code. Whatever the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) may have said, it has been recognised during Second Reading and in Committee that there will be nothing legally binding in these proposals—
      Mr. Rose: I repeat to the hon. Member that there is, in the same sense, nothing legally binding in the highway code. One can be in breach of the highway code without being in breach of a Statute, but as soon as one is found in a court to be in breach of the highway code conviction automatically follows, and in this sense it is legally binding.
      Mr. Butler: I see my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) shaking his head. I think "automatically" is wrong. The Bill says that the code of practice will be taken into account. In the same way as we accept the highway code as a reasonable code of practice on the road, so I hope we would accept this code of practice as
      404
      reasonable in the conduct of industry. It is, therefore, fair that the courts should take it into account when considering the industrial practice of employers or unions.
      The hon. Gentleman made an important point of whether the House should be free to debate the provisions or whether the affirmative Resolution procedure should apply. I should be happy if my right hon. Friend would allow us a debate, but I take the hon. Gentleman up on his point about a debate in the country. We in this House have a great deal to contribute to the debate, but if the T.U.C. and all other industrial bodies were to participate in the debate there would be great merit in that. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider a debate some months after he has published the code—perhaps in the autumn—so that the House may have the opportunity for amendment, rather than to adopt the affirmative Resolution procedure.
      11.30 p.m.
      Mr. Bidwell: Although the debate is not specifically about a non-appearing code of industrial practice, the debates about industrial relations have reached a height greater than for many years as a result of the introduction of the Bill itself, and it may well be that interest will be further heightened when the Bill becomes law, as it seems likely that it will. That is all to the good. None of us on either side would wish to steer away from that necessity, I am sure.
      In an earlier debate about the code of practice, I put it to the Secretary of State that it would be axiomatic. The right hon. Gentleman rejected the word "axiomatic", and, on reflection, I think that he was right in the sense that the code of practice is an important part of what he is trying—though going about it in a mistaken way—to achieve. In so far as the code of practice is admissible in evidence, it assumes a weight and significance which may be substantial in certain instances.
      I share the view of the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) in that sense, and I am glad that he is, as it were, putting his weight behind our Amendment in wishing there to be adequate parliamentary time for there to be a searching and through going debate on the code of practice. Inevitably, there will be debate outside the House, but I

      405
      do not think that one can properly put a time to its coming before the House, as the hon. Gentleman did when he suggested that it could be a year or so before we debated the code here.
      If the code of practice is to assume the weight implied by admissibility in evidence in the National Industrial Relations Court, the sooner it comes before the House for the fullest possible debate, with hon. Members on both sides contributing out of their experience in industry, the better. It could, so to speak, strangle itself if it was concerned with trivialities. On the other hand, if it is to assume the form envisaged by the Secretary of State, it will be a document of considerable significance and of new dimensions in our society.
      The code of practice, as I understand it, will be a document of constitutional importance. It would be mistaken and wrong to try to slide it away from the House in any way. I hope, therefore, that there will be a vote on both sides in support of our Amendment. That is the best way of proceeding if hon. Members opposite are sincere in wishing to take the best course to improve industrial relations. We have our doubts about that, but these things are tested in actions, not words.
      We on this side give way to no one in wishing to see a considerable improvement in industrial relations and the development of the kind of society we hope soon to see, with co-operation in industry reaching heights hitherto unknown. We must have that if we are to survive as an industrial trading nation. My right hon. Friends were struggling to achieve it when they were in Government. They were making certain mistakes, but that was their overall objective, and they are much likelier to achieve it than any Tory Government.
      But these matters are to be tested, and one way to do it rationally is in the new code, which is to assume such importance. I should like to know from the Secretary of State in particular, since he did not accept my word "axiomatic" earlier, what weight he puts upon it. If it is considerable, what facility is he prepared to give us to debate the code thoroughly?
      Mr. Hooson: It is to be hoped that the Secretary of State will give way on this point. The provision of the Indus-
      406
      trial Court code of practice will be a very important element in the Bill. No one who followed the Committee stage, with all its ramifications, can fail to have observed that many speeches were repetitions of Second Reading speeches. It may be much more important to debate the code than it has been to take part in many of the Committee debates.
      One thing we have learned in the course of our debates has been that there is a great deal of industrial expertise in the House. Therefore, if the code, for good or ill, is to be a very important element in the Bill, and assume the importance that, say, constitutional conventions have assumed in the House over the years, these matters should be subjected to debate in the House. The provisions of the Bill seem to me to allow only for an hour and a half's debate on an affirmative Order procedure, which is not good enough for such a code. Therefore, I took the view, as is shown by Amendments, which were not called, that the Bill should not become law until the code had been published and approved by the House, and that if that was not possible at least it should be published as soon as possible after the Bill becomes law.
      The Secretary of State has not shown himself to be particularly tractable on the Bill, but he could concede something here. If we are to have a code, which presumably will be prepared in his Department after due consultation with the Commission and so on, it would he very odd if the House, with a great deal of industrial expertise, has to consider it in a matter of an hour and a half.
      I hope that the signs I discern in the Secretary of State mean that he will meet the very reasonable point made.
      Mr. Keith Stainton: I wonder what thought my right hon. Friend has given to the Green Paper procedure. Perhaps I have missed this part of the debate. A Green Paper might well be published, and that would not be inconsistent with the terminology of the Bill.
      Mr. Orme: We have had a debate on the question of the unseen, unsung, unwritten code of practice. We have done some peculiar things in our consideration of the Bill, but nothing as peculiar as discussing and voting on legislation that

      407
      we have never seen. It is an extraordinary procedure.
      I happened to see a short part of an important television programme dealing with the Bill this evening. I saw the Solicitor-General, amongst other speakers. The interesting point was that a number of those taking part referred to the industrial code of conduct and its importance. They said that the Bill would be governed by it, and that in effect it might be more important than the Bill itself. But I assume that all those speakers were no more privy to the code than we are. The British electorate were being told tonight about something that nobody has seen. What is more, when we do see this important code which the Solicitor-General says is going to be more important than the Bill, we shall be able to debate it for only 1½ hours on an affirmative Order. It is an absolute disgrace and reveals the full shallowness of the Government's case.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: Why is the hon. Gentleman being so obtuse and pretending not to understand the obvious? He is a practical Member of this House and has contact with what goes on. He knows that the code of practice will codify the commonsense actions which have always been followed by sensible trade unions. He is a member of a sensible trade union. He knows that the code will codify its commonsense actions. He should not put on this sham indignation about a matter which he, as a sensible man, understands very well. He is not obtuse. He is making a sham of his case.
      Mr. Orme: I am on a valid point. We are entitled to see what it is we are debating. We are passing legislation affecting millions of people and we are not seeing it. The Solicitor-General has said that it will define the rôle of shop stewards and of management. He pulled certain things out the air but gave no facts. We were told that consultations had taken place with the trade union movement but we know there have been none. In consequence, we are being asked to pass something which we have not seen The hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) says I am a sensible person.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: So you are, usually.
      Mr. Orme: If that is so, then, as a normal, average, sensible person, I like to be able to see and read the legislation I am supposed to be considering. Trade unionists and managements outside who will have to operate the code of practice should also be able to see it.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls rose—
      Mr. Orme: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. I am making only a brief contribution.
      I have tonight heard the code of practice referred to by people on television who like us have not seen it. They prayed it in aid because, they said, it would improve industrial relations. This is the height of nonsense. If ever there was an Alice in Wonderland atmosphere about this Bill, this must be the issue. The right hon. Gentleman should tell us the facts.
      Mr. R. Carr: I must tell the House that, as I am sure many hon. Members know, unless we alter our procedures the method proposed in the Amendment is not acceptable because, under those procedures, we could not proceed in the way it suggests. Subordinate legislation never has been, I understand, amendable because otherwise it would become similar to ordinary legislation.
      Mr. Rose: I do not think that right hon. Gentleman can have read the Amendment correctly. It would provide for a debate on a consultative document prior to his laying the Order before the House.
      Mr. Carr: It also refers to the possibility of Amendment.
      Mr. Rose: Prior to laying the Order.
      Mr. Carr: Surely the hon. Gentleman is putting a new slant on this.
      Mrs. Castle: This is a serious proposition we are putting to the right hon. Gentleman. We had the Consultative Document before this Bill, and then we had the Bill. We debated the document and now we have a chance to amend the Bill because it is major and not subordinate legislation. Recognising the impossibility of amending subordinate legislation in the ordinary way, we propose that the right hon. Gentleman should bring forward a consultative document in advance of his draft Order or draft

      409
      code. He should then enable the House to amend the Consultative Document. On that he would proceed to base his draft code.
      11.45 p.m.
      Mr. Carr: I beg the right hon. Lady's pardon. I had not understood that to be the intention of the Amendments. However, I have not misunderstood the technical advice which I have been given about the possibility of accepting the Amendments. If we were to write them into the Bill they would not have the meaning which the right hon. Lady has put upon them, but would be taken to involve an extra process of amendment, as with this stage of the Bill.
      I recognise that the code is a very important part of our proposals. It is complementary to but separate from the Bill itself. The provisions are not directly enforceable; nor in our view should they be, because conditions vary enormously from industry to industry and even from company to company within the same industry. If we were to make the provisions of the code directly enforceable, we should be putting industrial relations into a straitjacket, and it would be quite wrong to do that. They are of a different character from the basic provisions of the Bill and are properly dealt with by subordinate legislation.
      I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) who drew an analogy with the Highway Code, whose provisions, he said, become almost automatically enforceable. I do not believe the two sets of conditions are similar, because driving on the road is, although no doubt diverse, less diverse than the conditions throughout the whole of employment in industry, trade and commerce. It is largely criminal law, while here we are dealing with the civil law. Clause 103(3) makes it clear that in deciding any matter the court must take into account the extent to which the other party may have contributed to the problem; for instance, with a union, the court must take into account the extent to which the employer may or may not have contributed to whatever has gone wrong. We do not accept that the provisions of the code will in any way become automatically enforceable.
      There is another difference, namely, that we expect and intend that the code should be capable to being added to and
      410
      revised in a fairly flexible manner. This is a new idea; we are experimenting—we make no apology for that—and we therefore think that as we gain experience and conditions change, we ought fairly flexibly, more flexibly than by main legislation, to be able to add to, or subtract from, or revise, the provisions of the code.
      For all those reasons, we believe that it should be in the form of subordinate legislation. It is not altogether new—which does not mean that it is not altogether right—for main legislation to be debated and passed in advance of subordinate legislation being available for examination.
      I hope to publish the consultative draft as soon as possible. Using the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler), we certainly hope to provide months not weeks for the code to be thought about, and consulted about. I stress that the document will be open for genuine consultation and views by hon. Members and other people and bodies outside the House for a period of months, not weeks.
      The right. hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) suggests that perhaps we should have a debate on the consultative document so that the views of Parliament can be expressed on the Floor of the House and not only in more informal discussion. She will understand, and I hope that she will not take it amiss, that I cannot commit by right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I did not understand the meaning of the Amendment. I will convey the right hon. Lady's view to my right hon. Friend, but I cannot commit him in advance on the question of setting aside a particular day for a debate.
      Whether or not we have a debate—and I would not wish to shirk a debate on the consultative draft—my idea would be, before the end of the year, having had some months for consultation, to be able to bring the draft before Parliament for approval so that I should in effect be meeting what I know the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) pays much attention to, as do I and the House, namely, that the code and the Bill should become operative at about the same time. I felt it right in the Bill to allow for a latitude of time, but I shall regard myself as having failed

      411
      if I lose any substantial amount of time before getting the code into operation.
      Hon. Members have spoken about having a 1½ hour debate when the code comes before the House for final approval. That is often all the debate that affirmative Resolutions have. But it will be in the knowledge of the House that on important matters affirmative resolutions often have longer. While I cannot commit my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in advance, I shall convey to him with strength, and with an expression of my willingness that this should happen, that at the final stage we should have a day rather than 1½ hours. That is what I hope will happen.
      Mrs. Castle: We are glad to learn from the Secretary of State that he is preparing to put the consultative draft before the public and before Parliament. That is something to be thankful for. But we remain unconvinced that he cannot go the step further which we request in our Amendment, namely, to enable Amendments to his consultative draft to be moved and voted on in the House.
      The Secretary of State has argued that the code of practice is of a different character from the Bill. But in the last few months, while we have been examining the Bill, the code of practice has loomed even larger in importance than the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman and his supporters repeatedly say that the Bill is only a reserve framework of legal powers, that what matters is to change attitudes and that the right way to change attitudes is to set down a code of practice which will inspire all people on both sides of industry for the years to come.
      It is remarkable how the code has been brought in as a rescue operation to save the Government from some of the bad impressions left by the Bill. As we have brought into the light of day the legal complexities, and in some cases the downright legal frivolities as well as tyrannies of the Bill, the Government have become more and more uneasy and have kept saying, "That is not the way in which it will be done. The code of practice will do the trick, and we will not ever use any of these laws." The laws will exist, apparently, only to make everybody pay attention to the code of practice. It has, therefore, become a focal point.
      412
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, the fascinating thing is that the Hamlet in this great Shakespeare play has never yet appeared upon the stage, and the curtain is practicaly coming down. We are still waiting for this hero to materialise. He is lurking somewhere in the right hon. Gentleman's imagination, and he will do wonderful things when he appears on the stage.
      It is astonishing that in the Bill we should be solemnly voting, as we did when we voted on Clause 4 some weeks ago, to make the centre-piece of the right hon. Gentleman's industrial relations policy a document that we have not yet seen and, what is more, solemnly voting that such a document shall be admissible in evidence before the National Industrial Relations Court. This is an entirely different situation from what the right hon. Gentleman tried to suggest was the normal method of having the major legislation first and then the subordinate. The code is not subordinate.
      We are told that it is the major part of the reform movement which the right hon Gentleman has been launching on the world, and it will obviously be a far-reaching and complex document. It will embody all those elusive principles that we had in Clause 1. Perhaps even under subsection (1)(a), the very first subsection of the Bill, the code of practice will spell out to us at last the mysteries of the Government's incomes policy, because it will certainly deal with what ought to be responsible collective bargaining from the Government's viewpoint. Only through the code of practice will we ever get any indication of management's responsibilities, which the Government forgot to mention until we pointed out their omission whereupon they rushed the Amendment to subsection (2)(a).
      The code of practice has to remedy a lot of things in the Bill. It has to rescue the Government'se reputation in industrial relations. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should let us have the code of practice in consultative document form that the House can amend. In asking for this in the Amendment, we are fulfilling a desire on both sides of the House and we therefore ask that our Amendment should be accepted. If it is not, we must divide the House.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 294.
      [For Division List 277 see col. 455.]
      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], successively to put the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given.

    Clause 5

      RIGHTS OF WORKERS IN RESPECT OF TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITIES.
      Amendment proposed: No. 5, in page 3, line 37, after 'section', insert
      and to section (Special provisons for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act.'—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes, 292, Noes 139.
      [For Division List 278 see col. 459.]
      Further Amendments made:
      No. 8, in page 4, line 46, at end insert—
      (4A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a)of this section an employer, or a person acting on behalf of an employer, shall not be regarded as preventing or deterring a worker from exercising the rights conferred on the worker by subsection (1)(b) of this section by reason only that (without any suggestion of reward for compliance or penalty of noncompliance) he seeks to encourage the worker to join a trade union which the employer recognises as having negotiating rights in respect of him.
      No. 9, in page 5, line 12, after '(2)', insert '(4A)'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

    Clause 6
      PRESSURE ON EMPLOYER TO INFRINGE RIGHTS UNDER S. 5
      Amendment made: No. 10, in page 5, line 16, leave out Clause 6.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
    Clause 7

      PRE-ENTRY CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENTS TO BE VOID
      Amendments made: No. 12, in page 6, line 11, leave out subsection (2).
      No. 13, in line 25, leave out Subsections (1) and (2)' and insert Subsection (1)'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 6, line 27, at end insert
      'or in so far as it constitutes an approved closed shop agreement within the meaning of section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 287, Noes 133.
      [For Division List 279 see col. 463.]

    Clause 9

      CONTRIBUTIONS TO CHARITY INSTEAD OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO TRADE UNION
      Amendment proposed: No. 15, in page 8, line 6, leave out and the next following section ' and insert Part of this Act'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 129.
      [For Division List 280 see col. 465.]

    Clause 12

      BALLOT AS TO AGENCY SHOP AGREEMENT
      Amendment proposed: No. 228, in page 10, line 2, leave out '42' and insert
      '(Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent)'.[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 264. Noes 129.
      [For Division List 281 see col. 469.]

    Clause 15

      BALLOT ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 14
      Amendment proposed: No. 16, in page 13, line 8, at end insert—
      (4) If the result of the ballot, as so reported, is that a majority of the workers eligible to vote in the ballot have voted in favour of continuance of the agency shop agreement, the Industrial Court shall not entertain any application under section 14 of this Act if—

      (a) it relates to the same agency shop agreement, and

      (b) it is made before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the result of the ballot was so reported.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Sir Gerald Nabarro(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have distinctly seen two Opposition Members smoking in the "No" Lobby. Four other witnesses, hon. Friends of mine, have witnessed Members smoking in the "No" Lobby. Not only is this unhygienic, but it represents a grave fire risk and is contrary to the rules of the House. Would you take appropriate action forthwith, Mr. Speaker?
      Mr. Arthur Lewis(seated and covered): Further to that point of order. You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, that one of the greatest Parliamentarians, Sir Winston Churchill, was often seen smoking the most magnificent cigars in the Division Lobby, and everyone paid him great tribute for it.
      Mr. Speaker: Whatever may be the health hazards, smoking in the Lobbies is a practice to be deprecated.
      I remind hon. Members that whatever the tedium may be they are not permitted to read newspapers or books.
      The House having divided: Ayes 252, Noes 128.
      [For Division List 282 see col. 473.]

    Clause 25

      UNFAIRLY INDUCING DISMISSAL
      Amendment proposed: No. 17, in page 19, line 14, leave out Clause 25.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the Ruling you have just given about hon. Members not reading books or newspapers, may I drew your attention to the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit), who is reading a magazine.
      Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) is reading something for amusement and not connected with the debate, he should not do so.
      Mr. Paul Hawkins and Mr. Bernard Weatherill were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

    Clause 34

      BREACH OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT
      Amendment proposed: No. 19, in page 24, line 40, after first 'agreement' insert:
      'made after the commencement of this Act'. —[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 125.
      [For Division List 283 see col. 477.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 20, in page 24, line 40, after 'of', insert 'such'.[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 121.
      [For Division List 248 see col. 479.]

    Clause 35

      APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT RELATING TO PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS
      Amendment proposed: 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

      417
      parties appearing to him, in relation to that unit, to be the parties to whom this section applies.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Ashton(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Tellers are showing signs of distress. Would it be in order for them to sit down while working and to consume refreshments so that they can be at their best and not miscount?
      Mr. Speaker: The answer is "no."
      The House having divided: Ayes 234, Noes 119.
      [For Division List 285 see col. 483.]
      Mr. Speaker: Amendment No. 23. Amendment No. 24. Amendment No. 25—
      Mr. Robert Mellish: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that you are not taking individual Amendments as you were before?
      Mr. Speaker: Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 were not moved.

    Clause 39

      ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT ON REPORT UNDER S. 38
      Amendment proposed: No. 25, in page 28, line 45, leave out 'of' and insert:
      employer or trade union included among'.— [Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 228, Noes 118.
      [For Division List 286 see col. 485.]

    Clause 42

      PROPOSALS FOR RECOGNITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT
      Amendment proposed: No. 26, in page 30, line 28, leave out Clause 42.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 117.
      [For Division List 287 see col. 489.]

    Clause 43

      REFERENCE TO COMMISSION ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 42
      Amendment proposed: No. 27 in page 32, line 12, leave out ' 42 ' and insert
      '(Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent)'. —[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 116.
      [For Division List 288 see col. 491.]

    Clause 45

      REPORT OF COMMISSION ON REFERENCE UNDER S. 43
      Amendment proposed: No. 45 in page 34, line 20, at end insert
      (3) For the purpose of determining, with respect to any group of employees, what recommendation to make in a report under this section on the question specified in section (Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent) (1)(a) of this Act, the Commission shall consider the extent to which different descriptions of employees in that group have interests in common, having regard in particular to relation to each such description of employees, to—

      (a) the nature of the work which they are employed to do, and

      (b) their training, experience and qualifications.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 115.
      [For Division List 289 see col. 495.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 46, in page 34, line 25, leave out 'this' and insert
      'the organisation or (in the case of a joint negotiating panel) every organisation represented on it, is an independent organisation of workers;

      419
      (b) that its recognition as sole bargaining agent for that bargaining unit'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 114.
      [For Division List 290 see col. 497.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 47, in page 34, line 28, leave out (b) that it'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 115.
      [For Division List 291 see col. 499.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 48, in page 34, line 29, leave out 'question' and insert 'questions'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 188, Noes 115.
      [For Division List 292 see col. 503.]

    Clause 46

      APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT FOR BALLOT AS TO RECOGNITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT
      Amendment proposed: No. 49, in page 35, line 23, leave out from ' particular ' to 'should' in line 24 and insert:
      'organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 193, Noes 115.
      [For Division List 293 see col. 717.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 50, in page 35, line 30, leave out 'the trade union' and insert:
      'subject to the next following subsection, the organisation of workers'.—[Mr. Hector Monro.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 204, Noes 115.
      [For Division List 294 see col. 719.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 51, in page 35, line 33, at end insert:
      (2) No application under this section 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.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 114.
      [For Division List 295 see col. 721.]

    Clause 47

      ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT FOR RECOGNITION OF SOLE BARGAINING AGENT
      Amendment proposed: No. 52, in page 36, line 30, at end insert—
      (3) Where the bargaining unit defined by an order under this section is the same as, or includes the whole or part of, the bargaining unit defined by a previous order under this section which is for the time being in force, the Industrial Court, on making the subsequent order, shall revoke the previous order.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 118.
      [For Division List 296 see col. 725.]

    Clause 50

      ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT ON REPORT UNDER S. 49
      Amendment proposed: No. 53, in page 39, line 11, at end insert—
      (3) On making an order under this section—

      (a) with respect to a bargaining unit in respect of which an order under section 47 of this Act is for the time being in force, or

      421

      (b) with respect to a section of such a bargaining unit,

      the Industrial Court shall revoke or (as the case may be) vary the order under section 47 of this Act as the Court may consider appropriate, having regard to the effect of the order made under this section.—[Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 117.
      [For Division List 297 see col. 727.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 229, in page 39, line 17, leave out 42 ' and insert
      '(Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent)'. —[The Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 118.
      [For Division List 298 see col. 729.]

    Clause 51

      UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES IN CONNECTION WITH COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROCEDURES
      Amendment proposed: No. 54, in page 39, line 27, leave out subsection (1).—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 119.
      [For Division List 299 see col. 733.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 57, in page 41, line 4, at end insert:
      'whether the report recommended some other organisation or panel as sole bargaining agent for that bargaining unit or not, or
      (b) to carry on, with any organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel which was not recommended as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, any collective bargaining in relation to employees of any description comprised in the bargaining unit to which that report related'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 199, Noes 120.
      [For Division List 300 see col. 735.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 230, in page 41, line 17, leave out '42' and insert:
      '(Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent)'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 190, Noes 122.
      [For Division List 301 see col. 737.]

    Clause 57

      TRADE UNIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS
      Amendment proposed: No. 60, in page 46, line 12, after 'registered', insert 'as a trade union'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Kevin McNamara(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you find some way of getting the Government to stop this farce? We are being forced as a matter of principle to impress our views on the Government by dividing on an Amendment which owing to the printing none of us can read unless he has a research degree in Sanskrit or some other language?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I notice a slight misprint in my Notice Paper, but it is easily put right. I do not think the hon. Gentleman raises a very serious point of order. May I take this opportunity very humbly to congratulate the House on its good humour?
      The House having divided: Ayes 202, Noes 122.
      [For Division List 302 see col. 741.]

    Clause 58

      EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS OF EMPLOYERS
      Amendment proposed: No. 61, in page 46, line 39, after 'registered', insert 'as

      423
      an employers' association'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes, 191, Noes 121.
      [For Division List 303 see col. 743.]

    Clause 61

      GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS
      Amendment proposed: No. 62, in page 48, line 9, leave out 'reasonably well' and insert 'appropriately'. — [The Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 121.
      [For Division List 304 see col. 747.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 63, in page 49, leave out lines 21 to 26.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Ray Mawby(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the last Division there was a majority of 81 and yet the counting in the Lobby where there was the 81 majority took one minute less than the counting in the other Division Lobby. Is it possible to speed up the counting in the other Lobby, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is obvious that—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Naturally the Chair is paying attention to all these points very carefully. In my opinion there is no undue delay in the "No" Lobby. The hon. Gentleman and the whole House can rely upon me to watch the position most carefully.
      The House having divided: Ayes 206, Noes 121.
      [For Division List 305 see col. 749.]

    Clause 64
      APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS TRADE UNION
      Amendment made: No. 64, in page 50, line 37, leave out from beginning to 'have' in line 38.—[The Solicitor-General.]
    Clause 68

      APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION AS EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATION
      Amendment proposed: No. 67, in page 52, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'have' in line 13.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Eric Ogden(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With respect, may I ask for your clarification on what I thought happened when you called Amendment No. 64? I understood, from what I heard, that the Solicitor-General had proposed it, and you then asked for the "Ayes" and the "Noes". Voices were raised for both, but, apparently because the names of right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches appear on the Notice Paper, the normal practice of at least waiting for Tellers was not observed, and you moved immediately to Amendment No. 65—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As the names of right hon. and hon. Members on both Front Benches appeared on the Notice Paper, I took it that—
      Hon. Members: No!
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Very well. The last thing I wish to do is anything which the House as a whole thinks inappropriate. I declare the present Division null and void and I shall go back to the earlier Question on Amendment No. 64.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Hector Monro and Mr. Victor Goodhew were appointed Tellers for the

      425
      Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
      Amendment proposed: No. 67, in page 52, line 12, leave out from beginning to 'have' in line 13.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Hector Monro and Mr. Victor Goodhew were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act to Teller for the Noes, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

    Clause 74

      ENTRY OF ORGANISATIONS IN PROVISIONAL REGISTER
      Amendment proposed: No. 70, in page 55, line 38, leave out 'one month' and insert 'six months'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 120.
      [For Division List 306 see col. 751.]

    Clause 75

      CANCELLATON OF ENTRIES IN PROVISIONAL REGISTER
      Amendment proposed: No. 71, in page 56, line 1, leave out Clause 75.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 118.
      [For Division List 307 see col. 755.]

    Clause 79

      INVESTIGATION INITIATED BY REGISTRAR
      Amendment proposed: No. 116, in page 59, line 13, leave out 'serve' and insert:
      'be appropriate for either or both of the following purposes, that is to say, to remedy
      426
      or mitigate the consequences, and'.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 119.
      [For Division List 308 see col. 757.]

    Clause 81

      ANNUAL RETURN, AUDIT, ANNUAL REPORT AND MEMBERS' SUPERANNUATION SCHEMES
      Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 60, line 24 at end insert—
      (5) Every trade union and every employers' association shall, at the request of any person, supply to him a copy of its rules on payment of a charge of such amount as may be specified in the rules.—[The Solicitor-General.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In the last Division I voted in the "No" Lobby, but my name was not recorded. Would you please arrange for a suitable amendment to be made to the Division list?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will see that the right hon' Gentleman's name is recorded.
      The House having divided: Ayes 196. Noes 116.
      [For Division List 309 see col. 761.]

    Clause 85

      INDUCEMENT OF, OR THREAT TO INDUCE, BREACH OF CONTRACT
      Amendment proposed: No. 74, in page 62, line 30, at end insert—
      (3) In this section 'contract'—

      (a) does not include a collective agreement or any part of a collective agreement, and does not include any provisions having effect as a contract by virtue of an order under section 39 of this Act, but

      (b) notwithstanding anything in the preceding paragraph, includes so much of any

      427
      contract of employment as is implied or incorporated in that contract by reference to a collective agreement or by reference to any provisions having effect as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.—[The Solicitor-General.]

      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the fact that it is quite out of order to read newspapers in the House.
      The House having divided: Ayes 217, Noes 116.
      [For Division List 310 see col. 763.]

    Clause 87

      INDUSTRIAL ACTION AGAINST EXTRANEOUS PARTIES
      Amendment proposed: No. 75, in page 63, line 3, leave out 'by taking or threatening' and insert 'to take or threaten'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 117.
      [For Division List 311 see col. 765.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 76, in page 63, line 5, leave out from beginning to that ' in line 11 and insert—
      'if—

      (a) he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing that another person has entered into a contract (not being a contract of employment) with a party to that industrial dispute;

      (b) his purpose or principal purpose in taking or threatening to take those steps is to induce that other person to break that contract or to prevent him from performing it; and

      (c)'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that I shall not have occasion again to call the attention of the House to the fact that it
      428
      is quite out of order to read a newspaper in the Chamber. All hon. Members should know that.
      The House having divided: Ayes 252, Noes 119.
      [For Division List 312 see col. 769.]

    Clause 90

      COMPLAINT TO INDUSTRIAL COURT OF UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE
      Amendment proposed: No. 77, in page 65, line 10, leave out from 'is' to end of line 12 and insert:
      'the person against whom the action was taken'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Mawby(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier this evening I raised a point of order concerning the amount of time that was being taken to count the votes in the "No" Lobby. In the last Division there was a majority of 133, yet it took two and a half minutes longer to count the "No" Lobby. Is there any way in which hon. Members can be protected from what appears to be a grave injustice?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: This might be an opportune moment for me to make an observation on the point which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I would hesitate before doing anything to interfere with the good temper and good humour which has been shown throughout the night. Having said that, I would ask hon. Members of the Opposition to guard against anything which might possibly be construed in any way as dilatoriness in the Lobby. I do not think that anything of the kind has occurred intentionally on their part. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] But at this hour of the night things begin to drag a little sometimes. If we keep ourselves going along in the right way we shall have no trouble.
      The House having divided: Ayes 257, Noes 135.
      [For Division List 313 see col. 773.]

    Clause 93

      COMPLAINT BY REGISTRAR IN CONSEQUENCE OF INVESTIGATION UNDER S. 79
      Amendment proposed: No. 117 in page 68, line 1, leave out is requisite ' and insert—
      'would be appropriate for either or both of the following purposes, that is to say, to remedy or mitigate the consequences, and'.[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 138.
      [For Division List 314 see col. 775.]

    Clause 94

      COMPLAINT TO INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL OF UNFAIR INDUSTRIAL PRACTICE UNDER S. 5 OR S. 20
      Amendment proposed: No. 79, in page 68, line 14, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
      (c) where the complaint relates to dismissal, the complainant is the person who was dismissed, or, in any other case, the complainant is the person who was prevented or deterred from exercising his rights, or was penalised or otherwise discriminated against, or was refused engagement, as the case may be.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 140.
      [For Division List 315 see col. 779.]

    Clause 103

      GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION
      Amendment proposed: No. 84, in page 76, line 27, at end insert:
      (5) In determining, on a complaint under section 94 of this Act, how far any loss sustained by the complainant was attributable to action taken by or on behalf of the employer, no account shall be taken of any pressure which was exercised on the employer as mentioned in section (Pressure on employer to infringe rights of workers) (1)(a) of this Act, and that question shall be determined as if no such pressure had been exercised.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 140.
      [For Divison List 316 see col. 783.]

    Clause 108

      ACTION INITIATED BY COMMISSION
      Amendment proposed: No. 236, in page 79, line 10, leave out '42' and insert
      '(Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent)'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put: That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 206, Noes 140.
      [For Division List 317 see col. 785.]

    Clause 119

      ACTS IN CONTEMPLATION OR FURTHERANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE
      Amendment proposed: No. 85, in page 84, line 39, after 'contract', insert
      'to which that other person is a party or prevents another person from performing such a contract'—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 142.
      [For Division List 318 see col. 789.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 86, in page 84, line 41 after 'broken', insert:
      'or will be prevented from being performed'. —[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
      The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 143.
      [For Division List 319 see col. 791.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 87, in page 84, line 43, at end insert
      'or will prevent another person from performing such a contract'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 138.
      [For Division List 320 see col. 795.]

    Clause 126

      ORDER OF INDUSTRIAL COURT ON APPLICATION UNDER S. 125
      Amendment proposed: No. 90, in page 88, line 8, at end insert
      'or
      (b) has no responsibility for calling, organising, procuring or financing the strike or other action in question, or for threatening to do so, except in his capacity as an official of a trade union acting within the scope of his authority on behalf of the trade union'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 139.
      [For Division List 321 see col. 797.]

    Clause 127

      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WHERE ORDER MADE UNDER S. 126
      Amendment proposed: No. 93, in page 89, line 1, after 'Where', insert:
      'at a time within the period for which the principal order is in force'—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 141.
      [For Division List 322 see col. 801.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 94, in page 89, line 5, after 'are', insert 'at that time'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 144.
      [For Division List 323 see col. 803.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 95, in page 89, line 7, after ' not ' insert ' then '—.[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 146.
      [For Division List 324 see col. 807.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 96, in page 89, line 12, at end insert:
      (4) In relation to any person to whom the principal order applies by virtue of an order made under subsection (3) of this section (in this subsection referred to as ' the supplementary order ') the supplementary order may impose any requirement which, in pursuance of section 126(5) of this Act, could have been imposed on him by the principal order if—

      (a) the principal order had been made at the time when, and in the circumstances in which, the supplementary order is made, and

      (b) he were one of the persons specified in the principal order.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 148.
      [For Division List 325 see col. 811.]

    Clause 134

      EFFECT OF STRIKE NOTICE
      Amendment proposed: No. 241, in page 93, line 41, at end insert—
      (2) Subject to the next following subsection, where an employee takes part in a strike after due notice of his intention to do so has been given by him or on his behalf, his action in taking part in the strike shall not be regarded as a breach of his contract of employment for the puposes of—

      (a) any proceedings in contract brought against the employee in respect of breach of that contract, or

      (b) any proceedings in tort, whether brought against the employee or brought against any other person, or

      (c) section 5 of the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875 (breach of contract involving injury to persons or property), or

      (d) section 85 of this Act.

      (3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to any action by an employee which is contrary to a term of his contract of employment (including any term applied or incorporated in that contract by reference to a collective agreement or by reference to any

      433
      provisions having effect as a contract by virtue of an order under section 39 of this Act) excluding or restricting his right to take part in a strike.
      (4) Nothing in subsection (2) of this section shall be taken to exclude or restrict any right which an employer would have apart from that subsection to dismiss (with or without notice) an employee who takes part in a strike.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Iremonger(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was the impression of many hon. Members that when you called for the voices there was a call of "Aye" but no call of "No". In these circumstances, does the House understand that it is to divide?
      Mr. Speaker: The House will have an opportunity of making a decision when I put the Question again in a few seconds.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment proposed: No. 242, in page 93, line 45, at end insert—
      (6) In the application of this section to Scotland, "proceedings in tort" shall be construed in accordance with section I24(a) of this Act.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 256, Noes 147.
      [For Division List 326 see col. 813.]

    Clause 140

      PROCEEDINGS AGAINST UNREGISTERED ORGANISATIONS
      Amendment proposed: No. 97, in page 97, line 35, leave out from beginning to 'if' in line 45 and insert—
      (3) Except as provided by the next following subsection, any judgment, order or award made in any such proceedings against an organisation to which this section applies (including any judgment or order directing the organisation to take, or to refrain or desist from taking, any action) shall be enforceable, by way of execution, diligence, punishment for contempt or otherwise, against any property belonging to, or held in trust for, the organisation, to the like extent and in the like manner as if the organisation were a body corporate.
      434
      (4) Recovery of any sum which in any such proceedings is awarded as compensation or damages, or in respect of costs or expenses, against an organisation to which this section applies shall not be enforceable against any property comprised in a fund belonging to or held in trust for the organisation.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 145.
      [For Division List 327 see col. 817.]

    Clause 141

      ORGANISATIONS OF WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS NOT TO BE REGISTERED UNDER OTHER ACTS
      Amendment proposed: No. 98, in page 98, line 1, leave out 'and no employers' association shall be ' and insert:
      'shall after the commencement of this Act, and no employers' association shall after being registered as an employers' association under this Act, become'.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 146.
      [For Division List 328 see col. 821.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 99, in page 98, line 6, leave out ' under any of those Acts ' and insert:
      'of an organisation of workers as a company under the Companies Act 1948, where the registration was effected before the commencement of this Act—,

      (a) shall become void at the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which section (Application for entry in special register) of this Act comes into operation, unless before the end of that period the organisation makes an application for entry in the special register, and

      (b) if such an application is so made, shall become void if on that application entry in the special register is refused.

      (3) Except in the case of registration of an organisation of workers as a company under the Companies Act 1948, any registration under any of the Acts specified in subsection (I) of this section'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 261, Noes 147.
      [For Division List 329 see col. 825.]

    Clause 149

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment proposed: No. 103, in page 104, line 6, leave out '6(2)' and insert:
      '(Pressure on employer to infringe rights of workers) (4)'.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 146.
      [For Division List 330 see col. 827.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 105, in page 105, line 18, at end insert:
      `the special register' has the meaning assigned to it by section (Organisations eligible for entry in special register) of this Act.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 147.
      [For Division List 331 see col. 831.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 106, in page 106, line 4, at end insert:
      (1A) Without prejudice to the generality of the definitions in subsection (1) of this section, in this Act—

      (a) `worker' includes an individual regarded in his capacity as one who works or normally works or seeks to work as a person providing general medical services, pharmaceutical services, general dental services or general ophthalmic services in accordance with arrangements made by an Executive Council under section 33, section 38, section 40 or section 41 of the National Health Service Act 1946 or under section 34, section 39, section 40 or section 42 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947; and

      (b) `employer' includes any Executive Council in accordance with whose arrangements a person provides or has provided or normally provides or seeks to provide any services as mentioned in the preceding paragraph.—[Mr. R. Carr.]

      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 152.
      [For Division List 332 see col. 835.]

    New Schedule
      PROVISIONS AS TO CERTAIN CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENTS
        PART I

          INITIAL APPLICATION TO INDUSTRIAL COURT
          1. Where one or more employers and one or more trade unions, or an employers' association and one or more trade unions, propose to enter into an agreement which, if made in accordance with proposals approved by the Industrial Court under this Schedule, would be an approved closed shop agreement, they may make a joint application to the Industrial Court under this Part of this Schedule.
          2. Any such application shall be accompanied by a draft of the proposed agreement, and shall be an application for approval by the Industrial Court of the proposals embodied in that draft.
          3. The Industrial Court shall not entertain any such application in respect of a draft agreement if either—

          (a) it is made before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which a previous application under this Part of this Schedule was made in respect of one or more descriptions of workers consisting of or including any of the descriptions of workers specified in the draft agreement, or

          (b) it is made before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the result of a ballot under Part II or Part III of this Schedule was reported to the Industrial Court, where the draft agreement relates (wholly or in part) to workers of any description comprised in that ballot.

          and shall not entertain any such application if precluded from doing so by paragraph 15 of this Schedule.
          4. Subject to paragraph 3 of this Schedule, on any application under this Part of this Schedule the Industrial Court shall refer the application to the Commission for examination by them.
          5.—(1) On a reference under paragraph 4 of this Schedule, the Commission shall consider whether it appears to them, in relation to workers of the description or descriptions specified in the draft agreement, that it is necessary for those workers to be comprised in an approved closed shop agreement for the purposes—

          (a) of enabling them to be organised, or to continue to be organised, as mentioned in section 1(1)(c) of this Act;

          (b) of maintaining reasonable terms and conditions of employment and reasonable prospects of continued employment for those workers;

          (c) of promoting or maintaining stable arrangements for collective bargaining relating to those workers; and

          (d) of preventing collective agreements relating to those workers, which have been

          437
          or may thereafter be made by the applicants, from being frustrated.

          (2) The Commission shall also consider whether it appears to them that in the circumstances the purposes specified in the preceding sub-paragraph could not reasonably be expected to he fulfilled by means of an agency shop agreement.
          6.—(1) On completing their consideration of the matters specified in paragraph 5 of this Schedule, the Commission shall prepare a report setting out their conclusions.
          (2) The Commission shall transmit the report to the Industrial Court and shall furnish copies of it to the applicants and to the Secretary of State, and shall arrange for the report to be published in such manner as the Commission may consider appropriate.
          7.—(1) If, on considering the matters specified in sub-paragraph (1) and (2) of paragraph 5 of this Schedule, the Commission are not satisfied both—

          (a) that for all the purposes specified in sub-paragraph (I) of that paragraph (and not only for one or some of those purposes) it is necessary for the workers in question to be comprised in an approved closed shop agreement, and

          (b) that in the circumstances those purposes could not reasonably be expected to be fulfilled by means of an agency shop agreement,

          the report of the Commission shall indicate that fact; and in that case the Industrial Court shall not proceed further with the application to which that report relates.
          (2) In any other case, the Industrial Court, on receiving the report of the Commission, shall make an order allowing such period, not being less than one month or more than three months, as the Court may consider appropriate for enabling an application to be made for a ballot under Part II of this Schedule.
          8. If, in a case where the Industrial Court makes an order under paragraph 7(2) of this Schedule, no application for a ballot is made under Part II of this Schedule before the end of the period allowed by the order, the Industrial Court shall make an order approving the proposals embodied in the draft agreement.

        PART II

          BALLOT AS TO APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT
          9.—(1) Where, in consequence of an application under Part I of this Schedule (in this Part of this Schedule referred to as ' the initial application '), the Industrial Court has made an order under paragraph 7(2) of this Schedule, then, at any time before the end of the period allowed by the order, any of the relevant workers may make an application to the Industrial Court under this Part of this Schedule.
          (2) In this Part of this Schedule—

          (a) 'the relevant workers', in relation to an application under this Part of this Schedule, means those workers who, on the date of that application, are workers to whom the proposed agreement would apply if it were made on that date, and

          438

          (b) `the proposed agreement' means an agreement in the form of the draft which accompanied the initial application.

          10. The Industrial Court shall not entertain an application under this Part of this Schedule unless the Court is satisfied that not less than one-fifth of the relevant workers have signified in writing their concurrence in the application.
          11.—(1) Where the Industrial Court entertains an application under this Part of this Schedule, the Court shall request the Commission to arrange for a ballot to be aken on the question whether the proposed agreement should be made.
          (2) The persons eligible to vote in the ballot shall be the workers who, on a date specified by the Commission in making arrangements for the ballot, are workers to whom the proposed agreement would apply.
          12. For the purpose of complying with a request made by the Industrial Court under paragraph 11(1) of this Schedule, the Commission shall determine whether the ballot is to be taken by the Commission or is to be taken under the supervision of the Commission by some other body, and in either case what arrangements would best secure—

          (a) that the ballot will be properly conducted, and

          (b) that the voting in the ballot will be kept secret,

          and shall arrange for the ballot to be taken accordingly.
          13. After the ballot has been taken, the Commission shall report the result of the ballot to the Industrial Court, to the person who made the application in pursuance of which the ballot w as taken and to each of the parties to the initial application.
          14. If the result of the ballot, as so reported, is that a majority of the workers eligible to vote in the ballot have voted in favour of the proposed agreement, the Industrial Court shall make an order approving the proposals embodied in the draft agreement which accompanied the initial application.
          15. If the result of the ballot, as so reported, is that a majority of the workers eligible to vote in the ballot have not voted in favour of the proposed agreement, then—

          (a) the Industrial Court shall not approve the proposals, and

          (b) during the period of two years beginning with the date on which that result was so reported, the Industrial Court shall not entertain any application under Part I of this Schedule if it relates (wholly or in part) to a description of workers to whom the initial application related.

        PART III

          BALLOT AS TO CONTINUANCE OF AGREEMENT
          16. Subject to the next following paragraph, at any time when an approved closed shop agreement is in force, any worker to whom the agreement applies may make an application to the Industrial Court for a ballot as to the continuance of the agreement.
          17. The Industrial Court shall not entertain any such application—

          (a) unless it is satisfied that not less than one-fifth of the workers to whom the agreement for the time being applies have signified in writing their concurrence in the application, or

          (b) if the application is made before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the result of a ballot under Part II of this Schedule relating to that agreement was reported by the Commission to the Court, or

          (c) if the application is made before the end of the period of two years beginning with the date on which the result of a previous ballot under this Part of this Schedule relating to that agreement was reported by the Commission to the Court.

          18.—(1) Where the Industrial Court entertains an application under this Part of this Schedule, the Court shall request the Commission to arrange for a ballot to be taken on the question whether the agreement to which the application relates should continue in force.
          (2) Paragraph 12 of this Schedule shall have effect in relation to a request under this paragraph as it has effect in relation to a request under paragraph 11(1) of this Schedule.
          (3) The persons eligible to vote in the ballot shall be the workers to whom the approved closed shop agreement for the time being applies.
          19. After the ballot has been taken, the Commission shall report the result of the ballot to the Industrial Court, to the person who made the application in pursuance of which the ballot was taken and to each of the parties to the agreement to which the ballot relates.
          20. If the result of the ballot, as so reported, is that a majority of the workers eligible to vote in the ballot have not voted in favour of the continuance of the approved closed shop agreement—

          (a) the Industrial Court shall revoke the order under Part I or Part II of this Schedule approving the proposals embodied in the draft agreement in accordance with which that agreement was made, and

          (b) the agreement shall thereupon cease to be an approved closed shop agreement.

        PART IV

          SPECIAL EXEMPTION FROM AGREEMENT
          21.—(1) Every approved closed shop agreement shall include provisions as to the principles in accordance with which, in the case of specially exempted workers, appropriate contributions to a charity are to be calculated.
          (2) Subsections (1) to (4) of section 8 of this Act shall (with the necessary modifications) have effect in relation to the formulation of those principles as they have effect in relation to the provisions of an agency shop agreement relating to appropriate contributions to a trade union in lieu of membership of the trade union.
          22.—(1) Any worker who—

          (a) in accordance with an approved closed shop agreement would, unless specially exempted, be required to become a member of a trade union, but

          (b) objects on grounds of conscience to being a member of a trade union,

          may propose to the trade union that, instead of becoming a member of it, he should agree to pay appropriate contributions to a charity to be determined by agreement between him and the trade union.
          (2) If the trade union agrees to the proposal, and the amount of the contributions, and the charity to which they are to be paid, are agreed between the worker and the trade union, the worker shall by virtue of that agreement be specially exempted for the purposes of section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act, and (subject to the next following paragraph) specially exempted' in that section shall be construed accordingly.
          23.—(1) If, in consequence of a proposal made by a worker to a trade union under paragraph 22 of this Schedule, a dispute arises between him and the trade union on any question—

          (a) whether his objections to being a member of a trade union are genuinely objections on grounds of conscience, or

          (b) to which charity the contributions should be payable, or

          (c) what contributions to a charity would be appropriate contributions in accordance with the approved closed shop agreement, or

          (d) whether the provisions of that agreement relating to contributions to a charity conform to the requirements of paragraph 21(2) of this Schedule,

          the question in dispute may, in accordance with industrial tribunal regulations, be referred to and determined by an industrial tribunal.
          (2) Any matter determined by the decision of an industrial tribunal on a reference under this paragraph shall have the like effect for the purposes of section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act and of this Part of this Schedule as if it had been agreed between the worker and the trade union.

        PART V

          SUPPLEMENTARY
          24. Where an approved closed shop agreement is made between one or more employers and one or more trade unions, any reference in section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act to an employer to whom the agreement applies shall be construed as a reference to that employer or any of those employers, as the case may be.
          25. Where an approved closed shop agreement is made between an employers' association and one or more trade unions—

          (a) if the agreement is expressed to be made by the employers' association on behalf

          441
          of one or more employers specified in the agreement, any reference in section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) of this Act to an employer to whom the agreement applies shall be cnstrued as a reference to that employer or any of those employers, as the case may be, but

          (b) in any other case, any reference in that section to an employer to whom the agreement applies shall be construed as a reference to any employer who is for the time being a member of that employers' association, whether he was a member of it on the date on which the agreement was made or not.

          26. In this Schedule approved closed shop agreement' has the meaning assigned to it by section (Special provisions for approval of closed shop agreement) (1) of this Act and ' charity' has the meaning assigned to it by section 9(3) of this Act.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
          Brought up, and read the First time.
          Question put, That the Schedule be added to the Bill:—
          The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 154.
          [For Division List 333 see col. 839.]

    Schedule 3

      REQUIREMENTS AS TO RULES OF TRADE UNIONS AND EMPLOYERS' ASSOCIATIONS.
      Anmdment proposed: No. 108, in page 123, line 34. at end insert—
      14. The rules must specify a reasonable charge to be made for the supply of copies of the rules in accordance with section 81(5) of this Act.—[Mr. R. Carr.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 155.
      [For Division List 334 see col. 841.]
      Bill, as amended, to be read the Third time this day.

      REDEMPTION OF STANDARD SECURITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. George Younger.]

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT (HUNTERSTON)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodhew.]
11.41 a.m.
Sir Fitzroy Maclean: I had hoped that on this important subject I would address one of the fullest Houses I have experienced in my 30 years as an hon. Member. However, I am glad to see as many hon. Members in their places on both sides as are here because this is a matter of very great importance indeed.
Most surviving hon. Members—if "surviving" is the right word after that all-night marathon—are agreed, if they are agreed on anything, that we need more industrial development in Scotland. With the unemployment figures at their present level, we could hardly want anything else. However, what we need is not just any development anywhere, because that could defeat its own object, but the right development in the right place, and this is where differences and divergences of opinion are apt to crop up.
As soon as one starts comparing the relative merits and demerits of various projects and sites, one comes up against many highly complex and technical problems which require expert knowledge, in particular in deciding what contribution this or that project is likely to make to the economy, how much employment it will give and whether the advantages of siting it here or there are likely to outweigh the disadvantages.
Moreover, no one project or site can be considered in isolation. It must be thought of as forming part of a larger whole—as part of the social and economic life of Scotland, first and foremost, but also of the United Kingdom—and it must be thought of in relation to amenities and the environment, because heavy industry is not everything. Recreation and health are also important, as is the tourist industry, which is of far greater economic importance than many people realise and which cannot exist if one takes away the amenities on which it depends.
All these considerations clearly apply to the present proposals for industrial development at or near Hunterston.

443
When the proposals for iron ore and oil terminals, a steel complex and an oil refinery were first put forward, it was clear that before any conclusion could be arrived at a lot of questions would need answering—questions about the value of these projects to the economy, the number of jobs they would provide locally and the suitability of this particular site by comparison with other possible sites from a technical, navigational, security and amenity point of view.
These were questions which it was beyond most of us to answer, but Ayr County Council, with negligible expert advice, somehow managed within a few weeks to arrive at what one can only describe as a snap decision in favour of immediate and indiscriminate industrialisation.
This decision, not unnaturally, aroused great indignation locally. The result, as we know, was the establishment of a public inquiry, which, I understand, cost more and lasted longer than any public inquiry in the history of Scotland. Nevertheless, it was welcomed by most people because it was felt that it would provide the answers for which we were looking.
I do not think anybody could have felt anything but impressed by the care and thoroughness with which the public inquiry was conducted and the scrupulously fair way in which the immense volume of evidence that was brought forward was considered, sifted and evaluated. By the time it was over everyone concerned would have been prepared to accept as impartial and well-founded the conclusions arrived at by the distinguished reporter.
Most people felt that, after all the time that had been taken and all the money that had been spent by both private individuals and the public, as taxpayers and ratepayers, the report would provide the answers for which we were looking—answers which it would otherwise have been impossible to arrive at. The majority of people felt that the purpose of such an inquiry was to discover what was really in the public interest and to enable everyone to see that justice was being done.
They were encouraged in this view by the outcome, at about this time, of the
444
earlier Murco public inquiry, when the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who yields to no one in his anxiety to bring industry to Scotland, nevertheless decided to accept the reporter's recommendation against the siting of an American oil refinery and terminal higher up the Clyde.
When it became known that the reporter had indeed provided answers—rational, well-reasoned and well-informed answers—to practically all the questions to which answers were required—and, what is more, answers which took due account of the needs of industry, opinion and amenity—it appeared to most of those concerned that a satisfactory solution had been arrived at.
This is why it came as all the more of a shock when they read on and discovered that the Secretary of State had quite arbitrarily rejected most of the reporter's recommendations and, in particular, those which sought to safeguard the natural amenities of one of the most beautiful areas of Scotland.
What has made the verdict even more unacceptable is that there seems very little reason to suppose that any of the projects which actually look like coming to Hunterston, with the exception of the ore terminal, will really be worth while, will bring much employment locally or could not have been equally well sited somewhere else.
I know that in theory there is no appeal against the Secretary of State's decision. But I also happen to know that he and the Prime Minister will have an opportunity in the next couple of days literally to go over things again on the spot. I very much hope that they will use this opportunity to reconsider the whole problem, to have another think.
We are told that, to survive, the existing Scottish steel industry must have a new ore terminal, and, if the middle Clyde is the best site for it, there clearly are, as the reporter recognised, strong arguments for putting it there—although it does not appear to me that the rival claims of Ardrossan, in my constituency, which is crying out for development, only three miles away, or Ardmore for that matter, have ever been properly examined as alternatives to Hunterston.
I want to look at the proposal for what amounts to a new industrial estate

445
adjoining a possible superport. I do not find this proposal at all convincing. A new mammoth, £1,000 million steel complex, if it ever came, though clearly disastrous to the environment, would at least be industrialisation on the grand scale—and pollution on the grand scale. Apart, however, from the immense financial and social cost of shifting Scottish steel from Motherwell to Hunterston, there seem to be a number of hard economic reasons why this may never happen. Nor am I convinced that a superport, as envisaged in the Oceanspan scheme, is very likely to materialise either.
It seems that by rezoning the area for industry in anticipation of something that quite possibly will not happen, my right hon. Friend is all too likely to end up by falling between two stools and ruining the amenities of the Clyde for the sake of one or two tin-tack factories which would give very little employment locally and which could perfectly well have been sited elsewhere. In view of the conclusion reached by the reporter, I hope that my right hon. Friend may even now feel able to reconsider his decision on this issue.
But these are, for the most part, only long-term possibilities. On the other hand, there is one immediate project on which the Secretary of State has not yet given a ruling; namely, Chevron Oil's application to build forthwith a shoreside refinery and oil terminal at Portencross on the south side of the peninsula. I need not rehearse the arguments which led the reporter to recommend that this proposal should be rejected: the damage to amenities, agriculture and tourism, the danger of pollution, the negligible benefit to the economy, the small number of jobs involved and so on. But, instead of accepting the reporter's recommendation and rejecting the application out of hand, the Secretary of State saw fit to delay a decision until fresh evidence could be adduced by one of his right hon. Friends on behalf of the oil company.
This evidence, now that we have it, does not, quite frankly, amount to much. It purports to show, first, that, instead of a surplus, there is a shortage of refining capacity in the United Kingdom. Secondly, it tells us in effect that the profits to the American shareholders will
446
not be quite so big if Chevron has to pipe the oil from the terminal to the refinery.
To take the second of these pieces of evidence first, it seems that the information is self-evident and not particularly relevant. We naturally wish the American shareholders well, but on condition that their gain should not be our loss, as in this case it undoubtedly would be.
As for the first bit of evidence, even if it were true last month, it has surely lost much of its validity this month with the welcome news of the proposed British Petroleum refinery at Grangemouth. In this connection, I emphasise the word "British".
So the Secretary of State, having in the first place resorted to the somewhat surprising expedient of allowing selected witnesses to adduce additional evidence after the inquiry was supposed to be closed, now seems, with the emergence of yet another set of facts, to have been neatly hoist with his own petard, which is surely something which should not have happened to such a distinguished artillery officer.
I hope once again, that in these most unusual circumstances he will read the report again and then follow the excellent example of his predecessor in office by refusing to let this beautiful stretch of the Clyde be defiled and polluted, all for a mess of American oil.
There remains one vital question, namely, that of nuclear security. When a first nuclear power station was sited at Hunterston, more than 10 years ago, it was officially stated that for safety reasons it had to be sited well away from any large centres of industry or population—which is primarily why it was put at Hunterston. But now there is talk of steel complexes and oil refineries and the infrastructure that goes with them all being sited only a few hundred yards from the original nuclear power station, Hunterston A, and any question of security seems at first sight to have been entirely forgotten.
I happen to know, however, that it has not been entirely forgotten, because, by a rare bit of luck, whoever happened to be licking up a letter to me from the Scottish Office under the last Administration enclosed the whole of the departmental minutes along with the Minister's reply. From these I was able

447
to discover that at that time, in 1969, the original extremely stringent restrictions on Hunterston A were still regarded as being in force. Now, for some reason, possibly some security reason, the public inquiry does not seem to have elicited a clear answer on this point. But I want a clear answer, because for thousands of my constituents this could literally be a matter of life or death.
So I would ask my hon. Friend, when he replies, to tell me whether, as of now, the former security restrictions on Hunterston are or are not still regarded as applying, and, if not, whether this is because these restrictions, which were still in force in 1969, are now, in 1971, deemed, on technical and scientific grounds, to be out of date, or whether—and this I can hardly believe possible—it is because the Government's enthusiasm for industrial development on this particular site is such that they are prepared to take a gamble with the lives of a good many thousands of my constituents.
12 noon
Dr. J. Dickson Mahon: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) and to the Minister for allowing me a minute or two to comment on this matter and make the position of my right hon. and hon. Friends clear.
To take up the past point made by the hon. Gentleman, I agree that he is perfectly entitled to ask for that assurance in view of the seriousness of the matter which he has raised, which is one which concerned us, and still concerns us, on this side. However, despite his remarks about the inquiry, the nature of the facts elicited at the inquiry, and the reporter's own opinion, we very much agree with the Secretary of State's decision on this vital matter.
We are concerned to know whether this lengthy inquiry is to be reconstituted and yet again extended. May we know whether the Secretary of State has come to the conclusion that the inquiry should be reopened? It is most important that we know what is happening in this area. It is a matter of great urgency, and it is one entirely for the Secretary of State in his capacity as planning Minister for Scotland.
While we are glad that the Prime Minister is very soon to fly over this
448
area with the Secretary of State—we wish them bon voyage—I should make clear clear that we regard this foray as one in which the Prime Minister is assessing, with the Secretary of State, the need for a large steel complex in this area, and that question is most pertinent to the Prime Minister's visit.
We understand from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that there is at present going on a six-to-eight-week review of the steel investment programme, which vitally affects the future investment of the British Steel Corporation. We hope that the Scottish Office will convince the Prime Minister that, should there be a large plant—and we all hope that there will be one—it should be sited at the best navigable site; namely, at Hunterston, for there is nowhere else in the United Kingdom.
12.2 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) on securing this Adjournment debate on a matter which I know to be of the greatest importance to all his constituents, whose interests he has been closely watching throughout the whole controversy. I pay tribute to the way in which he has done that and also to the manner in which he has raised the matter in the House today. Also, I thank the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) for keeping his remarks brief so that I may have time, I hope, to answer a number of the points which have been raised.
Perhaps it would be most helpful to the House if I first briefly recapitulated the history and the present position of the proposals for development at Hunterston. At the beginning of 1969 the Clyde Estuary Development Study Report identified Hunterston as potentially a deep-water terminal and as a possible site for steel working and oil refining. Later that year, the Chevron Oil Company applied for planning permission for an oil refinery with associated marine oil terminal.
It seemed desirable to look at all the possible uses of the peninsula as comprehensively as possible, and it was arranged that Ayr County Council would submit a development plan amendment zoning land for an ore terminal, a

449
general user port, an integrated steel works and an oil refinery with marine oil terminal. It submitted this amendment at the end of June, 1969. A great many objections were received and a public local inquiry—my hon friend said it was the longest for a long time, if not the longest ever—in preparation for which a great deal of evidence was circulated in writing beforehand, was arranged. This inquiry lasted from mid-November, 1969, to mid-February, 1970.
The report was received last summer, and the Secretary of State's decisions on it were issued on 9th December, 1970. Briefly, these decisions were that land should be zoned for an ore terminal and a general user port; that a further tract of land would be zoned for industry, but that a decision as to whether this land could be used for an integrated steel works would be postponed until the economic case for doing so could be more closely examined on the basis of a planning application.
No decision was taken on the oil refinery because it had emerged during consideration of the report that the evidence affecting the oil refinery application was in some important respects out of date. Since December, a memorandum by the Department of Trade and Industry supplementing the evidence on the oil refinery has been circulated to parties and has drawn a good deal of comment. It seems likely that the inquiry will have to be reopened at the beginning of May to consider the supplementary evidence by the Department of Trade and Industry and the comments on it, but this is still under consideration. I assure the House that there will be no undue delay in my right hon. Friend coming to a decision on this point.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: Will it be circumscribed to this issue or will it go wider?
Mr. Younger: It will be confined to the issue of the evidence, the new evidence, produced by the Department of Trade and Industry in connection with this particular part of the proposals.
My hon. Friend suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had rejected most of the recommendations of the reporter. With respect, I ask him to look at that again, because my
450
right hon. Friend's actual decision letter does not bear that interpretation. In fact, he departed from the reporter only in asking for more evidence on the Chevron proposal and on zoning for industry, without commitment to the land being proposed for the steel development itself.
My hon. Friend asked, also, why these recommendations of the reporter were rejected at all. I wonder whether that reflects some misunderstanding of the purpose of public inquiries and the rôle of reporters taking them. A reporter is responsible for the conduct of the inquiry and for the collation of the evidence in writing in such a way as to facilitate systematic examination leading to a decision. My right hon. Friend is very grateful to Mr. Keith, the reporter in this case, for his performance of this Herculean task.
A reporter may also make recommendations, and he usually does so, although he is not absolutely obliged to do so. But he has no responsibility whatever for the decision. This rests solely with the Secretary of State, and, so far as I know, has always done so. To regard any Secretary of State as bound by the recommendations of the reporter would, in effect, be to accord the power of decision to a private individual, who, whatever his personal merits, had no statutory responsibility and no elective office.
Sir F. Maclean: But will not my hon. Friend agree that in more than 90 per cent. of cases it is usual for the Secretary of State to accept the reporter's conclusions?
Mr. Younger: I could not be precise about it, but certainly in the majority of cases that is done, and it is a reflection of the excellence of the general system. Nevertheless, it is important to realise that ultimately the decision must be, and is, taken by the Secretary of State.
The safeguard of democracy is that the Secretary of State must take his decision on the evidence assembled for him by the reporter and must publicly relate his reasons to that evidence. I am sure that most people will agree that that is exactly what my right hon. Friend did.
My hon. Friend stressed the harm to amenity which would result from development at Hunterston. I do not doubt or deny that for a moment. Indeed,

451
it was made perfectly clear by the reporter that the harm to amenity would be very great. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is well aware of this, too, as a passage in his decision letter of 9th December makes perfectly clear:
"The Secretary of State accepts that the siting of a steel works at Hunterston would have very serious am city consequences. The long-term economic and social advantages of doing so for Great Britain as a whole, and for Scotland particularly, could prove, however, to be more than sufficient to offset the amenity disadvantages …".
That passage refers to the proposals for a steel works, which cannot be fully explored until a planning application has been made. I hope that the balance of these factors will be borne in mind by all concerned, because they are of the utmost importance in our consideration of all these questions.
My hon. Friend raised an important question when he asked what would happen in the future in relation to other applications. The first point to make about any further planning applications which may be received is that they will be called in and dealt with by the Secretary of State himself. That is the most important effect of the decision as regards the area of land originally zoned for the steel works.
From now on, the Secretary of State will personally oversee each and every application in respect of that particular piece of ground. Therefore, the fears which my hon. Friend expressed can be allayed. I think he suggested that the ground might find itself covered with a succession of tin-tack factories. I cannot think that that is likely. Indeed, the Secretary of State's oversight of each application is some assurance that he has no intention, and would not, I am sure, have any intention, of allowing that sort of development on these sites.
My hon. Friend also asked about the alternative sites. Of course there are
452
alternative sites which were considered during the inquiry. He suggested that these possibilities still merited further exploration. I ask him to look at the report again, because examination of it will show that both Ardmore and Ardrossan were given exhaustive attention during the inquiry. Individuals may disagree with the conclusions of both the reporter and the Secretary of State on the relative merits of the three, but I am not aware that any new evidence affecting this issue has come to light since the inquiry.
As between the three alternatives, the reporter emerged with a clear conviction of the superiority of Hunterston as a deep water shipping terminal. Once again I quote from the letter of 9th December:
"Hunterston is superior to the other sites considered at the inquiry, having regard to depth of water; number of days in the year for safe berthing; the cost of works for equipping the terminal. Hunterston could provide access for the largest ships envisaged at present, and offers sheltered waters where they will be able to exploit their economic advantages to the full by prompt berthing, unloading and loading. It is free of the dredging and navigational difficulties of Ardmore. If large ships only are to be provided for, facilities at Hunterston can be provided at appreciably less cost than at Ardmore and for marginally less than Ardrossan. If both large and small ships are to be provided for, it is much cheaper than either of these possible alternatives."
I do not know of anything that can be added to that.
My hon. Friend also asked about the question of additional evidence on the oil refinery. I have mentioned that we expect the possibility—
The Question having been proposed after Twelve o'clock on Tuesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at eleven minutes past Twelve noon.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
Division No. 278.]

AYES

[12.11 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Farr, John

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Fell, Anthony

Kinsey, J. R.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Kirk, Peter

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Fidler, Michael

Kitson, Timothy

Astor, John

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Atkins, Humphrey

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Knox, David

Awdry, Daniel

Fleteher-Cooke, Charles

Lambton, Antony

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Lane, David

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Foster, Sir John

Langford-HOM, Sir John

Balniel, Lord

Fowler, Norman

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Batsford, Brian

Fox, Marcus

Le Marchant, Spencer

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

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

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cosport)

Fry, Petto-

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

Benyon, W.

Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

Longden, Gilbert

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Gardner, Edward

Loveridge, John

Biffen, John

Gibson Watt, David

McCrindle, R. A.

Biggs-Davison, John

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

McLaren, Martin

Blaker, Peter

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Godber, Rt. Hn. J B.

McMaster, Stanley

Body, Richard

Goodhart, Philip

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Boscawen, Robert

Goodhew, Victor

McNair-Wilson Michael

Bossom, Sir Clive

Gorst, John

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Bowden, Andrew

Gower, Raymond

Madel, David

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Gray, Hamish

Maginnis, John E.

Braine, Bernard

Green, Alan

Marpies, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Bray, Ronald

Grieve, Percy

Marten, Nell

Brewis, John

Griffiths, Elden (Bury St. Edmunds)

Mather, Carol

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Gryll, Michael

Maude, Angus

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Gummer, Selwyn

Mawby, Ray

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Gurden, Harold

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Buck, Antony

Half-Davis, A. G. F.

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Burden, F. A.

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Miscampbell, Norman

Butler, Adam (Boswortth)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Cary, Sir Robert

Haselhurst, Alan

Moate, Roger

Channon, Paul

Hastngs, Stephen

Molyneaux, James

Chapman, Sydney Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Havers, Michael

Money, Ernie

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hawkins, Paul

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Churchill, W. S.

Hay, John

Monro, Hector

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Hayhoe, Barney

Montgomery, Fergus

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Clegg, Walter

Heseltine, Michael

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Cockeram, Eric

Hicks, Robert

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Cooke, Robert

Higgins, Terence L.

Mudd, David

Coombs, Derek

Hiley, Joseph

Murton, Oscar

Cordle, John

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

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Neave, Airey

Cormack, Patrick

Holland, Philip

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Costain, A. P.

Holt, Miss Mary

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Critchley, Julian

Hooson, Emlyn

Normanton, Tom

Crouch, David

Hordern, Peter

Nott, John

Crowder, F. P.

Hornby, Richard

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Curran, Charles

Hernsby-Smith.Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigale)

Osborn, John

Howell, David (Guildford)

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

Hunt, John

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Dean, Paul

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pereival, Ian

Dixon, Piers

Iremonger, T. L.

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

James, David

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alee

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Pink, R. Bonner

Jessel, Toby

Pounder, Rafton

Drayson, G. B.

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Dykes, Hugh

Jopling, Michael

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

Eden, Sir John

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

Raison, Timothy

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

Kershaw, Anthony

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Emery, Peter

Kimball, Marcus

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Eyre, Reginald

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

460

461

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Sproat, Iain

Vaughan, Eric C.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Stainton, Keith

vickers, Dame Joan

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Waddington, David

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Hillsdale, Julian

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Wall, Patrick

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Stokes, John

Walters, Dennis

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Ward, Dame Irene

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Sutcliffe, John

Warren, Kenneth

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Tapsell, Peter

Weatherill, Bernard

Rost, Peter

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Royle, Anthony

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

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Taylor, Frank, (Moss Side)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Wiggin, Jerry

Scott, Nicholas

Tebbit, Norman

Wilkinson, John

Scott-Hopkins, James

Temple, John M.

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Sharpies, Richard

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

Woodnutt, Mark

Simeons, Charles

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Worsley, Marcus

Sinclair, Sir George

Tilney, John

Wylie, Rt. Hn, N. R.

Skeet, T. H. H.

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Younger, Hn. George

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

Trew, Peter

Soref, Harold

Tugendhat, Christopher

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Speed, Keith

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Mr. Tim Fortescue and

Spence, John

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Mr. Jasper More.

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Harper, Joseph

Orme, Stanley

Armstrong, Ernest

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Palmer, Arthur

Ashton, Joe

Heffer, Eric S.

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Atkinson, Norman

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Pavitt, Laurie

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Huckfield, Leslie

Pendry, Tom

Bidwell, Sydney

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Prescott, John

Bradley, Tom

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, William (Rugby)

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

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Buchan, Norman

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

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

Janner, Greville

Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Cacrnarvon)

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

Cant, R. B.

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

Roper, John

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

John, Brynmor

Rose, Paul B.

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Short,Mrs.Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Cohen, Stanley

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Sillars, James

Concannon, J. D.

Judd, Frank

Silverman, Julius

Crawshaw, Richard

Kaufman, Gerald

Skinner, Dennis

Cronin, John

Kerr, Russell

Small, William

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

Kinnock, Neil

Spearing, Nigel

Dalyell, Tam

Lamond, James

Stallard, A. W.

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Latham, Arthur

Steel, David

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Leadbitter, Ted

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Deakins, Eric

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Strang, Gavin

Dempsey, James

Lipton, Marcus

Swain, Thomas

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lomas, Kenneth

Taverne, Dick

Driberg, Tom

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

Duffy, A. E. P.

McBride, Neil

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Dunnett, Jack

McCartney, Hugh

Tinn, James

Eadie, Alex

McElhone, Frank

Torney, Tom

English, Michael

Mackenzie, Gregor

Tuck, Raphael

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Mackintosh, John P.

Urwin, T. W.

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

McNamara, J. Kevin

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

Fischer, Ted (Darlington)

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Foot, Michael

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

Wellbeloved, James

Forrester, John

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Mendelson, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Gilbert, Dr. John

Millan, Bruce

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Ginsburg, David

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Golding, John

Molloy, William

Wilson William (Coventry, S.)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Handing, William

Murray, Ronald King

Mr. Kenneth Marks and

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Ogden, Eric

Mr. Alan Fitch.

Hardy, Peter

O'Halloran, Michael

462

463

Division No. 279.]

AYES

[12.25 a.m.

Fowler, Norman

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Adley, Robert

Fox, Marcus

Madel, David

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

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

Maginnis, John E.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Fry, Peter

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Gardner, Edward

Marten, Neil

Astor, John

Gibson-Watt, David

Mather, Carol

Atkins, Humphrey

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Maude, Angus

Awdry, Daniel

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Mawby, Ray

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)

Goodhart, Philip

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Balniel, Lord

Gorst, John

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Batsford, Brian

Cower, Raymond

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Gray, Hamish

Miscampbell, Norman

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Green, Alan

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

Benyon, W.

Grieve, Percy

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Griffiths, Elden (Bury St. Edmunds)

Moate, Roger

Biffen, John

Grylls, Michael

Molyneaux, James

Biggs-Davison, John

Gummer, Selwyn

Money, Ernie

Blaker, Peter

Gurden, Harold

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Montgomery, Fergus

Body, Richard

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

More, Jasper

Boscawen, Robert

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Bowden, Andrew

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Mudd, David

Braine, Bernard

Haselhurst, Alan

Murton, Oscar

Bray, Ronald

Hastings, Stephen

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Brewis, John

Havers, Michael

Neave, Airey

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Hawkins, Paul

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hay, John

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Hayhoe, Barney

Normanton, Tom

Gryan, Paul

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Nott, John

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

Heseltine, Michael

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Buck, Antony

Hicks, Robert

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Bullus, Sir Eric

Higgins, Terence L.

Osborn, John

Burden, F. A.

Hiley, Joseph

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Cary, Sir Robert

Holland, Philip

Percival, Ian

Channon, Paul

Holt, Miss Mary

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Chapman, Sydney

Hornby, Richard

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Pink, R. Bonner

Chichester-Clark, R.

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Pounder, Rafton

Church, W. S.

Howell, David (Guildford)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Clarke., Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hunt, John

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

Clegg, Walter

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Cockcram, Eric

Iremonger, T. L.

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Cooke, Robert

James, David

Raison, Timothy

Coombs, Derek

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Cordle, John

Jessel, Toby

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Cormack, Patrick

Jones, Arthur (Northants, 8.)

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Costain, A. P.

Jopling, Michael

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Critchley, Julian

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Crouch, David

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Crowder, F. P.

Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Curran, Charles

Kershaw, Anthony

Ridsdale, Julian

Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

Kimball, Marcus

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Harry

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Dean, Paul

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Dixon, Piers

Kinsey, J. R.

Rost, Peter

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Kirk, Peter

Royle, Anthony

Drayson, G. B.

Kitson, Timothy

Russell, Sir Ronald

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Knight, Mrs. Jill

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Dykes, Hugh

Knox, David

Scott, Nicholas

Eden, Sir John

Lambton, Antony

Scott-Hopkins, James

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lane, David

Sharpies, Richard

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Langford-Holt, Sir John

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

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

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Emery, Peter

Le Marchant, Spencer

Simeons, Charles

Eyre, Reginald

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Sinclair, Sir George

Farr, John

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

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fell, Anthony

Longden, Gilbert

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

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Loveridge, John

Soref, Harold

Fidler, Michael

McCrindle, R. A.

Speed, Keith

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

McLaren, Martin

Spence, John

Fisher, N'gel (Surbiron)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

Sproat, Iain

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

McMaster, Stanley

Stainton, Keith

Fookes, Miss Janet

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fortescue, Tim

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

464

465

Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh W.)

Tilney, John

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Stokes, John

Trew, Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Sruttaford, Dr. Tom

Tugendhat, Christopher

Wilkinson, John

Sutcliffe, John

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Tapsell, Peter

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Vickers, Dame Joan

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

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

Waddington, David

Woodnutt, Mark

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Worsley, Marcus

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Tebbit, Norman

Wall, Patrick

Younger, Hn. George

Temple, John M.

Walters, Dennis

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Ward, Dame Irene

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Warren, Kenneth

Mr. Hector Monro and

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

Weatherill, Bernard

Mr. Victor Goodhew.

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

O'Halloran, Michael

Armstrong, Ernest

Hardy, Peter

Orme, Stanley

Ashton, Joe

Harper, Joseph

Palmer, Arthur

Atkinson, Norman

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Heffer, Eric S.

Pavitt, Laurie

Bidwell, Sydney

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Pendry, Tom

Bradley, Tom

Huckfield, Leslie

Prescott, John

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

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Price, William (Rugby)

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

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

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Janner, Greville

Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)

Cant, R. B.

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

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

Roper, John

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

John, Brynmor

Rose, Paul B.

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Short, Mrs.Renée (W'hamptonN,E.)

Cohen, Stanley

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Concannon, J. D.

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Sillars, James

Crawshaw, Richard

Judd, Frank

Silverman, Julius

Cronin, John

Kaufman, Gerald

Skinner, Dennis

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

Kinnock, Neil

Small, William

Dalyell, Tam

Lamond, James

Spearing, Nigel

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Latham, Arthur

Stallard, A. W.

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Leadbitter, Ted

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Deakins, Eric

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Strang, Gavin

Dempsey, James

Lipton, Marcus

Swain, Thomas

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lomas, Kenneth

Taverne, Dick

Driberg, Tom

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

Duffy, A. E. P.

McBride, Neil

Tinn, James

Dunnett, Jack

McCartney, Hugh

Torney, Tom

Eadie, Alex

Mackenzie, Gregor

Tuck, Raphael

English, Michael

Mackintosh, John P.

Urwin, T. W.

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

McNamara, J. Kevin

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

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

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

Wellbeloved, James

Foot, Michael

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Forrester, John

Mendelson, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Millan, Bruce

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Ginsburg, David

Molloy, William

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Golding, John

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Mr. Kenneth Marks and

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Murray, Ronald King

Mr. Alan Fitch.

Hamling, William

Ogden, Eric

Division No. 280.]

AYES

[12.36 a.m.

Adley, Robert

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Bowden, Andrew

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

Brains, Bernard

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Benyon, W.

Bray, Ronald

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Brewis, John

Astor, John

Bitten, John

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Atkins, Humphrey

Biggs-Davison, John

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Awdry, Daniel

Baker, Peter

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Bryan, Paul

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Body, Richard

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

Balniel, Lord

Boscawen, Robert

Buck, Antony

Batsford, Brian

Bossom, Sir Clive

Bullus, Sir Eric

466

467

Burden, F. A.

Hornby, Richard

Pink, R. Bonner

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hornsby-Smith Rt.Hn.DamePatricla

Pounder, Ration

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Rugate)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Cary, Sir Robert

Howell, David (Guildford)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Channon, Paul

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

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

Chapman, Sydney

Hunt, John

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Chichester-Clark, R.

Iremonger, T. L.

Raison, Timothy

Churchill, W. S.

James, David

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Jessel, Toby

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Clegg, Walter

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cockeram, Eric

Jones, Arthur, (Northants, S.)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Cooke, Robert

Jopling, Michael

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Coombs, Derek

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Cordle, John

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Ridsdale, Julian

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Cormack, Patrick

Kershaw, Anthony

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Costain, A. P.

Kimball, Marcus

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Critchley, Julian

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Rost, Peter

Crouch, David

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Crowder, F. P.

Kinsey, J. R.

St. John-Stsvas, Norman

Curran, Charles

Kirk, Peter

Scott, Nicholas

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.

Kitson, Timothy

Scott-Hopkins, James

Dean, Paul

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Sharpies, Richard

Dixon, Piers

Knox, David

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

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Lambton, Antony

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Drayson, G. B.

Lane, David

Simeons, Charles

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Sinclair, Sir George

Dykes, Hugh

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Skeet, T. H. H.

Eden, Sir John

Le Marchant, Spencer

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

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Soref, Harold

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

Speed, Keith

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

Longden, Gilbert

Spence, John

Emery, Peter

Loveridge, John

Sproat, Iain

Eyre, Reginald

McCrindle, R. A.

Stainton, Keith

Farr, John

McLaren, Martin

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fell, Anthony

McMaster, Stanley

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)

Stokes, John

Fidler, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Sutcliffe, John

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Madel, David

Tapsell, Peter

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Maginnis, John E.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

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

Fortescue, Tim

Marten, Neil

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Fowler, Norman

Mather, Carol

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Fox, Marcus

Maude, Angus

Tebbit, Norman

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

Temple, John M.

Mawby, Ray

Fry, Peter

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret.

Gardner, Edward

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Gibson-Watt, David

Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Tilney, John

Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

Miscampbeil, Norman

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Goodhart, Philip

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

Trew, Peter

Goodhew, Victor

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Corst, John

Moate, Roger

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Cower, Raymond

Molyneaux, James

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Gray, Hamish

Money, Ernle

Vickers, Dame Joan

Green, Alan

Monks, Mrs. Connie

waddington, David

Grieve, Percy

Monro, Hector

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Grylls, Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Cummer, Selwyn

More, Jasper

Walters, Dennis

Gurden, Harold

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Ward, Dame Irene

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Warren, Kenneth

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Weatherill, Bernard

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mudd, David

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Murton, Oscar

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Neave, Airey

Wiggin, Jerry

Haselhurst, Alan

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Wilkinson, John

Hastings, Stephen

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Havers Michael

Normanton, Tom

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Hayhoe, Barney

Nott, John

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Woodnutt, Mark

Heseltine, Michael

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Worsley, Marcus

Hicks, Robert

Osborn, John

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Higgins, Terence L.

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Younger, Hn. George

Hiley, Joseph

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Percival, Ian

Mr. Paul Hawkins and

Holland, Philip

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Mr. Hugh Rossi.

Hordern, Peter

Pike, Miss Mervyn

468

469

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

O'Halloran, Michael

Armstrong, Ernest

Hardy, Peter

Orme, Stanley

Ashton, Joe

Harper, Joseph

Palmer, Arthur

Atkinson, Norman

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Heffer, Eric S.

Pavitt, Laurie

Bidwell, Sydney

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Pendry, Tom

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

Huckfield, Leslie

Prescott, John

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Price, Will am (Rugby)

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Cant, R. B.

Janner, Greville

Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

Roper, John

Clark, David (Colme Valley)

John, Brynmor

Rose, Paul B.

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Cohen, Stanley

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)

Concannon, J. D.

domes, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Crawshaw, Richard

Judd, Frank

Sillars, James

Cronin, John

Kaufman, Gerald

Silverman, Julius

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

Kerr, Russell

Skinner, Dennis

Dalyell, Tam

Kinnock, Neil

Small, William

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Lamond, James

Spearing, Nigel

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Latham, Arthur

Stallard, A. W.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Leadbitter, Ted

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Deakins, Eric

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Dempsey, James

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Strang, Gavin

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lipton, Marcus

Swain, Thomas

Driberg, Tom

Lomas, Kenneth

Taverne, Dick

Duffy, A. E. P.

McBride, Neil

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

Dunnett, Jack

McCartney, Hugh

Tinn, James

Eadie, Alex

Mackenzie, Gregor

Torney, Tom

English, Michael

Mackintosh, John P.

Urwin, T. W.

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

McNamara, J. Kevin

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

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

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

Wellbeloved, James

Foot, Michael

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Forrester, John

Mendelson, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Millan, Bruce

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Ginsburg, David

Molloy, William

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Golding, John

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Mr. Kenneth Marks and

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Murray, Ronald King

Mr. Alan Fitch.

Hamling, William

Ogden, Eric

Division No. 282.]

AYES

12.58 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Drayson, G. B.

Howells, David (Guildford)

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Dykes, Hugh

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Eden, Sir John

Hunt, John

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Astor, John

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Iremonger, T. L.

Atkins, Humphrey

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

James, David

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Emery, Peter

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Eyre, Reginald

Jessel, Toby

Balniel, Lord

Farr, John

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Fell, Anthony

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Benyon, W.

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Jopling, Michael

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Fidler, Michael

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Biffen, John

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

Biggs-Davison, John

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Kimball, Marcus

Blaker, Peter

Fookes, Miss Janet

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Fortescue, Tim

Kinsey, J. R.

Boscawen, Robert

Fowler, Norman

Kirk, Peter

Bossom, Sir Clive

Bowden, Andrew

Fox, Marcus

Kitson, Timothy

Bray, Ronald

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

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Brewis, John

Fry, Peter

Knox, David

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Gardner, Edward

Lane, David

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Gbson-Watt, David

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Bryan, Paul

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

Goodhart, Philip

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

Buck, Antony

Goodhew, Victor

Longden, Gilbert

Bullus, Sir Eric

Gorst, John

Loveridge, John

Burden, F. A.

Cower, Raymond

McCrindle, R. A.

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Gray, Hamish

McLaren, Martin

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Green, Alan

McMaster, Stanley

Gary, Sir Robert

Grieve, Percy

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Channon, Paul

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Grylls, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Gummer, Selwyn

Maddan, Martin

Chichester-Clark, R.

Gurden, Harold

Madel, David

Churchill, W. S.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Maginnis, John E.

Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Marples, Rt. Hn, Ernest

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Marten, Neil

Clegg, Walter

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Mather, Carol

Cockeram, Eric

Harrison, Col. Sir Hanwood (Eye)

Maude, Angus

Cooke, Robert

Hasethurst, Alan

Mawby, Ray

Coombs, Derek

Hastings, Stephen

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Cordle, John

Havers, Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Cormack, Patrick

Hawkins, Paul

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Costain, A, P.

Hayhoe, Barney

Miscampbell, Norman

Critchley, Julian

Heseltins, Michael

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

Crouch, David

Hicks, Robert

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Crowder, F. P.

Hiley, Joseph

Moate, Roger

Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Molyneaux, James

Curran, Charles

Holland, Philip

Money, Ernle D.

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

Hordern, Peter

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Dean, Paul

Hornby, Richard

Montgomery, Fergus

Dixon, Piers

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

More, Jasper

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

474

475

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

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

Mudd, David

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Murton, Oscar

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Tilney, John

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Rest, Peter

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Neave, Airey

Russell, Sir Ronald

Trew, Peter

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Tugendhat, Christopher

Normanton, Tom

Scott, Nicholas

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Oppenheim, Mrs, Sally

Scott-Hopkins, James

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Sharpies, Richard

Vickers, Dame Joan

Osborn, John

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

Waddington, David

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Simeons, Charles

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Sinclair, Sir George

Walters, Dennis

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Skeet, T. H. H.

Ward, Dame Irene

Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

Warren, Kenneth

Pink, R, Bonner

Soref, Harold

Weatherill, Bernard

Pounder, Rafton

Spence, John

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Sproat, Iain

White, Roger (Gravesend)

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

Stainton, Keith

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wiggin, Jerry

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Wilkinson, John

Raison, Timothy

Stokes, John

Wolirige-Gordon, Patrick

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Sutcliffe, John

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Tapsell, Peter

Woodnutt, Mark

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Worsley, Marcus

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Mr. Hector Monro and

Ridsdale, Julian

Tebbit, Norman

Mr. Keith Speed.

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Ogden, Eric

Armstrong, Ernest

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

O'Halloran, Michael

Ashton, Joe

Hardy, Peter

Orme, Stanley

Atkinson, Norman

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Palmer, Arthur

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Heffer, Eric S.

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Bidwell, Sydney

Houghon, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Pavitt, Laurie

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

Huckfield, Leslie

Pendry, Tom

Buchan, Norman

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Prescott, John

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Cant, R. B.

Janner, Greville

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

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

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

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

John, Brynmor

Roper, John

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Rose, Paul B.

Cohen, Stanley

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Concannon, J. D.

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

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

Crawshaw, Richard

Judd, Frank

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Cronin, John

Kaufman, Gerald

Sillars, James

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

Kinnock, Neil

Silverman, Julius

Dalyell, Tam

Lamond, James

Skinner, Dennis

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Latham, Arthur

Small, William

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Leadbitter, Ted.

Spearing, Nigel

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

StaKard, A. w.

Deakins, Eric

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Dempsey, James

Lipton, Marcus

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lomas, Kenneth

Strang, Gavin

Driberg, Tom

McBride, Neil

Swain, Thomas

Duffy, A. E. P.

McCartney, Hugh

Taverne, Dick

Dunnett, Jack

Mackenzie, Gregor

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

Eadie, Alex

Mackintosh, John P.

Tinn, James

English, Michael

McNamara, J. Kevin

Torney, Tom

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Matron, Simon (Bootle)

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

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

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

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Marks, Kenneth

Wellbeloved, James

Flecher, Ted (Darlington)

McIlish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Foot, Michaet

Mendelson, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Forrester, John

Millan, Bruce

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Molloy, William

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Ginsburg, David

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Gelding, John

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Mr. William Hamlng and

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Murray, Ronald King

Mr. Joseph Harper.

Division No. 283.]

AYES

[1.12 a.m.

Adley, Robert

Gower, Raymond

Murton, Oscar

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Gray, Hamish

Neave, Airey

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Green, Alan

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Astor, John

Grieve, Percy

Normanton, Tom

Atkins, Humphrey

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Nott, John

Awdry, Daniel

Grylls, Michael

Oppenheim, Mr. Sally

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Gummer, Selwyn

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Gurden, Harold

Osborn, John

Balniel, Lord

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Benyon, w.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Biffen, John

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Percival, Ian

Biggs-Davison, John

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Blaker, Peter

Haselhurst, Alan

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Hastings, Stephen

Pink, R. Bonner

Body, Richard

Havers, Michael

Pounder, Rafton

Boscawen, Robert

Hayhoe, Barney

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Bossom, Sir Clive

Heseltine, Michael

Price, David (Easlleigh)

Bowden, Andrew

Hicks, Robert

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

Bray, Ronald

Hiley, Joseph

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Brewis, John

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Brinton, Sir Tatton

Holland, Philip

Raison, Timothy

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hordarn, Peter

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Hornby, Richard

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Bryan, Paul

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Rees, Peter (Dover)

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

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Buck, Antony

Howell, David (Guildford)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Bullus, Sir Eric

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hunt, John

Ridley, Hn Nicholas

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Ridsdale, Julian

Cary, Sir Robert

Iremonger, T. L.

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Channon, Paul

James, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Chapman, Sydney

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Jessel, Toby

Rost, Peter

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Chichester-Clark, R.

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Churchill, W. S.

Jopling, Michael

Scott, Nicholas

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

Scott-Hopkins, James

Clegg, Walter

Kimball, Marcus

Sharpies, Richard

Cockeram, Eric

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

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

Cooke, Robert

Kinsey, J. R.

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Coombs, Derek

Kirk, Peter

Simeons, Charles

Cooper, A. E.

Kitson, Timothy

Sinclair, Sir George

Cordle, John

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Skeet, T. H. H.

Cormack, Patrick

Knox, David

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

Critchley, Julian

Lane, David

Soref, Harold

Cronin, John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Speed, Keith

Crouch, David

Le Marchant, Spencer

Spence, John

Crowder, F, P.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Sproat, Iain

Curran, Charles

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

Stainton, Keith

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaJ.-Gen.

Longden, Gilbert

Stanbrook, Ivor

Dean, Paul

Loveridge, John

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Bolper)

Dixon, Piers

MrCrindle, R. A.

Stokes, John

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

McLaren, Martin

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Drayson, G. B.

McMaster, Stanley

Sutcliffe, John

Dykes, Hugh

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Tapsell, Peter

Eden, Sir John

McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Maddan, Martin

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

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

Madel, David

Tebbit, Norman

Emery, Peter

Maginnis, John E.

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Eyre, Reginald

Marten, Neil

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

Farr, John

Mather, Carol

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S,)

Fell, Anthony

Mawby, Ray

Tilney, John

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Fidler, Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Trew, Peter

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Tugendhat, Christopher

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Miscampbell, Norman

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Fookes, Miss Janet

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

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Fortascue, Tim

Mrtchell, David (Basingstoke)

vickers, Dame Joan

Fowler, Norman

Moate, Roger

Waddington, David

Fox, Marcus

Molyneaux, James

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

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

Money, Ernie D.

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Fry, Peter

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Walters, Dennis

Gardner, Edward

Monro, Hector

Ward, Dame Irene

Gibson-Watt, David

Montgomery, Fergus

Warren, Kenneth

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

More, Jasper

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Goodhart, Philip

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Goodhew, Victor

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Wiggin, Jerry

Gorst, John

Mudd, David

Wilkinson, John

478

479

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Woodnutt, Mark

TELLERS FOB THE AYES:

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Worsley, Marcus

Mr. Paul Hawkins aud

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Wylre, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

O'Halloran, Michael

Armstrong, Ernest

Hardy, Peter

Orme, Stanley

Ashton, Joe

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Palmer, Arthur

Atkinson, Norman

Heffer, Eric S,

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Huckfield, Leslie

Pendry, Tom

Bidwell, Sydney

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Prescott, John

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Price, William (Rugby)

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

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Janner, Gneville

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Cant, R. B.

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

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

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

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

John, Brynmor

Roper, John

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Rose, Paul B.

Cohen, Stanley

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Concannon, J. D.

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

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

Crawshaw, Richard

Judd, Frank

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Cronin, John

Kaufman, Gerald

Sikars, James

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

Kinnock, Neil

Silverman, Julius

Dalyell, Tarn

Lamond, James

Skinnier, Dennis

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Latham, Arthur

Small, William

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Leadbitter, Ted

Spearing, Nigel

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

Stallart), A. W.

Deakins, Eric

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Dempsey, James

Lipton, Marcus

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lomas, Kenneth

Strang, Gavin

Driberg, Tom

McBride, Neil

Swain, Thomas

Duffy, A. E. P.

McCartney, Hugh

Taverne, Dick

Dunnett, Jack

Mackenzie, Gregor

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

Eadie, Alex

Mackintosh, John P.

Tinn, James

English, Michael

McNamara, J. Kevin

Torney, Tom

Femyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

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

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

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Marks, Kenneth

Wellbeloved, James

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Foot, Michael

Mendelson, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Forrester, John

Millan, Bruce

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Molloy, William

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Ginsburg, David

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Gelding, John

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Mr. William Handing and

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Murray, Ronald King

Mr. Joseph Harper.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Ogden, Eric

Division No. 284.]

AYES

[1.23 a.m.

Adley, Robert

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

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

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Emery, Peter

Astor, John

Cary, Sir Robert

Eyre, Reginald

Atkins, Humphrey

Channen, Paul

Fair, John

Awdry, Daniel

Chapman, Sydney

Fell, Anthony

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Churchill, W. S.

Fidler, Michael

Balnief, Lord

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Benyon, W.

Cockeram, Eric

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Cooke, Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Biffen, John

Coombes, Derek

Fowler, Norman

Biggs-Davison, John

Cooper, A. E.

Fox, Marcus

Blaker, Peter

Cordle, John

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

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Cormack, Patrick

Fry, Peter

Body, Richard

Costain, A. P.

Gardner, Edward

Boscawen, Robert

Critchley, Julian

Gibson-Watt, David

Bossom, Sir Clive

Crouch, David

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Bowden, Andrew

Crowder, F. P.

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Bray, Ronald

Curran, Charles

Goodhart, Philip

Brewis, John

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

Goodhew, Victor

Brinton, Sir Tafton

Dean, Paul

Gorst, John

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Dixon, Piers

Gower, Raymond

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Gray, Hamish

Bryan, Paul

Drayson, G. B.

Green, Alan

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

Dykes, Hugh

Grieve, Percy

Buck, Anthony

Eden, Sir John

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Grylle, Michael

480

481

Gummer, Selwyn

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Simeons, Charles

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Sinclair, Sir George

Hannan, John (Exeter)

Miscampbell, Norman

Skeet, T. H. H.

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

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

Haselhurst, Alan

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Soref, Harold

Hastings, Stephen

Moate, Roger

Speed, Keith

Havers, Michael

Molyneaux, James

Spenes, John

Hawkins, Paul

Money, Ernle D.

Sproat, Iain

Hayhoe, Barney

Monro, Hector

Stainton, Keith

Heseltine, Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hicks, Robert

More, Jasper

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Hiley, Joseph

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Stokes, John

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Holland, Philip

Mudd, David

Sutcliffe, John

Hordern, Peter

Murton, Oscar

Tapsell, Peter

Hornby, Richard

Neave, Airey

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

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Normanton, Tom

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Nott, John

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Howell, David (Guildord)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Tebbit, Norman

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Thomas, John Straining (Monmouth)

Hunt, John

Osborn, John

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

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S)

Iremonger, T. L.

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Tilney, John

James, David

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Percival, Ian

Trew, Peter

Jessell, Toby

Peyton, John

Tugendhat, Christopher

Johnson Smith, G, (E. Grinstead)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Pink, R. Bonner

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Jopling, Michael

Pounder, Rafton

Vickers, Dame Joan

Kimball, Marcus

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Waddington, David

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

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

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Kinsey, J, R.

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Kitson, Timothy

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Walters, Dennis

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Raison, Timothy

Ward, Dame Irene

Knox, David

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Warren, Kenneth

Lane, David

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Weatherill, Bernard

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Wells, John (Maidstona)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Rees-Davies, W. R.

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Loveridge, John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wiggin, Jerry

McCrindle, R.

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Wilkinson, John

McLaren, Martin

Ridsdale, Julian

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

McMaster, Stanley

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Woodnutt, Mark

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Rost, Peter

Worsley, Marcus

Maddan, Martin

Russell, Sir Ronald

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Madel, David

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Maginnis, John E.

Scott, Nicholas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Marten, Neil

Scott-Hopkins, James

Mr. Walter Clegg and

Mather, Carol

Sharpies, Richard

Mr. Tim Fortescue.

Mawby, Ray

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

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Eadie, Alex

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Ashton, Joe

English, Michael

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Atkinson, Norman

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Judd, Frank

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

Kaufman, Gerald

Bidwell, Sydney

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Kinnock, Neil

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

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Lamond, James

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

Foot, Michael

Latham, Arthur

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Forrester, John

Leadbitter, Ted

Cant, R. B.

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Ginsburg, David

Lipton, Marcus

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, South)

Golding, John

Lomas, Kenneth

Cohen, Stanley

Grant, George (Morpeth)

McBride, Neil

Concannon, J. D.

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

McCartney, Hugh

Crawshaw, Richard

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Mackenzie, Gregor

Cronin, John

Hardy, Peter

Mackintosh, John P.

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

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Dalyell, Tarn

Heffer, Eric S.

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Huckfield, Leslie

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

Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Marks, Kenneth

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Deakins, Eric

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Mendelson, John

Dempsey, James

Janner, Greville

Millan, Bruce

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Driberg, Tom

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

Molloy, William

Duffy, A. E. P.

John, Brynmor

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Dunnett, Jack

Jones. Barry (Flint, E.)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

482

483

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Rose, Paul B.

Tinn, James

Murray, Ronald King

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Torney, Tom

Ogden, Eric

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)

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

O'Haltoran, Michael

Sillars, James

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Orme, Stanley

Silverman, Julius

Wellbeloved, James

Palmer, Arthur

Skinner, Dennis

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Small, William

Whitehead, Phillip

Penary, Tom

Spearing, Nigel

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Prescott, John

Stallard, A. W.

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Price, William (Rugby)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Strang, Gavin

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Swain, Thomas

Mr. William Hamling.

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

Taverne, Dick

Mr. Joseph Harper.

Roper, John

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

Division No. 285.]

AYES

[1.35 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

McMaster, Stanley

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Fookes, Miss Janet

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Astor, John

Fortescue, Tim

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Atkins, Humphrey

Fowler, Norman

Maddan, Martin

Awdry, Daniel

Fox, Marcus

Madel, David

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

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

Maginnis, John E.

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Fry, Peter

Marten, Neil

Balniel, Lord

Gardner, Edward

Mather, Carol

Benyon, W.

Gibson-Watt, David

Mawby, Ray

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Biffen, John

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Biggs-Davison, John

Goodhart, Philip

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Blaker, Peter

Gorst, John

Miscampbell, Norman

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Gower, Raymond

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

Body, Richard

Gray, Hamish

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Boscawen, Robert

Green, Alan

Moate, Roger

Bossom, Sir Clive

Grieve, Percy

Molyneaux, James

Bowden, Andrew

Criffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Money, Ernle D.

Bray, Ronald

Grylls, Michael

Monro, Hector

Brewis, John

Gummer, Selwyn

Montgomery, Fergus

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

More, Jasper

Bryan, Paul

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

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

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Buck, Antony

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Mudd, David

Bullus, Sir Eric

Haselhurst, Alan

Murton, Oscar

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hastings, Stephen

Neave, Airey

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

Havers, Michael

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Hawkins, Paul

Normanton, Tom

Cary, Sir Robert

Hayhoe, Barney

Nott, John

Channon, Paul

Heseltine, Michael

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Chapman, Sydney

Hicks, Robert

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Hiley, Joseph

Osborn, John

Churchill, W. S.

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Holland, Philip

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hordern, Peter

Percival, Ian

Clegg, Walter

Hornby, Richard

Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

Cockeram, Eric

Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Cooke, Robert

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Pink, R. Bonner

Coombs, Derek

Howell, David (Guildford)

Pounder, Rafton

Cooper, A. E.

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Cordle, John

Hunt, John

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

Cormack, Patrick

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Costain, A. P.

Iremonger, T. L.

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Critchtey, Julian

James, David

Raison, Timothy

Crouch, David

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Curran, Charles

Jessel, Toby

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

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

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Dean, Paul

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Dixon, Piers

Jopling, Michael

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Kimball, Marcus

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Drayson, G. B.

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Ridsdate, Julian

Dykes, Hugh

Kinsey, J. R.

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Eden, Sir John

Kitson, Timothy

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Knox, David

Rost, Peter

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

Lane, David

Russell, Sir Ronald

Emery, Peter

Langford-Holt, Sir John

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Eyre, Reginald

Le Marchant, Spencer

Scott, Nicholas

Farr, John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Felt, Anthony

Loveridge, John

Sharpies, Richard

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

McCrindle, R. A.

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

Fidler, Michael

McLaren, Martin

Shelton, William (Clapham)

484

485

Simeons, Charles

Tebbit, Norman

Weatherill, Bernard

Sinclair, Sir George

Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Skeet, T. H. H.

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

White, Roger (Gravesend)

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

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Soref, Harold

Tilney, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Spence, John

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Wilkinson, John

Sproat, Iain

Trew, Peter

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Stainton, Keith

Tugendhat, Christopher

Wood, Rt. Ht. Richard

Stanbrook, Ivor

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Stewart-Smith, O. G. (Belper)

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Woodnutt, Mark

Stokes, John

Vickers, Dame Joan

Worsley, Marcus

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Waddington, David

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Sutcliffe, John

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Tapsell, Peter

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

Walters, Dennis

Mr. Victor Goodhew and

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Ward, Dame Irene

Mr. Keith Speed.

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

Warren, Kenneth

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Hardy, Peter

Ogden, Eric

Ashton, Joe'

Harper, Joseph

O'HaMoran, Michael

Atkinson, Norman

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Orme, Stanley

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Heffer, Eric S.

Palmer, Arthur

Bidwell, Sydney

Huckfield, Leslie

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Pendry, Tom

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Prescott, John

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Price, William (Rugby)

Cant, R. B.

Janner, Greville

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

John, Brynmor

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

Cohen, Stanley

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Roper, John

Concannon, J. D.

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Cronin, John

Judd, Frank

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

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

Kaufman, Gerald

Sillars, James

Dalyell, Tam

Kinnock, Neil

Silverman, Julius

Darling, Rt Hn. George

Lamond, James

Skinner, Dennis

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Latham, Arthur

Small, William

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Leadbitter, Ted

Spearing, Nigel

Deakins, Eric

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Stallard, A. W.

Dempsey, James

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lomas, Kenneth

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Driberg, Tom

McBride, Neil

Strang, Gavin

Duffy, A. E. P.

McCartney, Hugh

Swain, Thomas

Dunnett, Jack

Mackenzie, Gregor

Taverne, Dick

Eadie, Alex

Mackintosh, John P.

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

English, Michael

McNamara, J. Kevin

Tinn, James

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Torney, Tom

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

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

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

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Marks, Kenneth

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Foot, Michael

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Wellbeloved, James

Forrester, John

Mendelson, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Millan, Bruce

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Ginsburg, David

Moiloy, William

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hamling, William

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Mr. Alan Fitch and

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Murray, Ronald King

Mr. John Golding.

Division No. 286.]

AYES

[1.47 a.m.

Adley, Robert

Bray, Ronald

Cooper, A. E.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Brewis, John

Cordle, John

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Cormack, Patrick

Astor, John

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

Costain, A. P.

Atkins, Humphrey

Buck, Antony

Critchley, Julian

Awdry, Daniel

Bullus, Sir Eric

Crouch, David

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Curran, Charles

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

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

d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, MaJ. -Gen. James

Balniel, Lord

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Dean, Paul

Benyon, W.

Cary, Sir Robert

Dixon, Piers

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Channon, Paul

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Biffen, John

Chapman, Sydney

Drayson, G. B.

Biggs-Davison, John

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Dykes, Hugh

Blaker, Peter

Churchill, W. S.

Eden, Sir John

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Body, Richard

Clegg, Walter

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Boscawen, Robert

Cockeram, Eric

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

Bossom, Sir Clive

Cooke, Robert

Emery, Peter

Bowden, Andrew

Coombs, Derek

Eyre, Reginald

486

487

Farr, John

Knox, David

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Fell, Anthony

Lane, David

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Fidler, Michael

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rost, Peter

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Russell, Sir Ronald

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

St, John-Stevas, Norman

Fookes, Miss Janet

Loveridge, John

Scott, Nicholas

Fortescue, Tim

McCrindle, R. A.

Scott-Hopkins, James

Fowler, Norman

McLaren, Martin

Sharples, Richard

Fox, Marcus

McMaster, Stanley

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

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

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Fry, Peter

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Simeons, Charles

Gardner, Edward

Maddan, Martin

Sinclair, Sir George

Gibson-Watt, David

Mardel, David

Skeet, T. H. H.

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Maginnis, John E.

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

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Marten, Neil

Soref, Harold

Goodhart, Philip

Mather, Carol

Speed, Keith

Goodhew, Victor

Mawby, Ray

Spence, John

Gorst, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Sproat, Iain

Gower, Raymond

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stainton, Keith

Gray, Hamish

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Green, Alan

Miscampbell, Norman

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

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

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Grylls, Michael

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Sutcliffe, John

Gummer, Selwyn

Moate, Roger

Tapsell, Peter

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Molyneaux, James

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

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Money, Ernle

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Monro, Hector

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Montgomery, Fergus

Tebbit, Norman

Haselhurst, Alan

More, Jasper

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Hastings, Stephen

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

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

Havers, Michael

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Hawkins, Paul

Mudd, David

Tilney, John

Hayhoe, Barney

Murton, Oscar

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Heseltine, Michael

Neave, Airey

Trew, Peter

Hicks, Robert

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Tugendhat, Christopher

Hiley, Joseph

Normanton, Tom

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Nott, John

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Holland, Philip

Oppenheim, Mrs, Sally

Vickers, Dame Joan

Hordern, Peter

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Waddington, David

Hornby, Richard

Osborn, John

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Walters, Dennis

Howell, David (Guildford)

Percival, Ian

Ward, Dame Irene

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Warren, Kenneth

Hunt, John

Pink, R. Bonner

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pounder, Rafton

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Iremonger, T. L,

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

James, David

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

Wiggin, Jerry

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Wilkinson, John

Jessel, Toby

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Raison, Timothy

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Jopling, Michael

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Woodnutt, Mark

Worsley, Marcus

Kimball, Marcus

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Kinsey, J. R.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Kitson, Timothy

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Ridsdale, Julian

Mr. Hugh Rossi.

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Ashton, Joe

Driberg, Tom

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Atkinson, Norman

Duffy, A. E. P,

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Dunnett, Jack

Janner, Greville

Bidwell, Sydney

Eadie, Alex

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

English, Michael

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

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

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

John, Brynmor

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Cant, R. B.

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Foot, Michael

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Forrester, John

Judd, Frank

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Kaufman, Gerald

Cohen, Stanley

Gilbert, Dr. John

Kinnock, Neil

Concannon, J. D.

Ginsburg, David

Lamond, James

Crawshaw, Richard

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Latham, Arthur

Cronin, John

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Leadbitter, Ted

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

Hamling, William

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Dalyell, Tam

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Darling, Rt Hn. George

Hardy, Peter

Lomas, Kenneth

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Harper, Joseph

McBride, Neil

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

McCartney, Hugh

Deakins, Eric

Heffer, Eric S.

Mackenzie, Gregor

Dempsey, James

Huckfield, Leslie

Mackintosh, John P.

488

489

McNamara, J. Kevin

Prescott, John

Strang, Gavin

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Price, William (Rugby)

Swain, Thomas

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

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Taverne, Dick

Marks, Kenneth

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Tinn, James

Mendelson, John

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

Torney, Tom

Millan, Bruce

Roper, John

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

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Rose, Paul B.

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Molloy, William

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Wellbeloved, James

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Whitehead, Phillip

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Sillars, James

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Murray, Ronald King

Silverman, Julius

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Ogden, Eric

Skinner, Dennis

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

O'Halloran, Michael

Small, William

Orme, Stanley

Spearing, Nigel

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Palmer, Arthur

Stallard, A. W.

Mr. John Golding and

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Mr. Alan Fitch.

Pendry, Tom

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Division No. 287.]

AYES

[1.57 a.m.

Adley, Robert

Fox, Marcus

Mather, Carol

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

Mawby, Ray

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Fry, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Astor, John

Gardner, Edward

Mever, Sir Anthony

Atkins, Humphrey

Gibson-Watt, David

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Miscampbell, Norman

Baker, VV. H. K. (Banff)

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

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

Balniel, Lord

Goodhart, Philip

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Goodhew, Victor

Moate, Roger

Benyon, W.

Gorst, John

Molyneaux, James

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Gower, Raymond

Money, Ernle D.

Biffen, John

Gray, Hamish

Monro, Hector

Biggs-Davison, John

Green, Alan

Montgomery, Fergus

Blaker, Peter

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

Grylls, Michael

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Body, Richard

Gummer, Selwyn

Mudd, David

Boscawen, Robert

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Murton, Oscar

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Bowden, Andrew

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Normanton, Tom

Bray, Ronald

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Brewis, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Havers, Michael

Osborn, John

Bryan, Paul

Hawkins, Paul

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

Hayhoe, Barney

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Buck, Anthony

Heseltine, Michael

Percival, Ian

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hicks, Robert

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hiley, Joseph

Pink, R. Bonner

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

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Pounder, Rafton

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Holland, Philip

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Cary, Sir Robert

Hordern, Peter

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

Channon, Paul

Hornby, Richard

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Chapman, Sydney

Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Pym, Rt, Hn. Francis

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Raison, Timothy

Churchill, W. S.

Howell, David (Guildford)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Clegg, Walter

Hunt, John

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Cockerham, Eric

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Cooke, Robert

Iremonger, T. L.

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Coombs, Derek

James, David

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Cordle, John

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Ridsdale, Julian

Cormack, Patrick

Jessel, Toby

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Costain, A. P.

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Critchley, Julian

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Crouch, David

Jopling, Michael

Rost, Peter

Curran, Charles

Kimball, Marcus

Russell, Sir Ronald

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

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Dean, Paul

Kinsey, J. R.

Scott, Nicholas

Dixon, Piers

Kitson, Timothy

Scott-Hopkins, James

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Sharples, Richard

Drayson, G. B.

Knox, David

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

Dykes, Hugh

Lane, David

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Eden, Sir John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Simeons, Charles

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Sinclair, Sir George

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Skeet, T. H. H.

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

Loveridge, John

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

Emery, Peter

McCrindle, R. A.

Soref, Harold

Eyre, Reginald

McLaren, Martin

Speed, Keith

Farr, John

McMaster, Stanley

Spence, John

Fell, Anthony

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Sproat, Iain

Fidler, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Stainton, Keith

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Maddan, Martin

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Madel, David

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Maginnis, John E.

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Fowler, Norman

Marten, Neil

Sutcliffe, John

490

491

Tapsell, Peter

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Wilkinson, John

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

Vickers, Dame Joan

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Waddington, David

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Tebbit, Norman

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Woodnutt, Mark

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Walters, Dennis

Worsley, Marcus

Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hcndon, s.)

Ward, Dame Irene

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Warren, Kenneth

Tilney, John

Weatherill, Bernard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Mr. Jasper More and

Trew, Peter

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Mr. Tim Forteseue.

Tugendhat, Christopher

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Wiggin, Jerry

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Hardy, Peter

Ogden, Eric

Ashton, Joe

Harper, Joseph

O'Halloran, Michael

Atkinson, Norman

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Orme, Stanley

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Heffer, Eric S.

Palmer, Arthur

Bidwell, Sydney

Huckfield, Leslie

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Pendry, Tom

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Prescott, John

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Price, William (Rugby)

Cant, R. B.

Janner, Greville

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Jay, Rt, Hn. Douglas

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

Roberts. Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

John, Brynmor

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

Cohen, Stanley

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Roper, John

Concannon, J. D.

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Rose, Paul B.

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Cronin, John

Judd, Frank

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

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

Kaufman, Gerald

Sillars, James

Dalyell, Tam

Kinnock, Neil

Silverman, Julius

Darting, Rt. Hn. George

Lamond, James

Skinner, Dennis

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Latham, Arthur

Small, William

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, M.)

Spearing, Nigel

Deakins, Eric

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Stallard, A. W.

Dempsey, James

Lipton, Marcus

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lomas, Kenneth

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Driberg, Tom

McBride, Neil

Strang, Gavin

Duffy, A. E. P.

McCartney, Hugh

Swain, Thomas

Dunnett, Jack

Mackenzie, Gregor

Taverne, Dick

Eadie, Alex

Mackintosh, John P.

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

English, Michael

McNamara, J. Kevin

Tinn, James

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Torney, Tom

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

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

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

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Marks, Kenneth

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Foot, Michael

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Wellbeloved, James

Forrester, John

Mendelson, John

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Millan, Bruce

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Ginsburg, David

Molloy, William

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Mr. John Golding and

Hamling, William

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Mr. Atan Fitch.

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Murray, Ronald King

Division No. 288.]

AYES

[2.10 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Dykes, Hugh

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

Eden, Sir John

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Astor, John

Cary, Sir Robert

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

Atkins, Humphrey

Channon, Paul

Emery, Peter

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Chapman, Sydney

Eyre, Reginald

Balniel, Lord

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Farr, John

Benyon, W.

Churchill, W. S.

Fell, Anthony

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Fidler, Michael

Biffen, John

Clegg, Walter

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Biggs-Davison, John

Cockeram, Eric

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Blaker, Peter

Cooke, Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Body, Richard

Coombs, Derek

Fortescue, Tim

Boscawen, Hn. Robert

Cormack, Patrick

Fowler, Norman

Bossom, Sir Clive

Costain, A. P.

Fox, Marcus

Bowden, Andrew

Critchley, Julian

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

Bray, Ronald

Crouch, David

Fry, Peter

Brewis, John

Curran, Charles

Gardner, Edward

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

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

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Bryan, Paul

Dean, Paul

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

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

Dixon, Piers

Goodhart, Philip

Buck, Antony

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Gorst, John

Bullus, Sir Eric

Drayson, G. B.

Gower, Raymond

492

493

Gray, Hamish

Martin, Neil

Sheiton, William (Clapham)

Green, Alan

Mather, Carol

Simeons, Charles

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Mawby, Ray

Sinclair, Sir George

Grylis, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

Gummer, Selwyn

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Soref, Harold

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Miscampbell, Norman

Speed, Keith

Hannam, John (Exeter)

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

Spence, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Sproat, Iain

Havers, Michael

Moate, Roger

Stainton, Keith

Hawkins, Paul

Molyneaux, James

Stanbrook, Ivor

Hayhoe, Barney

Money, Ernie D.

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Heseltine, Michael

Montgomery, Fergus

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Hicks, Robert

More, Jasper

Sutcliffe, John

Hiley, Joseph

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Tapsell, Peter

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

Holland, Philip

Mudd, David

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Hornby, Richard

Murton, Oscar

Tebbit, Norman

Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Normanton, Tom

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Oppenheim, Mirs. Sally

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Hunt, John

Osborn, John

Trew, Peter

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Tuefendhat, Christophar

Iremonger, T. L.

Percival, Ian

Urwin, T. W.

James, David

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Vickers, Dame Joan

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Pink, R. Bonner

Waddington, David

Jessel, Toby

Pounder, Rafton

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Walters, Dennis

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

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

Ward, Dame Irene

Jopling, Michael

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Warren, Kerneth

Kimball, Marcus

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Weatherill, Bernard

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Raison, Timothy

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Kinsey, J. R.

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Whiteraw, Rt. Hn. William

Knox, David

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Wiggin, Jerry

Lane, David

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Wilkinson, John

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Le Marchant, Spencer

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

McCrindle, R. A.

Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)

Woodnutt, Mark

McLaren, Martin

Rost, Peter

Wersley, Marcus

McMaster, Stanley

Russell, Sir Ronald

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

McNair-Wilson, Michael

St. John-Stevas, Norman

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Scott, Nicholas

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Maddan, Martin

Scott-Hopkins, James

Mr. Hector Monro and

Madel, David

Sharpies, Richard

Mr. Victor Goodhew.

Maginnis, John E.

Shaw, Michael (Sc'bgli & Whitby)

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regie)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Marks, Kenneth

Ashton, Joe

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Atkinson, Norman

Mantling, William

Mendeison, John

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Millan, Bruce

Bidwell, Sydney

Hardy, Peter

Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

Harper, Joseph

Molloy, William

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

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardlganshire)

Cant, R. B.

Heffer, Eric S.

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Muckfield, Leslie

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Clark, David (Colne, Valley)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Murray, Ronald King

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Ogden, Eric

Cohen, Stanley

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

O'Halloran, Michael

Concannon, J, D.

Janner, Greville

Orme, Stanley

Crawshaw, Richard

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Palmer, Arthur

Cronin, John

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

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

John, Brynmor

Pendry, Tom

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Prescott, John

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Price, William (Rugby)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Deakins, Eric

Judd, Frank

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Dempsey, James

Kaufman, Gerald

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshlre, E.)

Kinnock, Neil

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

Driberg, Tom

Lamond, James

Roper, John

Duffy, A. E. P.

Latham, Arthur

Rose, Paul B.

Dunnett, Jack

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Eadie, Aiex

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

English, Michael

Lipton, Marcus

Sillars, James

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Lomas, Kenneth

Silverman, Julius

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

MoBride, Neil

Skinnier, Dennis

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McCartney, Hugh

Small, William

Foot, Michael

Mackenzie, Gregor

Spearing, Nigel

Forrester, John

Mackintosh, John P.

Stallard, A. W.

Fraser, John (Norwood)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Ginsburg, David

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

Strang, Gavin

494

495

Swain, Thomas

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

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Tinn, James

Wellbeloved, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Torney, Tom

Whitehead, Phillip

Mr. John Golding and

Urwin, T. W.

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Mr. Alan Fitch.

Division No. 289.]

AYES

[2.23 a.m.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Gorst, John

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Cower, Raymond

Pink, R. Bonner

Astor, John

Gray, Hamish

Pounder, Rafton

Atkins, Humphrey

Green, Alan

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Awdry, Daniel

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

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

Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)

Grylls, Michael

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Balniel, Lord

Gummer, Selwyn

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Benyon, W. R.

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Raison, Timothy

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Biffen, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Biggs-Davison, John

Havers, Michael

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Blaker, Piter

Hayhoe, Barney

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Body, Richard

Heseltine, Michael

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Boscawen, Robert

Hicks, Robert

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hiley, Joseph

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Bowden, Andrew

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Rost, Peter

Bray, Ronald

Holland, Philip

Russell, Sir Ronald

Bruce-Gardyre, J.

Hornby, Richard

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Bryan, Paul

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Scott, Nicholas

Buchanan-Smith, Allck(Angus,N&amp;M)

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Buck, Antony

Hunt, John

Sharpies, Richard

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hutchison, Michael Clark

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

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Iremonger, T. L.

Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

James, David

Simeons, Charles

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Sinclair, Sir George

Cary, Sir Robert

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

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

Channon, Paul

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Soref, Harold

Chapman, Sydney

Jopling, Michael

Speed, Keith

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Kimball, Marcus

Spence, John

Churchill, W. S.

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Sproat, Iain

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Kinsey, J. R.

Stainton, Keith

Clegg, Walter

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Stanbrook, Ivor

Cockeram, Eric

Knox, David

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Cooke, Robert

Lane, David

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Coombs, Derek

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Sutcliffe, John

Cormack, Patrick

Le Marchant, Spencer

Tapsell, Peter

Costain, A. P.

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

Critchley, Julian

MoCrindle, R. A.

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Crouch, David

MoMaster, Stanley

Tebbit, Norman

Curran, Charles

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj. Gen.

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Dean, Paul

Maddan, Martin

Trew, Peter

Dixon, Piers

Madel, David

Tugendhat, Christopher

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Maginnis, John E.

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Drayson, G. B.

Marten, Neil

Vickers, Dame Joan

Dykes, Hugh

Mather, Carol

Waddington, David

Eden, Sir John

Mawby, Ray

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Walters, Dennis

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

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Ward, Dame Irene

Emery, Peter

Miscampbell, Norman

Warren, Kenneth

Eyre, Reginald

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

Weatherill, Bernard

Farr, John

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Fell, Anthony

Moate, Roger

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Fidler, Michael

Molyneaux, James

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Money, Ernie

Wiggin, Jerry

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Monro, Hector

Wilkinson, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

Montgomery, Fergus

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Fortescue, Tim

More, Jasper

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Fowler, Norman

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Fox, Marcus

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Woodnutt, Mark

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

Mudd, David

Worsley, Marcus

Fry, Peter

Murton, Oscar

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Gardner, Edward

Normanton, Tom

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Osborn, John

Mr. Paul Hawkins and

Goodhart, Philip

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Mr. Hugh Rossi.

Goodhew, Victor

Percival, Ian

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

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

Cohen, Stanley

Ashton, Joe

Cant, R. B.

Concannon, J. D.

Atkinson, Norman

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Cronin, John

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

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

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Dalyell, Tarn

496

497

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

John, Brynmor

Prescott, John

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Price, William (Rugby)

Deakins, Eric

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Dempsey, James

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Judd, Frank

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Driberg, Tom

Kaufman, Gerald

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

Duffy, A. E. P.

Kinnock, Neil

Roper, John

Dunnett, Jack

Lamond, James

Rose, Paul B.

Eadie, Alex

Latham, Arthur

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

English, Michael

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Femyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Sillars, James

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

Lipton, Marcus

Silverman, Julius

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Lomas, Kenneth

Skinner, Dennis

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McBride, Neil

Small, William

McCartney, Hugh

Spearing, Nigel

Foot, Michael

Mackenzie, Gregor

Stallard, A. W.

Forrester, John

Mackintosh, John P.

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

McNamara, j. Kevin

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Strang, Gavin

Ginsburg, David

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

Swain, Thomas

Golding, John

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

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

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mendelson, John

Tinn, James

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Millan, Bruce

Torney, Tom

Handing, William

Miller, Dr. M. S.

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

Hannan, William (G'gow, MaryhilI)

Molloy, William

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Hardy, Peter

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Wellbeloved, James

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Whitehead, Phillip

Heffer, Eric S.

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Huckfield, Leslie

Murray, Ronald King

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Ogden, Eric

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

O'Halloran, Michael

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Orme, Stanley

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Janner, Greville

Palmer, Arthur

Mr. Kenneth Marks and

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Mr. Joseph Harper.

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

Penary, Tom

Division No. 290.]

AYES

[2.35 a.m.

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Iremonger, T. L.

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

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

James, David

Astor, John

Emery, Peter

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Atkins, Humphrey

Eyre, Reginald

Jessel, Toby

Awdry, Daniel

Farr, John

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Fell, Anthony

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Fidler, Michael

Jopling, Michael

Balniel, Lord

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Kimball, Marcus

Benyon, W.

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Fookes, Miss Janet

Kinsey, J. R.

Biggs-Davison, John

Fortescue, Tim

Kitson, Timothy

Blaker, Peter

Fowler, Norman

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Fox, Marcus

Knox, David

Body, Richard

Fry, Peter

Lane, David

Boscawen, Robert

Gardner, Edward

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Bossom, Sir Clive

Gibson-Watt, David

Le Marchant, Spencer

Bowden, Andrew

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Bray, Ronald

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

McCrindle, R. A.

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Goodhart, Philip

McMaster, Stanley

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

Goodhew, Victor

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Buck, Antony

Gorst, John

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Bullus, Sir Eric

Gower, Raymond

Maddan, Martin

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Gray, Hamish

Madel, David

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

Green, Alan

Maginnis, John E.

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Marten, Neil

Cary, Sir Robert

Crylls, Michael

Mather, Carol

Channon, Paul

Cummer, Selwyn

Mawby, Ray

Chapman, Sydney

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Clarke:, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Haselhurst, Alan

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Cockeram, Eric

Havers, Michael

Micampbell, Norman

Cookie, Robert

Hawkins, Paul

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

Coombs, Derek

Hayhoe, Barney

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Cormack, Patrick

Heseltine, Michael

Moate, Roger

Costain, A. P.

Hicks, Robert

Molyneaux, James

Critchley, Julian

Hiley, Joseph

Money, Ernie D.

Crouch, David

Hid, James (Southampton, Test)

Monro, Hector

Curran, Charles

Holland, Philip

Montgomery, Fergus

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

Hordern, Peter

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Dean, Paul

Hornby, Richard

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Dixon, Piers

Homsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

Mudd, David

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Murton, Oscar

Drayson, G. B.

Howell, David (Guildford)

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Dykes, Hugh

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Normanton, Tom

Eden, Sir John

Hunt, John

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Osbom, John

498

499

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Sharpies, Richard

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

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

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Percival, Ian

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Vickers, Dame Joan

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Simeons, Charles

Waddington, David

Pink, R. Bonner

Sinclair, Sir George

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Pounder, Rafton

Skeet, T. H. H.

Walters, Dennis

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

Ward, Dame Irene

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

Soref, Harold

Warren, Kenneth

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Speed, Keith

Weatherill, Bernard

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Spence, John

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Raison, Timothy

Sproat, Iain

White, Roger (Grave-send)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Stainton, Keith

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wiggin, Jerry

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Wilkinson, John

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Sutcliffe, John

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Tapsell, Peter

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

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

Woodnutt, Mark

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Worsley, Marcus

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Rost, Peter

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

Russell, Sir Ronald

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Mr. Jasper Moore and

Scott, Nicholas

Trew, Peter

Mr. Walter Clegg.

Scott-Hopkins, James

Tugendhat, Christopher

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Hardy, Peter

O'Halloran, Michael

Ashton, Joe

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Orme, Stanley

Atkinson, Norman

Heffer, Eric S.

Palmer, Arthur

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Huckfield, Leslie

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Pendry, Tom

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Prescott, John

Cant, R. B.

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Price, William (Rugby)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Janner, Greville

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

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

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Cohen, Stanley

John, Brynmor

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

Concannon, J. D.

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

Roper, John

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Rose, Paul B.

Cronin, John

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

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

Judd, Frank

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Dalyell, Tam

Kaufman, Gerald

Sillars, James

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Kinnock, Neil

Skinner, Dennis

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lamond, James

Small, William

Deakins, Eric

Latham, Arthur

Spearing, Nigel

Dempsey, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Stallard, A. W.

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Driberg, Tom

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Linton, Marcus

Strang, Gavin

Dunnett, Jack

McBride, Neil

Swain, Thomas

Eadie, Alex

McCartney, Hugh

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

English, Michael

Mackenzie, Gregor

Tinn, James

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Mackintosh, John P.

Torney, Tom

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

McNamara, J. Kevin

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

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

Wellbeloved, James

Foot, Michael

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Whitehead, Phillip

Forrester, John

Mendelson, John

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Millan, Bruce

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Ginsburg, David

Molloy, William

Golding, John

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Mr. Kenneth Marks and

Grant, John D, (Islington, E.)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Mr. Joseph Harper.

Hamling, William

Murray, Ronald King

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Ogden, Eric

Division No. 291.]

AYES

[2.45 a.m.

Adley, Robert

Blaker, Peter

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

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

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Body, Richard

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Astor, John

Boscawen, Robert

Cary, Sir Robert

Atkins, Humphrey

Bossom, Sir Clive

Channon, Paul

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Bowden, Andrew

Chapman, Sydney

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Bray, Ronald

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Balniel, Lord

Brews, John

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Benyon, W.

Bruce-Gardyne, J.

Clegg, Walter

Berry, Hn. Anthony

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

Cockeram, Eric

Bitten, John

Buck, Antony

Cooke, Robert

Biggs-Davison, John

Bullus, Sir Eric

Coombs, Derek

500

501

Cormack, Patrick

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Costain, A. P.

Jessel, Toby

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Critchley, Julian

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Crouch, David

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Curran, Charles

Jopling, Michael

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

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

Kimball, Marcus

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Dixon, Piers

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Kinsey, J. R.

Rost, Peter

Drayson, G. B.

Kitson, Timothy

Russell, Sir Ronald

Dykes, Hugh

Knight, Mrs. Jill

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Eden, Sir John

Knox, David

Scott, Nicholas

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lane, David

Scott-Hopkins, James

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

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Sharpies, Richard

Eyre, Reginald

Le Marchant, Spencer

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Farr, John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Simeons, Charles

Fell, Anthony

McCrindle, R. A.

Sinclair, Sir George

Fidler, Michael

McLaren, Martin

Skeet, T. H. H.

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

McMaster, Stanley

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

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Soref, Harold

Fookes, Miss Janet

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

Spence, John

Fortescue, Tim

Maddan, Martin

Sproat, Iain

Fowler, Norman

Madel, David

Stainton, Keith

Fox, Marcus

Maginnis, John E.

Stanbrook, Ivor

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

Marten, Neil

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Fry, Peter

Mather, Carol

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Gardner, Edward

Mawby, Ray

Sutcliffe, John

Gibson-Watt, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Tapsell, Peter

Cilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Miscampbell, Norman

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Goodhart, Philip

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

Tebbit, Norman

Goodhew, Victor

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Gorst, John

Moate, Roger

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

Gower, Raymond

Molyneaux, James

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Gray, Hamish

Money, Ernie

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Green, Alan

Montgomery, Fergus

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

More, Jasper

Vickers, Dame Joan

Crylls, Michael

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Waddington, David

Cummer, Selwyn

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mudd, David

Walters, Dennis

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Ward, Dame Irene

Havers, Michael

Murton, Oscar

Warren, Kenneth

Hawkins, Paul

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Weatherill, Bernard

Hayhoe, Barney

Normanton, Tom

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Heseltine, Michael

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Hicks, Robert

Osborn, John

Wiggin, Jerry

Hiley, Joseph

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Wilkinson, John

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Holland, Philip

Percival, Ian

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Hordern, Peter

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Hornby, Richard

Pink, R. Bonner

Woodnutt, Mark

Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Pounder, Rafton

Worsley, Marcus

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Howell, David (Guildford)

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

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Mr. Hector Monro and

Iremonger, T. L.

Raison, Timothy

Mr. Keith Speed.

James, David

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

English, Michael

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

Atkinson, Norman

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

John, Brynmor

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

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

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

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

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

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

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Cant, R. B.

Foot, Michael

Judd, Frank

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm,Northfield)

Forrester, John

Kaufman, Gerald

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Kinnock, Neil

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Gilbert, Dr. John

Lamond, James

Cohen, Stanley

Ginsburg, David

Latham, Arthur

Concannon, J. D.

Golding, John

Leadbitter, Ted

Crawshaw, Richard

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

Cronin, John

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

Hamling, William

Lipton, Marcus

Dalyell, Tam

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Lomas, Kenneth

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Hardy, Peter

McBride, Neil

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

McCartney, Hugh

Deakins, Eric

Heffer, Eric S.

Mackenzie, Gregor

Dempsey, James

Huckfield, Leslie

Mackintosh, John P.

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Driberg, Tom

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

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

Dunnett, Jack

Janner, Greville

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Eadie, Alex

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Mendelson, John

502

503

Millan, Bruce

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Swain, Thomas

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caervarvon)

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

Molloy, William

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

Tinn, James

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Roper, John

Tomey, Tom

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Rose, Paul B.

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

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Murray, Ronald King

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Wellbeloved, James

Ogden, Eric

Sillars, James

Whitehead, Phillip

O'Halloran, Michael

Silverman, Julius

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Orme, Stanley

Skinner, Dennis

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Palmer, Arthur

Small, William

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Spearing, Nigel

Pendry, Tom

Stallard, A. W.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Prescott, John

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Mr. Joseph Harper and

Price, William (Rugby)

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Mr. Kenneth Marks.

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Strang, Gavin

Division No. 292.]

AYES

[2.58 a.m.

Adley, Robert

Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

Goodhart, Philip

Osborn, John

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Goodhew, Victor

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Astor, John

Gorst, John

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Atkins, Humphrey

Gower, Raymond

Percival, Ian

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Gray, Hamish

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Green, Alan

Pink, R. Bonner

Balniel, Lord

Grylts, Michael

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Benyon, W.

Gummsr, Selwyn

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

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Biffen, John

Havers, Michael

Raison, Timothy

Biggs-Davison, John

Hayhoe, Barney

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Heseltine, Michael

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Body, Richard

Hicks, Robert

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hiley, Joseph

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Bowden, Andrew

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Bray, Ronald

Holland, Philip

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Brcwis, John

Hordern, Peter

Rost, Peter

Bruce-Cardyne, J.

Hornby, Richard

Russell, Sir Ronald

Bryan, Paul

Homsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

St. John-Stevas, Norman

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

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Scott, Nicholas

Buck, Antony

Howell, David (Guildford)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Bullus, Sir Eric

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Sharpies, Richard

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Shelton, William (Clapham)

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

Iremonger, T. L.

Simeons, Charles

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

James, David

Sinclair, Sir George

Cary, Sir Robert

Jessel, Toby

Skeet, T. H. H.

Channon, Paul

Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)

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

Chapman, Sydney

Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

Speed, Keith

Jopling, Michael

Spence, John

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Kimball, Marcus

Sproat, Iain

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Kinsey, J. R.

Stainton, Keith

Clegg, Walter

Kitson, Timothy

Stanbrook, Ivor

Cockeram, Eric

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Cooke, Robert

Knox, David

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Coombs, Derek

Lane, David

Sideline, John

Cormack, Patrick

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Tapsell, Peter

Costain, A. P.

Le Marchant, Spencer

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

Critchley, Julian

McLaren, Martin

Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

Crouch, David

McMaster, Stanley

Tebbit, Norman

Curran, Charles

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Dixon, Piers

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

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

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Maddan, Martin

Trafford, Dr. Anthony

Drayson, G. B.

Made), David

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Dykes, Hugh

Maginnis, John E.

Vickers, Dame Joan

Eden, Sir John

Marten, Neil

Waddington, David

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Mather, Carol

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

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

Mawby, Ray

Walters, Dermis

Emery, Peter

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Ward, Dame Irene

Eyre, Reginald

Miscampbell, Norman

Warren, Kenneth.

Farr, John

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

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Fell, Anthony

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

White, Roger (Gravesend)

Fidler, Michael

Moate, Roger

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Molyneaux, James

Wiggin, Jerry

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Money, Ernie

Wilkinson, John

Fookcs, Miss Janet

Monro, Hector

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Fortescue, Tim

Montgomery, Fergus

Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

Fowler, Norman

More, Jasper

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Fox, Marcus

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Woodnutt, Mark

Worsley, Marcus

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

Morrison, Charles (Devisee)

Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

Fry, Peter

Mudd, David

Gardner, Edward

Murton, Oscar

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gibson-Watt, David

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Normanton, Tom

Mr. Paul Hawkins.

504

505

NOES

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Hardy, Peter

Ogden, Eric

Ashton, Joe

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

O'Halloran, Michael

Atkinson, Norman

Heffer, Eric S.

Orme, Stanley

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Hucktield, Leslie

Palmer, Arthur

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

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Pendry, Tom

Cant, R. B.

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Prescott, John

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Janner, Greville

Price, William (Rugby)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

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

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Cohen, Stanley

John, Brynmor

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Concannon, J. D.

Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

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

Crawshaw, Richard

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Roper, John

Cronin, John

Judd, Frank

Rose, Paul B.

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

Kaufman, Geraid

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Dalyell, Tam

Kerr, Russell

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Kinnock, Neil

Sillars, James

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lamond, James

Silverman, Julius

Deakins, Eric

Latham, Arthur

Skinner, Dennis

Dempsey, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Small, William

Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Spearing, Nigel

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Stallard, A. W.

Dunnett, Jack

Lipton, Marcus

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

Eadie, Alex

Lomas, Kenneth

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

English, Michael

McBride, Neil

Strang, Gavin

Femyhougn, Rt. Hn. E.

McCartney, Hugh

Swain, Thomas

Mackenzie, Gregor

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

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

Mackintosh, John P.

Tinn, James

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Torney, Tom

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

Foot, Michael

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

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Forrester, John

Mcllish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Wellbeloved, James

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Mendelson, John

Whitehead, Phillip

Gilbert, Dr. John

Millan, Bruce

Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

Ginsburg, David

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Guiding, John

Molloy, William

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Morris, Charles F. (Openshaw)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hamling, William

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Mr. Kenneth Marks and

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Murray, Ronald King

Mr. Joseph Harper.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Import Food Levies (Consumers' Meetings)
  Import Food Levies (Consumers' Meetings)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Tractors
  Tractors
  Veterinary Profession (Inquiry)
  Veterinary Profession (Inquiry)
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Farm Products (Marketing)
  Farm Products (Marketing)
  Milk (Price)
  Milk (Price)
  Fruit and Vegetables (Consumption)
  Fruit and Vegetables (Consumption)
  Liquid Milk Supplies
  Liquid Milk Supplies
  Brussels Sprouts
  Brussels Sprouts
  Fishing Vessels (Grants)
  Fishing Vessels (Grants)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Afforestation
  Afforestation
  East Midlands
  East Midlands
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Meat and Livestock Commission
  Thames Barrier
  Thames Barrier
  Hill Sheep Subsidy
  Hill Sheep Subsidy
  Farm Incomes
  Farm Incomes
  Annual Price Review
  Annual Price Review
  Agricultural Training Board
  Agricultural Training Board
  Meat Labelling
  Meat Labelling
  Cost of Living (Increase)
  Cost of Living (Increase)
  Milk (Consumption)
  Milk (Consumption)
  ALDERMAN PETER ROSS
  ALDERMAN PETER ROSS
  LEGAL ADVISERS (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
  LEGAL ADVISERS (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA)
  DRUGS
  DRUGS
  CHILDREN (PARENTS' RESPONSIBILITY)
  CHILDREN (PARENTS' RESPONSIBILITY)
  NIGEL STRANGE
  NIGEL STRANGE
  LEGAL EDUCATION (REPORT)
  LEGAL EDUCATION (REPORT)
  HEARING AIDS (ELECTRONICS (CROYDON) LIMITED)
  HEARING AIDS (ELECTRONICS (CROYDON) LIMITED)
  I.R.A. GUNMEN (B.B.C. INTERVIEW)
  I.R.A. GUNMEN (B.B.C. INTERVIEW)
  MEMBERS (JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND BRIEFS)
  MEMBERS (JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS AND BRIEFS)
  MAGISTRATES (TRAINING FOR MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS)
  MAGISTRATES (TRAINING FOR MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inland Revenue (Women Cleaners)
  Inland Revenue (Women Cleaners)
  National Insurance Fund
  National Insurance Fund
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Charities (Tax Concessions)
  Charities (Tax Concessions)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Government Property (Uninsured Fire Losses)
  Government Property (Uninsured Fire Losses)
  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Ulster Defence Regiment
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Medical Confidentiality
  Medical Confidentiality
  Lambeth (Temporary Accommodation)
  Lambeth (Temporary Accommodation)
  Widows' Pensions
  Widows' Pensions
  Ampicillin (Bulk Purchase)
  Ampicillin (Bulk Purchase)
  Poverty (Portsmouth)
  Poverty (Portsmouth)
  Retired People (Inadequate Heating)
  Retired People (Inadequate Heating)
  Welfare Service Charges
  Welfare Service Charges
  Contraceptive Pill
  Contraceptive Pill
ENVIRONMENT
  Regional Economic Planning Councils
  Regional Economic Planning Councils
  Research Establishments
  Research Establishments
  Director-General of Research
  Director-General of Research
  Industrial Pollution
  Industrial Pollution
  Domestic Waste and Municipal Sewage (Reclamation and Recycling)
  Domestic Waste and Municipal Sewage (Reclamation and Recycling)
  Local Government (Staff Commission)
  Local Government (Staff Commission)
  Council House Rents
  Council House Rents
  National Antiquities Service
  National Antiquities Service
  Central Housing Advisory Committee
  Central Housing Advisory Committee
  Industrialised Dwellings
  Industrialised Dwellings
  National Building Agency
  National Building Agency
  Forbes Committee
  Forbes Committee
  Flood Defences (Houses of Parliament)
  Flood Defences (Houses of Parliament)
  The Citadel (Demolition)
  The Citadel (Demolition)
  Coatbridge (Driving Tests)
  Coatbridge (Driving Tests)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia (Marriages and Divorces)
  Rhodesia (Marriages and Divorces)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
CIVIL SERVICE
  Departments (Postal Charges and Services)
  Departments (Postal Charges and Services)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Constituency Electorates (Hertfordshire)
  Constituency Electorates (Hertfordshire)
  Preliminary Hearings (Newspaper Reporting)
  Preliminary Hearings (Newspaper Reporting)
  Courts Building, Leeds (Notice Board)
  Courts Building, Leeds (Notice Board)
  Immigration Bill (Patrials)
  Immigration Bill (Patrials)
  Jury Service (Women)
  Jury Service (Women)
  Aliens (Deportation)
  Aliens (Deportation)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Bankruptcies
  Bankruptcies
  Opencast Sites, Northumberland
  Opencast Sites, Northumberland
  Industrial Development Certificates (Wales)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Wales)
  Investment Grants Offices
  Investment Grants Offices
  STOL Aircraft
  STOL Aircraft
  Employment Opportunities, Glasgow
  Employment Opportunities, Glasgow
  Motor Insurance Policy Holders (Protection)
  Motor Insurance Policy Holders (Protection)
  Crowther Committee on Consumer Credit
  Crowther Committee on Consumer Credit
  GUARANTEES (PROTECTION OF PURCHASERS)
  GUARANTEES (PROTECTION OF PURCHASERS)
WALES
  Deputations
  Deputations
  Hospital Service, Cardiff
  Hospital Service, Cardiff
  An Economic Strategy for North West Wales
  An Economic Strategy for North West Wales
  Welsh Council (Chairman)
  Welsh Council (Chairman)
SCOTLAND
  Divorce (Legal Costs)
  Divorce (Legal Costs)
  Prison Parole System
  Prison Parole System
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (SPEECH)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER OF NORWAY (TALKS)
  PRIME MINISTER OF NORWAY (TALKS)
EDUCATION
  Women (Education and Training)
  Women (Education and Training)
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers, Leek
  School Leavers, Leek
  Electricians and Painters (Edinburgh and the Lothians)
  Electricians and Painters (Edinburgh and the Lothians)

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

SCOTTISH HOTELS AND WAGES COUNCIL
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent the problems of conditions of work in licensed hotels and restaurants in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland during the summer months have been considered by the relative Wages Council; and whether the Council intend to review the situation.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Wages Councils are independent statutory wage-fixing bodies representative of the two sides of the industries covered, and no information is available to the Secretary of State regarding the detailed considerations they take into account in formulating their wages regulation proposals. I regret, therefore, that it is not possible to provide the information sought by the noble Lord.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, do I take it from that Answer that the Minister is quite happy to leave the initiative with the Wages Council?
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords.

RHODESIAN SANCTIONS: THE BEIRA PATROL
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many ships have been stopped and searched by the Beira Patrol during
764
the years 1970, 1969 and 1968 respectively.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the number of ships stopped and searched by the Beira Patrol in 1970, 1969 and 1968, was four, six and three respectively. They were allowed to proceed when investigations showed that they were not engaged in breaking sanctions.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that illuminating Answer. Is he aware that at this stage I do not propose to ask him any supplementary questions, because these figures speak eloquently enough for themselves?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord who has not asked a supplementary question, No; I was not aware of it.

HEAVY FREIGHT TRAFFIC ROUTES
2.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the accelerating success of our container-trade via South-East coast ports, but also of the implications of that success, accompanied as it is by discomfort and building damage to residents in ancient towns and market villages; and whether the environment group can begin to collaborate with local governments by authorising "Stop" notices being set up at exits off classified roads and to prevent outsize lorries from taking short cuts along un-haunched country roads.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): Yes, my Lords. The route of heavy and bulky freight vehicles is a complex problem. Local authorities already have ample powers to control traffic under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. But legitimate access must be maintained, for example to farm premises. To distinguish between through-traffic and traffic requiring access entails severe

765
difficulties of enforcement. The Government are therefore embarking on consultation with freight operators to explore the possibilities of voluntary action in conjunction with local authorities.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, and I appreciate the difficulties. Would he not agree that "environment" envisages collaboration between Government and boroughs and villages in the countryside, for the betterment of conditions of life of our people? Would he not further agree that Government assistance in planning access routes to coastal ports by authorising signs would remedy discomfort and damage?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, to deal with the last point first, the question of designated routes for ports traffic is a particular aspect of the general problem which I indicated was being studied by the Department, by the freight operators and by local authorities together. As to the first and more general question, it was for this reason, among others, that the Government decided to set up a Department of the Environment, so that these complex interrelated problems could be studied comprehensively.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government, in dealing with the question of these heavy container freights on lorries, take steps to see that the containers are sufficiently securely anchored to the lorries? I understand that in the case of British Railways they are, but in the case of many foreign operators they are not. Her Majesty's Government may have noticed that not long ago an insufficiently securely anchored container fell sideways on to a car which was passing in the right way on the correct side.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that is a rather different matter from the one to which the original Question was addressed. I will look into it, and if there is anything which I think of value that I can convey to the noble Baroness, I will certainly do so.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord on the colour of his tie, and hope that he wears it on May 1? Would the noble Lord
766
consider a new sign to be put at the entrance to this type of road, to indicate to the drivers of heavy vehicles that these roads are not suitable for heavy vehicles?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords we will consider that.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider adopting the successful Dutch practice of requiring distributing parking fields adjacent to factory districts where loads of excessive size and weight can be redirected on to suitable second-class roads.]
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government share the general concern about the impact of heavy goods vehicles on our roads. A Working Party is currently studying the problems caused by the lack of secure lorry parks, and their report is expected in the very near future. My right honourable friend is now arranging, in conjunction with the road transport industry, a research study into the distribution of goods in towns by vehicles of a size more suited to the conditions. These investigations will take into account the experience gained in other countries, including Holland.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Would he not agree that many of our road schemes are so much in arrears that the Channel container trade has come upon us as an interloping situation and should now receive some preference?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it so happens that I am moving the Second Reading of the Highways Bill to-morrow. This will afford a good opportunity to go into these matters more fully.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is the noble Lord correct? Is it to-morrow, or is it on Thursday that the noble Lord will move that Second Reading?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I stand corrected.

RENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
2.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be received.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power of Board to enter into agreements in connection with overseas aid]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("for any purpose specified in the said section 1(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before addressing arguments on this Amendment, I suggest that it might be convenient to discuss with this the second Amendment on the Marshalled List, as the two really go together. This Amendment relates closely to an Amendment which was discussed at the Committee stage, and which I then withdrew on certain assurances. I am now returning to the matter because of doubts whether the Government have power to do what they might want to do. I am not arguing about what the Government should do, but merely going on the basis of what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said that the Government might want to do and the advice I have been given as to whether the Government have the power to do that, if the occasion arose. The present two Amendments would certainly give them that power.
May I refresh your Lordships' memory as to the matter to which these Amendments relate? In the Committee stage, which was held a week ago, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said:
"If the National Coal Board have at any time a considered proposal to make for overseas activity—and it may well be that it would be of great advantage if they had, whether by themselves or in conjunction with others—they can put it to the Secretary of State, as they have been able to ever since 1949,
768
and if he approves of it he will make an order under the Act. That is the present statutory position, and the Government see no reason why it should be altered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/3/71; col. 345.]
He went on to say, a little later in the same column:
"The main point that I wish to stress is that there is nothing at the present time to prevent the National Coal Board asking for authority from the Secretary of State to undertake overseas activities,…"
In column 348, I made it clear that, with your Lordships' permission, I was seeking leave to withdraw the Amendment then under discussion on the basis of the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He used these words:
"I think I can give the noble Lord"—
that is, myself—
"the assurance for which he asks … but I do not think that the situation would be any different if the Amendment were carried."
When one is told that the situation will be no different it the Amendment is carried, there seems little point in pursuing it. I have since been advised that the position may not be as the noble Lord had understood it. Therefore I am going to put the position before him and seek confirmation that he has been right the whole way through. Alternatively, he would naturally wish to accept the Amendments now before your Lordships' House which would put the matter right.
Supposing the Board—and this is the essential matter that we are considering—could show that giving technical assistance in relation to mining in a foreign country would facilitate in some way the discharge of their duties under Section 1 of the 1946 Act, they would have power to do it; but if they could not show that, they would not have that power. It would not be possible for an order under the subsequent 1949 Act, called an Overseas Activities Order—this is not related to overseas aid; it is purely related to the Act of 1949, which preceded the Overseas Aid Act by many years—to give the Government the necessary power. All such an order does is to extend the area in which the existing powers can be exercised. It does not enlarge the Board's powers. So if I am right in suggesting to the Government that they have not the power to do what the noble Lord suggested they had power to do under the 1946 Act, and they have not power to do so under the 1949 Act,

769
then one would have to rely on Clause 5 of the Bill to give the powers mentioned.
Clause 5 in turn restricts the powers to purposes specified in Section 1(1) of the Overseas Aid Act 1966. That section says, among other things:
"… for the purposes of promoting the development of, or maintaining the economy of, a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or the welfare of its people".
I understand that all those words, in fact the whole of the Act, must be read in the context of aid to developing countries, and therefore the circumstances in which technical assistance was proposed to be given overseas might not come within the scope of the Overseas Aid Act if it were, for example, technical assistance in the United States.
Your Lordships will remember that my concern with this matter is twofold: partly to enable the Board to carry out these activities, but mainly to enable the British interests concerned to follow up; and, in particular, to put this country in the same position as France is in. France, through her nationalised coal industry, set up an organisation whose activities have resulted in visits to 25 different countries advising about mining activities, with follow-up to French manufacturers of mining equipment, with the result that we in this country are competing against France with our arms tied behind our backs. I am suggesting to your Lordships that, in the interests of these providers of mining equipment of one kind and another, the pathfinding activities of the Coal Board should not be restricted.
The noble Lord has not said that they should be restricted. He said that if an application were made to the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State was satisfied that these activities should be carried on, then he could by an Order give the necessary authority to the Coal Board. I am saying that, unless one is able to read the detailed provisions I have just mentioned of the Overseas Aid Act 1966 in a way which does not relate to overseas aid and developing countries, then I do not think the Board would be able to receive the necessary authority because the Minister would not have the necessary power. Therefore, the first Amendment seeks to remove the restrictive words in this Bill so that the Govern-
770
ment can do what they might—I repeat, might—want to do.
As to the second Amendment, we accept the Government's view that it might be said to go too far merely to delete the restrictive words I have referred to in the first Amendment. I shall therefore propose, after "assistance" in line 5, insertion of the words, "of a kind related to mining". That ties the new powers to the function in which the Board have a particular experience and a particular expertise. I hope that I have made the position clear to your Lordships. As I see it in a nutshell, both sides want the same thing; that is to say, that the Government should have the necessary powers to promote British interests of the kind I have indicated. The Minister has said that no Amendment is needed. I have, with respect, reason to doubt that. I shall therefore be grateful if he will either confirm what he previously said or accept the Amendments the first of which I now beg to move.
2.55 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has moved this Amendment. We are, of course, dealing with an Amendment which would extend very widely the purposes for which the Board may furnish technical assistance. There are two points which must be distinguished. One must distinguish between the purposes for which assistance may be given abroad and the nature of the assistance to be given. The first Amendment deals with the first of these, and the second Amendment with the second.
The noble Lord is quite right up to a point in saying, or implying—and I think this is the gist of what he said—that quite clearly any application under Section 2 of the Coal Industry Act 1949 by the Coal Board to be allowed to engage in overseas activities could not go, beyond those things which they are already entitled, under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946, to do, in Great Britain. That is the position as I understand it. But I thought the noble Lord went rather further than that. He seemed to say there were limitations under the 1966 Act. I quite agree that, with the words that are in the Bill as it is, it would not be possible for the Coal Board to indulge in overseas activities permitted under this clause anywhere in the world. But it

771
never was intended that they should do so under this clause, except in developing countries.
The first Amendments by omitting the reference to Section 1(1) of the Overseas Aid Act 1966, would confine the purposes for which the Board may furnish technical assistance to
"promoting the development of, or maintaining the economy of, a country or territory outside the United Kingdom or the welfare of its people".
The effect of the Amendment would be to remove the restriction on the purposes for which overseas aid could be given by the Board. There would be no restriction there. But of course the restriction in the 1946 Act on the things they are entitled to do would remain: if they are not entitled to do something under the Coal Industry Act, then they ought not to be entitled to do it under this legislation. The second Amendment deals with the nature of the assistance which may be given overseas by confining it to being of "a kind related to mining".
With regard to the first Amendment, this clause of this Bill is intended to authorise the National Coal Board to participate in overseas aid programmes, and it would be wrong to use it as a vehicle for a proposal to widen the National Coal Board's powers overseas, if only because the need for and the desirability of such powers remain to be established. As I have said, where the 1946 Act confers powers to do certain things in this country, an application can be made under the 1949 Act to do them abroad; and that of course needs the consent of the Secretary of State.
The second Amendment places a new restriction, not in the Bill, on the nature of the assistance to be given. If the second Amendment were accepted and the Board were then asked for technical assistance overseas because of their technical expertise in a non-mining field—for example, drilling for oil—they would be prevented from offering such assistance, even though it was otherwise desirable that they should do so. I doubt whether this was what the noble Lord intended. Certainly the Government did not intend to limit the nature of technical assistance the Board could give in this way, with the consent of Ministers concerned, in developing countries.
772
My Lords, the Government adhere to the position that, so far as countries other than developing countries are concerned, this is a matter that the Coal Board would have to submit to the Secretary of State under the 1949 Act. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord that if this was something which was desirable and was not covered by the 1949 Act, fresh legislation would be necessary, but unless and until the need and the desirability are established for such activities, it is not felt that it would be right to include the powers to engage in those activities overseas in this Bill.
3.1 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, so far as I can follow it, I am bound to regard that as an answer which I find unsatisfactory—but I cannot follow it completely. The noble Lord said at an earlier stage that he could give the assurance for which I was asking; namely, and I give my own words:
"I am sure he would want to give sympathetic consideration, as I understood him to say, to proposals put by the National Coal Board to give assistance of the kind we have been discussing outside the scope of the Overseas Aid Act. If the noble Lord thinks that that can be satisfactorily done under the existing legislation, with the slight delay of an order but nothing worse than that, then so long as I have interpreted his views aright I should not wish to pursue the matter unduly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/3/71, col. 348.]
That is the point where the noble Lord gave me the assurance.
Of course, we are talking about extending the powers of the Coal Board in exactly the same way as Charbonnages de France has done for its national interests. We are talking about giving the National Coal Board the same power to be a pathfinder in developed countries so as to enable the follow-up British interests to take advantage of that. We are interested on this side of the House in promoting both the wellbeing of the nationalised coal industry and the wellbeing of the private sector which serves the coal industry widely. I am particularly interested, my Lords, because in my late constituency were many men and women employed by a very large, very enterprising public company—when I say "public" I mean quoted on the Stock Exchange—which made mining equipment. They made, for example, pit props. In the old days pit props used to be of

773
wood; later they became pit props of a particular kind.
Supposing the Coal Board, which have an enormous reservoir of technical expertise, were to send their advisers, on request, to a developed country like the United States, and the advice was that a particular method of mining should be adopted in order to get the greatest benefits and to act with the greatest efficiency in a given difficult mining situation. If that advice were accepted, the next question might be: who could supply the equipment which is being recommended? Of course the answer would be that it might be the particular firm I have in mind, if it were that kind of equipment, or other kinds of firms. This firm employ 3,000 people and it is very important that these interests should be promoted.
I cannot understand why the noble Lord insists on denying to this country the same capacity to benefit private sec-
tor interests as well as the Coal Board as France has granted to its nationalised industry. Moreover, I cannot, I am bound to say, understand why the noble Lord gave me that assurance which surely related to the very extension of powers which I am now talking about, if that assurance could not properly be given. If he was in error, that is well understood; it is possible even for a Minister to make an error. I do not think he is now saying that; he is saying that one cannot extend the powers of the National Coal Board so as to achieve these purposes. I find this a totally unsatisfactory approach both to the public sector and to the private sector, and I suggest that your Lordships should show your disapproval in the normal way.
3.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 74; Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gardiner, L.

Royle, L.

Airedale, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Rusholme, L.

Amherst, E.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

St. Davids, V.

Amulree, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Segal, L.

Archibald, L.

Hall, V.

Serota, Bs.

Ardwick, L.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Henley, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Hughes, L.

Soper, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L.

Sorensen, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Janner, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Byers, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Chorley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strabolgi, L.

Constantine, L.

Loudoun, C.

Taylor, L.

Crook, L.

McLeavy, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Moyle, L.

Thurso, V.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wade, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Walston, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Plummer, Bs.

White, Bs.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Faringdon, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Fletcher, L.

Robbins, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Belstead, L.

Daventry, V.

Airedale, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Denham, L.

Albemarle, E.

Blackford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Caithness, E.

Dundonald, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Carrington, L.

Eccles, V.

Auckland, L.

Cawley, L.

Effingham, E.

Balerno, L.

Colgrain, L.

Egremont, L.

Balfour, E.

Conesford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Courtown, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Barnby, L.

Craigavon, V.

Essex, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Falmouth, V.

Ferrers., E. [Teller.]

Kilmany, L.

St. Just, L.

Ferrier, L.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Fortescue, E.

Leicester, E.

Salisbury, M.

Glentanar, L.

Lothian, M.

Sandford, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Savile, L.

Gowrie, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Sherfield, L.

Gray, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Greenway, L.

Mar, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Margadale, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Gridley, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mersey, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

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

Milverton, L.

Suffield, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Swinton, E.

Hankey, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Tenby, V.

Hanworth, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thomas, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Thurlow, L.

Hawke, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs

Howard of Glossop, L.

Rockley, L.

Vivian, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ilford, L.

St. Helens, L.

Windlesham, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Clause 6 [Power of Secretary of State to call for report of Board's diversified activities]:
3.18 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 24, leave out ("colliery activities within the meaning of the Act of 1946") and insert ("coal-mining activities").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may engage your sympathetic attention for a moment, I would ask whether any noble Lord has ever had the nightmare that he was on his feet at the Despatch Box, addressing your Lordships' House on an Amendment the papers in respect of which had suddenly taken flight and flown through the window. If any noble Lord has ever had that nightmare, let me assure him that it is not a nightmare—it is a reality. Therefore I hope your Lordships will be more than usually kind if I attempt, on the basis of a very poor memory, to put this Amendment before you. I hope it will be to your Lordships' convenience that with this Amendment we should discuss No. 5 and also Amendment No. 9 on the Marshalled List because they all relate to the same matter.
This is a further attempt to put into the Bill what the Government have indicated is their purpose, and to find words for a definition which has so far escaped the Government, and which I attempted to fill in at the Committee stage. At that time I put forward an Amendment (which of course had to be to Clause 6), the information clause, because that is where
776
it is first mentioned, although we are really concerned with Clause 7, which is the action clause, as opposed to the information clause, and is really the vital matter. But we have to deal first with the definition in Clause 6, and therefore I hope that I shall not be told in reply, as I was on the last occasion, the reasons why this is not very important for information reasons. I know it is not very important for information reasons.
I have already been privileged to explain to your Lordships' House that Clause 6, the information clause, is not necessary at all. I have already said that in my experience whenever the Coal Board were asked for information it was provided. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, if he was aware of any occasion when the Coal Board had been asked for information and had not provided it, and he said he was not. He said something to the effect that it was not surprising the Coal Board gave the information they were asked for whenever they were asked because under the Act they were compelled so to do. It is not surprising, therefore, that we are all agreed that Clause 6 does not take the matter very far. But, as I have said, I have to discuss this Amendment under Clause 6 because one could not have it discussed only under Clause 7 and have two different definitions of the same matter in the same Bill.
Having explained that I am really directing your Lordships' attention to Clause 7, although we are dealing with the first Amendment I have moved, to Clause 6, may I now go on to say why, so far as I recollect, we regard this as

777
a matter of importance? There was a very clear indication by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, of the distinction to be drawn between the basic activities of the Coal Board and what he went on to describe as ancillary activities; and those ancillary activities were to be subject to a review and to powers of action, which he may think of a beneficial kind but which we think of a damaging kind, under Clause 7. Without wishing, therefore, to interfere with the Government's right, or without having power to interfere with the Government's right, to take what action they want to take under Clause 7, we can at all events endeavour to see that the action taken under the powers of the Bill corresponds with the action that Ministers say they will want to take; and Ministers are saying they will want to take action after information upon the ancillary activities.
On the last occasion, I moved an Amendment in an attempt to define the proper central activities of mining without which coal could not be got, but leaving out peripheral, ancillary activities, so that the Government could get information about them and have a review of them and take action about them if they were so minded. The objection to the definition I then put forward was that there was reference to a broad activity which noble Lords opposite found confusing; there was a reference at the end of that definition to "the efficient development of the coal mining industry". The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers then said,
"I suggest to the noble Lord that this"—
that is to say, the words I have read out—
"is making a blurred distinction between what may be permitted to be subject to review and what may not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/3/71, col. 356.]
He went on to say, at col. 366:
"Were it only to circumscribe that one particular area in which I have suggested that the words of a Minister in the other place should be taken as being a pledge by which the Government would undertake not to involve themselves in such activities, then this Amendment would be acceptable. The whole point is that the Amendment goes very much further by using the words 'for the efficient developing of the coal mining industry'."
Therefore, the definition in the Amendment which is now before your Lordships' House excludes those words, but by and large it is the same definition as
778
before, with a slight grammatical improvement. It is a definition which, I repeat, I understood would have been acceptable except that the words "the efficient developing of the coal mining industry" were included.
I am relying on an assurance given in another place and on the words of the Government spokesman in your Lordships' House. Both make it clear that there is a distinction to be drawn below or before ancillary activities. It is obviously for the benefit of the Coal Board that they should certainly know which area of mining activity is not to be subject to Ministerial interference in management. Therefore, words have been used which I hope now accurately reflect the Government's desire.
I would add one final argument, which I have never in my life used before—and I should not care to try to recollect how many Amendments I have put before one or other House of Parliament—that had I had my papers before me I am sure the argument would have been twice as persuasive as the one I have endeavoured to put. I hope the Government will be willing to accept the Amendment which I am moving.
3.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the clarity with which he has moved this Amendment. I doubly congratulate him because of the circumstances in which he has done so. I think we perfectly understand what the noble Lord is getting at, and I know that my noble friend did not really intend to treat the noble Lord's Amendment on the last occasion as if it were dealing purely with information. The reason is that the purpose of Clause 6 is to set the pattern within which the directions, if any, will be given under Clause 7. I do not mean to pledge the Government that in no circumstances will a direction ever be given without a previous review; what I am saying is that in the broad context of the Bill the purpose of Clause 6 is to provide for reviews which may cover the whole of the area that is left open to review in the Bill, or may deal with that area with exclusions.
What I should like to say—and I do not think there is a great deal between us, if I may say so, on this particular

779
Amendment—is that when you are trying to decide on an area to be covered, your main concern is to make certain that you cover the whole area and do not leave anything out. If we were to prescribe a narrower area, we might find that we had left out some things that ought to be covered. My noble friend at an earlier stage referred to words that were used by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place, in which he mentioned some of the activities in respect of which directions would not be given, and which, therefore, the review was not going to cover. But to try to exclude those by a redefinition here would, I think, be very difficult.
I ask the House to accept that the Government have no preconceived ideas about the outcome of a review of the Board's activities. We certainly should not wish to exclude the National Coal Board's interests in retail fuel distribution from review, or from the possibility of directions arising thereafter. What the noble Lord has left in his definition, as opposed to what he took out of the definition at the earlier stage, is:
"supplying, selling or otherwise making available coal."
We think it better to leave that open to review, because while there may be a good case for the Board's retaining these interests, the Government do not want that conclusion to be prejudged in this Bill, but want the possibility of covering those activities in the review. Therefore, in spite of the readiness that the noble Lord has shown to move nearer to the Government's definition, I must ask the House to reject the Amendment so that we can be sure that the review covers all those activities outside colliery activities which it may be found, when we set the terms of the review, should be covered.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, it is not my intention to take up very much time in regard to this Amendment, because we had a very long debate on Clauses 6 and 7 during the Committee stage. The noble Lord says that Clause 6 was put into the Bill to set the pattern for Clause 7. But it is Clause 7 that is the most devastating part of this Bill, and it concerns the new activities which the Coal Board took upon themselves by their powers of investment. The Government say they are prepared to have a review, yet at the same time
780
they take exception to the Coal Board's attempt to take within their operation of the coal industry a responsibility whereby they are able to improve their financial position and to meet the commitments imposed upon the Board because of certain circumstances.
I am at a loss to understand noble Lords who vote against the application that is made by these Amendments, when I look outside at private industry. As I have been sitting here this afternoon I have been thinking that at one time you had a butcher. He had a shop, and he had a carcase, and he would cut that carcase down; and that is all he would be able to sell within that particular shop. But to-day the butcher has become more or less a general dealer; and he not only sells meat but sells other types of commodities, in order to keep his business going and to meet his commitments, because he is in a competitive market. It is the same with the Coal Board. Why these restrictions should be imposed, and why the Minister should have sought, by this Bill, to take upon himself the responsibility of imposing such sanctions—and I claim them to be sanctions—against the Coal Board, I shall never know. The only conclusion I can draw is that it is because it is a nationalised industry; it belongs to the State and operates on behalf of the State, and gives a service to the people of the State. But when it comes to outside the perimeter of the Coal Board and their functions, then there is nothing said at all.
After listening to the reply of the noble Lord to my noble friend Lord Diamond I am beginning to wonder whether he has had any discussions at all with the Minister of Fuel and Power with regard to this matter. If he has had consultations with his right honourable friend in the other place who is responsible, as Minister, for the Coal Board, then I can only arrive at one conclusion: that the Tory Party are still within the doldrums, because they know nothing whatever about the milling industry, how it works and how it ought to function. I am rather surprised that the Minister is not prepared to accept the Amendment which was so ably moved by my noble friend.
3.37 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, to some extent I spoke on Clauses 6 and 7 at the Committee stage, but I was amazed

781
to-day to hear the Minister say that the Government have no preconceived ideas on this Bill. I hope he is not trying to delude us, because example is better than precept. When we see how the Government have hived off air routes, how they have hived off Thomas Cook & Son Ltd., and when we know that they are to introduce a Bill to take out of State control the public houses and breweries in Cumberland, how can we accept these nice soft words coming from the Tory Front Bench in relation to Clause 7?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not want to be accused of misleading the House on every Amendment. I certainly have no intention whatever of misleading the House, and I do not believe I misled them on the last occasion, either. Let us be quite clear about this. When I say that we have no preconceived ideas, I do not mean that we have no preconceived ideas that, in certain circumstances, it might be right to hive off—to use the words the noble Lord has used—some parts of the Coal Board's present undertakings. What I said we had no preconceived ideas about is what parts, and this is what we are talking about here, because we are talking about definition.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, because he has made my case, and I will say no more. He said that the Government have no preconceived ideas, but when they have looked at the figures, they may want to hive off some of the coal industry. Well, the noble Lord has made my case. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will take us to a Division, because what is to happen is a scandal.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friends for the support which they have given to me on this Amendment and for their clarification of the essential issues. I can only say to my noble friend Lord Blyton that although he is absolutely right in what he said about this matter being a scandal, if I were to suggest to your Lordships' House that we should divide on every single Amendment or on every single issue in this Bill which was scandalous, we should spend the whole of the day dividing. Therefore I have the difficult and, indeed, impossible task of selecting between greater and minor
782
scandals. That is all I can say to my noble friend on that issue.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that again I regret that his answer was most unsatisfactory. He was right in saying that this Amendment narrows the issue. I do not think that an Opposition, feeling as hot under the collar as we do about the whole of this part of the Bill, could have been more modest or more restrained in the Amendments which we put forward at the Committee stage and again at this stage. We are seeking only to put into the Bill assurances given by the Government. That is, in effect, all we are trying to do. I do not accept from the noble Lord, or from any other spokesman, that the Government are not supplied with Parliamentary draftsmen of such a skill that they are able to give words to describe accurately decisions which the Government have made. They are capable of doing so and, in my experience, have always done so with extreme ability and precision—
LORD DRUMALBYN: We have done so.
LORD DIAMOND: —and if there is any dubiety, it is in Ministerial minds; not in the minds of the draftsmen. Having said that, may I ask: Why, then—this is an oratorical question, because we are at the Report stage—do the Government say that they prefer to legislate by means of provisions which are excessively powerful, limited by assurances given in another place? Why do the Government not say: "We are quite clear what we want to do. We have methods of putting into effect what we want to do, and of drafting what we want with complete precision"? Why do the Government not proceed in that way? Why does the noble Lord say that this House has no function to perform—
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords—
LORD DIAMOND: I shall give way in one moment. By itself, that phrase needs explanation, because the noble Lord did not use those words. Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to allow me to explain what I mean by it. Why did he implicitly say that this House has no function to perform, when he said that it was not right or proper or necessary or convenient—I forget the words he used—for this House to attempt to put right

783
words that had been used in another place? I thought it was the whole function of your Lordships' House to find areas where a Bill could be improved, without affecting major policy, so as to represent the views of the Government themselves and benefit individuals in the country if possible. That is all we are seeking to do here—to improve management possibilities. I shall gladly give way if the noble Lord wishes to correct me.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. What I have tried to make clear to him is that in the definition of "colliery activities" we have something which is absolutely clear cut. He is now seeking to substitute a definition which includes items that we cannot accept, such as,
"supplying, selling or otherwise making available coal."
The noble Lord makes the definition still wider by referring to,
"activities undertaken for the purpose of"
other activities.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, why does the noble Lord not bring in his own Amendment, if he does not like mine? Why should I do his work for him? The Government have said that the words they have used are not coterminous with the powers that they seek. The Minister has said it, and it is not denied. The Minister has said—and it has been repeated in this House—that the definition of "colliery activities" excludes such essential activi-
as baths, welfare activities and electricity activities, without which no pit could function. The Minister in another place has said that and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said it here. So the incontrovertible fact remains that the definition which the Government are using is, in their own words, inadequate to describe their intentions.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has agreed with me that the Government are supplied with very skilled draftsmen who can put the Government's intentions into precise words. Why do the Government not ask them to do that? We have attempted to do it for the Government, and each time we have done it the Government have picked on some part of the words we used and have said, "We do not like that." Then, flexible as ever, we have produced other words and the Government have said, "We do not like that." Why do the Government not carry out their own task? I agree with my noble friend Lord Blyton that this is scandalous. It is a totally authoritarian way of governing. It is a total discourtesy to this House not to enable it to have any effect on the legislation under discussion. I am bound to agree with my noble friend that in this case the scandal is of such a nature, and the gross admitted incompetence of the Government is of such a size, that we ought to divide.
3.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 110.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Diamond, L.

Lindgren, L.

Airedale, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Archibald, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

McLeavy, L.

Ardwick, L.

Faringdon, L.

Moyle, L.

Arwyn, L.

Fiske, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Aylestone, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Ogmore, L.

Balogh, L.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Plummer, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brockway, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brown, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Raglan, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Royle, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hall, V.

Rusholme, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Byers, L.

Henley, L.

Segal, L.

Chalfont, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Serota, Bs.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Chorley, L.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Constantine, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Crook, L.

Kennet. L.

Sorensen, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Stonham, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Thurso, V.

Summerskill, Bs.

Wade, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Taylor, L.

Walston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Falmouth, V.

Molson, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Ferrier, L.

Moyne, L.

Albemarle, E.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Glentanar, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Perth, E.

Auckland, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Balerno, L.

Gray, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Balfour, E.

Greenway, L.

Rhyl, L.

Barnby, L.

Grenfell, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Gridley, L.

Rockley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Hailes, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

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

St. Helens, L.

Caccia, L.

Salisbury, M.

Carrick, E.

Hankey, L.

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Savile, L.

Colgrain, L.

Hatherton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Hawke, L.

Sherfield, L.

Courtown, E.

Hood, V.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Craigavon, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Stamp, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Stonehaven, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Ilford, L.

Strang, L.

Cromartie, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strathalmond, L.

Daventry, V.

Jessel, L.

Strathcarron, L.

De Clifford, L.

Kilmany. L.

Strathclyde, L.

Denham, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Suffield, L.

Dulverton, L.

Lothian, M.

Swinton, E.

Dundee, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tenby, V.

Dundonald, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Thomas, L.

Eccles, V.

Mar, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Effingham, E.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Egremont, L.

Masham of Ilton, Bs.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mersey, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Essex, E.

Milverton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

3.48 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 24, after ("steps") insert ("of a general character")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a short Amendment, but it is a very important one indeed. Clause 7(3) reads:
"The Secretary of State may direct the Board to take specified steps, in respect of any activities of the Board or a subsidiary of Board, with a view to altering the way in which those activities are organised."
Your Lordships will know that we on this side of the House consider that that is not only a new but a totally unnecessary invasion into the administrative and managerial sphere proper to the Coal Board itself. We are therefore very concerned to know exactly what is meant by the powers that are being taken.
Now the Government were most helpful when this subject was discussed on the Committee stage, and at column 384 the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said:
"The other point to which I think it important to refer was made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in his opening speech. He said that this would involve the Government in day-to-clay management."
Indeed I did.
"That is not the intention of the subsection: the intention is merely to give broad lines on which the various activities of the Coal Board or its subsidiaries should be organised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/3/71; col. 384.]
Your Lordships will immediately appreciate that that is a very different kettle of fish. I was so surprised to hear what the noble Lord said, that when I came to reply (at column 385) I was clearly in error. In response to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, drawing my attention to the fact, I said that "specified" steps

787
means "specific" steps. Not at all, said the noble Earl, "Specified' is not the same as specific'". I said, "I am very glad to hear that." I repeat that I heard these words with considerable pleasure: that "specified" is not the same as "specific". Clearly, it is not because the last two letters are different. We are not concerned with how the words are spelled, but with the intention of the Government, the meaning of the clause and the powers which are sought by the clause. The Government have said—and it is very important—that their intention is not what some of us understood it to be. I am grateful for that. I am grateful for the assurance that I have read out, what it is not the intention of the Government to interfere with the day-to-day management. The intention is now merely to give broad lines on which the various activities of the Coal Board are to be organised.
What I am doing, the noble Lord will realise, is to repeat that assurance at least twice so that there can be no doubt that the pages of Hansard will be decorated by that assurance in many places; because it is so vital and necessary to the sensible management of a most important national interest, the Coal Board. Having said that, I go on to direct your Lordships' attention to the exact words of the Amendment, which are:
"after ("steps") insert ("of a general character")."
So that it would now read:
"The Secretary of State may direct the Board to take specified steps of a general character …"
The words are not invented by me; they are taken from the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. I hope that on this occasion I am doing no more than giving effect to what are the Government's intentions by adding to the clause words which mean no more than we have been told are the Government's intentions. I hope therefore that this Amendment, which I have pleasure in moving, will be acceptable to the Government.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord is showing great skill in trying to pin down the Government to accept an interpretation of the Bill that he particularly would like them to accept. I think that I ought to start by making it
788
clear that, as your Lordships are aware, we are dealing with subsection (3) which says:
"The Secretary of State may direct the Board to take specified steps, in respect of any activities of the Board or a subsidiary of the Board, with a view to altering the way in which those activities are organised."
That is one of the things, and only one of the things, that may be done by way of direction under this clause. The first subsection gives power to the Secretary of State to direct the Board to dispose of assets or any part of its undertaking or to discontinue or restrict any of its activities and so on.
But here we are really dealing more with a question of semantics than with a matter of principle. My noble friend was absolutely right in what he said. But that is not equivalent in any way to the words which the noble Lord has put down in the Amendment. The noble Lord is trying to restrict the "specified steps" to steps of a general character. That is an odd way of proceeding from an intervention in which my noble friend merely said that "specified" was different from "specific"; because when you specify something, I gather from the dictionary, you name it expressly or mention it definitely. You may mention things definitely which are of a broad character or you may mention things definitely which are of a very narrow character. I really think that the noble Lord is pressing the meaning of words very far indeed in this case.
He then proceeds to rely on the fact that the directions "of a general character" are already provided for in the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act. The Act empowers the Secretary of State, as he said, to
"give to the Board directions of a general character … in … relation to matters appearing to the Minister to affect the national interest."
The point here is that in the Amendment it is the steps that are to be of a general character; whereas in the Act it is the directions which are to be of a general character. And that is a very different matter.
The noble Lord is also trying to tie us down in this Bill in a way that the Government are not tied down in Section 7 of the Iron and Steel Act 1967 or Section 45 of the Transport Act 1968. In neither of these sections is the power

789
to give directions about organisation limited to matters of a general character. I see no reason to impose a restriction in the case of the coal industry which does not obtain in the steel and transport industries. Although the noble Lord tried to develop this into a matter of great importance, we are really talking about a matter arising out of a very narrow interpretation of words. I must hasten to say that it was certainly never in the mind of my noble friend to contemplate that we should alter the clause in the way that this Amendment would alter it. I must invite your Lordships to reject the Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, you will have observed that the noble Lord is not lacking in imagination in order to produce reasons—which differ somewhat from time to time from those previously given—why this House should not interfere with a Bill which has come from another place. The underlying theme is broadly the same: "I have my brief; I have my instructions; we are instructed not to alter this Bill in any way at all and therefore I give the arguments which come to my mind". That is the underlying theme which has been made clear as we have proceeded. This is a very difficult lesson for one so new to your Lordships' House to learn—brought up as I am to believe in the great benefits which come from having a bicameral Government. However, I must proceed with my duty and say to the noble Lord that we could not possibly accept what he has said with regard to the words themselves: that this is merely a question of semantics—although I prefer the more euphonious word "semasiology". Whichever it is, I do not accept it.
It is in fact a very important Amendment; and all that I can do is not to make matters worse; because it seems to be the case that the more I stir up the noble Lords the more they think of things they ought to have said which they did not say and which would damage industry even further. I had better not do any more than underline that I am relying not only on the undertaking, the assurance, given by his noble friend but also on his own just repeated statement that what his noble friend said was absolutely right; namely, that that is not the intention of the subsection; that
790
the intention is merely to give broad lines on which the various activities of the Coal Board or its subsidiaries should be organised. If that is the case, and if in fact it takes place, I would agree that the words themselves are of less importance. We are still proceeding on the basis of assurance by the Minister rather than by enactment; but if it is the Government's desire to do that, I do not feel that I can ask your Lordships' House to waste any further time on this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.11 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction to the Board under this section if as a result of compliance therewith the interests of any person other than the Board or a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board would be adversely affected."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, those of your Lordships who attended the Committee stage of this Bill will recollect that I was anxious about the effect on third parties of the provisions in this Bill, and the words of my Amendment make clear that what I now seek to do is to improve the lot not of the Board, not of a wholly owned subsidiary, but of third parties; that is to say, a minority holder in a company in which the Board have shares, or parties with whom the Board have entered into agreement by way of joint venture or something of that kind. I made it clear that I was more than anxious about the interests of such persons who might be affected by a direction given by the Board as a result of a requirement by the Secretary of State under Clause 7. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was good enough to promise that there would be careful inquiry about this matter. He said:
"I promise him that I will look very care fully into these points before the next stage of the Bill and perhaps we can come back to them then."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/3/71; col. 408–9.]
The noble Lord will be glad to know that we have come back to them now, and no doubt he will be good enough to explain to me how the interests of third parties are protected if a direction is given of the kind to which I have referred.
May I give one example that occurs to me in order to make my point clear?

791
Any of your Lordships who either borrows or lends money on a mortgage will be familiar with the normal principle under which you lend money for a period of, say, five years, to someone who wants to borrow it in order to build a house. You take security on the house and receive a document from your solicitors. What does the document say? It says that the money shall be repayable within six months. It is the understanding that the loan is a five-year loan; it is the legal fact that it is repayable on six months' notice, or at the end of six months. That is a normal, everyday provision with which your Lordships are familiar. In short, the mortgagee has power to call in a loan at a shorter period than that which the underlying agreement provides, and the other party would expect to have to repay at the end of five years. But if this were a loan by the Coal Board, and the Secretary of State so instructed, the Board would have to say to the other party, "We call in the loan because we have the power to do so."
If it meant bankrupting the other party or terminating with considerable damage a joint venture, arrangement or business, that would still be the result. It would not be a reason why the power could not be exercised; of course it is a reason why the power should not be exercised. Therefore I have proposed to your Lordships an Amendment which should protect the interests of third parties, the wording being, as your Lordships will have seen:
"… the interests of any person other than the Board or a wholly owned subsidiary of the Board would be adversely affected."
Of course it is in the interests of the Board that it should be known that the Board is a body which keeps it bond, and that when it has said, for example, "Here is £x-thousand on a five-year loan" it means what it says. It does not mean that the legal clause of recall at six months will be used. It is to the advantage of the Board that it should be known as an honourable body in commercial terms, and that those who may wish to do business with it in future will know that they can do business on those terms and with that expectation. As the clause is at present drawn, there is nothing whatever to protect third parties. I hope, therefore, that either
792
the Government will accept the Amendment I have put down or they will give us a full explanation of how the interests of those other than the Board and other than wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Board are to be protected.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has raised a point about which he feels strongly and I am sorry that I must say at the start that this is not an Amendment that we can accept.
LORD DIAMOND: What, again?
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is partly because it goes much wider than it would be at all sensible for the Government to accept, and partly because we do not think it is necessary. The Amendment is similar to, but not the same as, an Amendment moved in another place, which would have bound the Secretary of State to act only in circumstances where arrangements were made that were acceptable to persons affected. This Amendment goes further than that. Its effect would be that if the interests of any person other than the Board or its wholly owned subsidiaries were adversely affected, the Secretary of State could not act, even if arrangements could be made that were satisfactory to a person whose interests would be adversely affected. So, my Lords, with respect, this is very little short of a wrecking Amendment.
The Government are fully aware that there is concern about the possibility of third parties being adversely affected, but there is no reason to suppose that in fact this will be so. In the first place, under subsection (5) of this clause the Secretary of State will consult the National Coal Board before giving any direction to the Board. At this stage the Board will bring out any difficulties arising out of its relationship and arrangements with third parties, whether individuals or companies, which might result from the carrying out of the direction. The Government will take full account of the interests of all third parties, and also very much account of the reputation of the National Coal Board itself, to which the noble Lord referred; of course they will do that.
Secondly, if the direction is under either subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this clause, involving direction to discontinue activities or dispose of assets and so on,

793
both Houses of Parliament will be able to debate the direction before it is given. So Parliament will be able to judge whether in the circumstances it is reasonable that the direction should be issued. I wonder whether the noble Lord has really considered how hopelessly restrictive this Amendment would be. I fully recognise that he has a very proper concern that care should be taken to ensure that directions do not result in the interests of the Board's partners or fellow shareholders being adversely affected, and the Government, of course, in consultation with the Board, will do all they can to prevent that happening.
I think that I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that there is only one subsidiary of the Board which is not wholly owned. I accept that care is needed in the case of that one exception, and also in the case of the Board's partners, because some of the Board's arrangements are partnerships; but the Amendment goes much farther than that. There are few changes one can make that do not benefit some and affect others adversely. Under the Amendment, if one single person in the country or elsewhere—even the smallest customer—could show that his interests would be adversely affected by a direction, then the direction could not lawfully be made. I cannot believe that the noble Lord intended that result. He seems merely to be trying to defeat the clause in another way and, that being so, once again I advise my noble friends not to accept this Amendment. Though I accept absolutely the noble Lord's concern in this matter and his right to make certain that we do all we can to protect the interests of third parties, I do not believe that this would be in any way an appropriate Amendment to achieve that object.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the noble Lord's reply. In my view, the semantics of Clause 7 show that the Government are asking in the whole clause for further powers to the Secretary of State to give direction to the Board. What my noble friend is asking is that no person should be adversely affected. That does not mean, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, says, that nothing should be done. Many years ago I was privileged to sit on the Mining Subsidence Committee, and visited every coalfield in
794
Great Britain. May I give an illustration from the work of that Committee, which did two-and-a-half years' hard work? If my interests were adversely affected by a direction, what I should want to know would be whether that adverse effect would be for the benefit of the nation, because I am one tiny individual against this mighty Government, which is taking everything into its own hands. I want to know if I can be protected and get compensation.
The Committee to which I have referred worked very hard to get protection for people building houses in subsidence areas, and we worked out and inserted in the Act a formula which gave to an individual building a house, or to those building churches and public buildings, a right to see, for a small payment, the mining engineer's maps of the Coal Board. I do not say that the Government would do it, but under this clause the power exists for them to direct, if they so wish, that in a certain area the Coal Board, which may be paying huge sums to surveyors—like the £20,000 they are trying to take off the pubs in Cumberland—shall not produce maps of the area to show whether building sites are undermined or not and so save that amount of money.
There is real sense in what we are putting forward here, and I beg the Minister to look at it in more depth. We are asking that where hiving is going to be done, nobody should be adversely affected. I should like a guarantee, for example, that these maps will still be produced as they have been in the past, because they are important to the little house builders, to people owning historic properties and to local authorities who are erecting modern buildings. I think the point is worth making, if only to draw the attention of judges to the fact that this House has noted it.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing attention to these important matters and for refreshing our memories from his own experience, which is very relevant to this Amendment. I want to start by relieving the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, of any anxiety he has for the future by telling him that no answer of his on further Amendments could

795
possibly be worse than the answer he has given on the one we are now considering. He has thought it right to call this a wrecking Amendment. He has paid practically no interest to the rights of third parties who have entered into contractual agreements with the Coal Board which are going to be broken.
Under this clause we are considering almost exclusively private sector interests, and all the noble Lord has done is to read with great care and ability the brief put before him and give the same answer that he has given on every single Amendment discussed on the Committee and Report stages of this Bill. Although the Bill does not represent the views of the Government, the Government are not going to adjust the Bill so that the enactment will comply with the Government's intentions. The Government have said through the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that of course they will take account of the interests of third parties. But there is nothing in the Bill about that—not a word.
The noble Lord says that this is a wrecking Amendment because it would mean that the Government could not act without consulting third parties, and perhaps paying for damage to third parties. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with having to obtain the agreement of third parties who have honestly entered into arrangements with the Board and are having those arrangements broken by the diktat of the Secretary of State? I
cannot see anything wrong with that. I do not call that a wrecking Amendment.
I am sure the noble Lord has considered this point, and I am grateful to him for that. I gave him notice of it and mentioned it in my Second Reading speech, and it is not a new point. If he does not like this Amendment, why did he not bring forward his own Amendment? Why should it be for us to provide the Government with Amendments the whole time? The Government are saying that the rights of third parties will be taken into account, but there is nothing whatever in the Bill to accomplish that. I have never known any Conservative Government, ever since I have had the privilege of knowing Conservative Governments—that is, since 1945—act in such an authoritarian way. I do not know a single case where the Government have attempted to act in such an authoritarian way, time and time again saying: "Do not pay attention to the Act; pay attention to the assurances that Ministers give". This is not the way to legislate. This is not the way to regard the interests of third parties who have honourably entered into arrangements with the Coal Board. I invite your Lordships to show your displeasure.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 62; Not-Contents, 121.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Gardiner, L.

Raglan, L.

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Royle, L.

Ardwick, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Rusholme, L.

Arwyn, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Balogh, L.

Hall, V.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Serota, Bs.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brown, L.

Hughes, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L.

Sorensen, L.

Burntwood, L.

Kennet, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Kilbracken, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill,

Chorley, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Strabolgi, L.

Constantine, L.

Lindgren, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Taylor, L.

Diamond, L.

Moyle, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Faringdon, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Fiske, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Essex, E.

Moyne, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Albemarle, E.

Falmouth, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amulree, L.

Ferrier, L.

Ogmore, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Fortescue, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Auckland, L.

Glentanar, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balerno, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rathcavan, L.

Balfour, E.

Gray, L.

Rea, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Greenway, L.

Rhyl, L.

Barnby, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rockley, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Gridley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailes, L.

St. Helens, V.

Belstead, L.

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

St. Just, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Salisbury, M.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hankey, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hanworth, V.

Savile, L.

Byers, L.

Hatherton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Caccia, L.

Hawke, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L,

Conesford, L.

Henley, L.

Stamp, L.

Courtown, E.

Hood, V.

Stonehaven, V.

Craigavon, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strang, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cranbrook, E.

Ilford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ironside, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cromartie, E.

Jessel, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Daventry, V.

Kilmany, L.

Suffield, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), Bs.

Kilmarnock, L.

Swinton, E.

Davidson, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Tenby, V.

De Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Teynham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Thomas, L.

Dundee, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Thurso, V.

Dundonald, E.

Mar, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Masham of Ilton, Bs.

Tweedsmuir of Belhevie, Bs.

Eccles, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Effingham, E.

Mersey, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Meston, L.

Windlesham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Wise, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.42 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction to the Board under this section if he has approved the carrying on of the activities, the acquisition or setting up of the undertaking, the acquisition or creation of the assets, the making of the loan or the giving of the guarantee, as the case may be, to which the direction relates."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to reassure those who would wish to enter into business arrangements with the Board that they can, as it were, get a clearance, so that they may know that, once they have entered into the arrangements they will not be unpicked as a result of a direction to the Board by the Secretary of State to discontinue some activity, or get rid of
798
part of their undertaking. This is a proposal which I hope will meet with the Government's approval, if not in terms of words, in terms of the idea implicit in the Amendment.
Noble Lords will know by comparison with tax legislation, for example, that it is often the case that business arrangements may be of a complex nature and costly to unravel. Often those who wish to enter into these arrangements may want to know the effect of them so far as certain income tax provisions, or corporation tax provisions, are concerned. It is a perfectly reasonable request on the part of citizens that they should have clarity in the impact of tax legislation on their business proposals. Therefore there are in appropriate cases—and there are several such cases—methods of obtaining a clearance so that individuals, before entering into a transaction, may know the ultimate effect of it.
Similarly, it would be essential for individuals, before entering into business transactions with the Board of a kind referred to in this Amendment, to know that, notwithstanding the powers of the Government given by this Bill, once the appropriate Minister had approved a certain transaction, that transaction would be cleared and they would know that it could be safely entered into and continued. Investments could be made without anxiety in the sure knowledge that only good, commercial and national interests would determine the progress of the venture. I am bound to say "particular Minister", because at the moment nobody is protected.
If, for example, the present Secretary of State gives consent to a proposal put before him by the Coal Board for a joint venture operation with some private interests, nobody is protected by the fact that that Secretary of State has given his approval. It is not a statutory approval, just his approval. Another Secretary of State could come along and say, "I dislike what my predecessor did." His predecessor may have been in the same Government or the Government of a different party. He may say, "I think my predecessor was unwise to give his consent in this case; I think the undertaking ought to be brought to an end." In that event, once again the private interest would be damaged and the business arrangements would be unpicked. So I am suggesting a form of words—not necessarily the ideal form, but a suitable form—in order to provide some kind of minimum assurance for those who would wish to enter into joint business enterprises with the Coal Board, and I hope that the Government will regard this Amendment as acceptable to them.
4.45 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, despite what the noble Lord has said, I should be happy to accept an Amendment if it were acceptable. Unfortunately the noble Lord has not succeeded in putting forward an Amendment that is acceptable. He has spoken as if individual Ministers were going to act quite capriciously in this matter of giving directions, of bringing to an end associations, partnerships, and so forth. That is not the intention. It is very difficult to go on saying again and again that the
800
purpose of Clauses 6 and 7, taken together, is to have a review to see where the Board are going, and, having had that review, to see what action should be taken.
The noble Lord says in this Amendment that one must not have an arrangement brought to an end if the arrangement has initially been approved by the Minister. Under section 3 of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act the Board's lines of action in respect of programmes of reorganisation, or development involving substantial outlay on capital account, have been approved by successive Ministers since 1947. So it may be said with justification that the general lines on which the Board's activities and assets have developed since nationalisation have had the approval of Ministers as and when the question arose.
It has already been made clear in another place, and also in this House, that the present Government are not in any way criticising the Board for the way or the direction in which they have extended their activities. What I hope has also become clear is that, irrespective of the past actions of the Board, or the approval of previous Governments, it is the considered opinion of the present Government that the stage has been reached when the range of activities undertaken by the Board should be the subject of a thorough review by the Board and the Government, so as to determine the course towards which the Board's activities should in future be directed, in the interests both of the Board and of the nation, as shareholders.
Obviously, if this involves giving directions for the discontinuance or the restriction of activities, the disposal of assets and the like, this may well mean giving a direction for the discontinuance of an activity that has been previously approved. But there is nothing new about that.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I do so in case he is leaving that point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords; I am not. I was saying that there is nothing new about that. The Transport Act 1962 requires Boards to submit to the Minister proposals for the conduct of their manufacturing activities—this is in Section 13. Section 13(4),

801
after providing for the approval of those activities, goes on:
"but the Minister may, after consultation with a Board, direct that Board to discontinue any of the activities which they are carrying on in accordance with proposals so approved".
So there is nothing unprecedented in this. I would suggest, despite what the noble Lord said, that it would be constitutionally improper for any Administration to be committed to a course of action simply because it had been approved by a previous Government. An action might well have been justified at the time it was taken but the situation may very well have changed. After all, approval may have been given to some of the current activities of the Coal Board twenty years or more ago. One must recognise in these circumstances that these activities must be looked at again. As I have said, of course the Government, any Government—I am sure the noble Lord's Government would do this, too—will have regard to the interests affected.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that Ministers do not act capriciously. I do not understand, therefore, why he is not willing to have some words (not necessarily these words) inserted into the legislation which will give substance to that statement. It is reasonable for the Board and for those who enter into business arrangements with the Board to know that their future is reasonably certain. I quite agree that it is not possible, or at any rate not constitutionally proper, for one Government to attempt to determine what a future Government are going to do. Nevertheless, we manage in practice to get over that difficulty quite well. But the noble Lord has not said (maybe I misunde7- stood him and he is prepared to say this) that this Government are prepared to undertake not to change their mind about any business arrangement which they approve, through the appropriate Minister, at all events during the life of the present Government. Would the noble Lord be prepared to go so far as that? If he is prepared to go that far and to introduce some words to that effect into the Bill, that would give some modicum of reassurance. But without any reassurance at all, we are still left with the situation that neither the Board nor anybody dealing
802
with the Board knows how to obtain the kind of clearance which I indicated was well known to the law in terms of income tax and corporation tax legislation.
The noble Lord may say, "You cannot determine what a future Government shall do. Once you lay down a law, everybody reasonably accepts that the law will continue until Parliament decides on a different law. At all events, people will have an opportunity of discussing and arguing it, and people will have good warning of a change." But it is very unreasonable indeed that anybody should be expected to take the chance of a change of personnel and of personalities within one Administration, with the changed personalities having the right to take a different point of view which will affect in a damaging way the interests of those who have entered into arrangements with the Board in good faith.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? I wonder whether he sees where his argument is leading to. He is suggesting perhaps a specific protection for people who enter into arrangements with the Coal Board. If he is maintaining this as a doctrine, would he also go so far as to say that there will be no further nationalisation at any stage? It has exactly the same sort of result.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I do not see the relation between one case and the other.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is a change of ownership.
LORD DIAMOND: It is a change of ownership, but there has never been any nationalisation except on the basis of fully discussed and "propaganded" or publicised proposals, and with full compensation. Furthermore, the compensation was fully discussed, as I well know. Here we have a situation in which people are being invited to enter into business arrangements with the Board, without the security of knowing that the Board are their own masters. It is a very difficult situation. The whole managerial propriety of the Board is brought into question. I should have thought that the Government would be prepared to say that when a Minister speaks on behalf

803
of the Government he means what he says, and if he gives authority for a certain transaction to be entered into then the Board may reasonably anticipate that that transaction will be continued.
If the noble Lord thinks that there ought to be some restrictive words saying, "If so-and-so happens the incoming Government will have the right to review", people in entering into arrangements would have the opportunity of considering whether it was worth their while to do so in view of such a restriction. The path would be reasonably clear, whereas at the moment the path is totally unclear. Individuals, companies and businesses will be dealing with the Coal Board knowing that the Board are not their own master even in these small areas, and that the Government may order the discontinuance of an arrangement or development—may change their mind although it has been approved of. This is a totally chaotic situation.
The noble Lord was good enough to say that the Board come for approval when they require money. The assumption he drew—I must be very careful what I say now—is that where the Board have had money they have had approval. That does not necessarily mean that in all cases requests were met with the answer, "Yes". One does not want to particularise, but the point I am making is that the noble Lord himself said that Government had been broadly in control of the situation hitherto. There is no need, therefore, for these additional powers which the Minister is seeking. If he does seek them, I hope that he will limit them in some way and give the assurance that the Board can act with reasonable knowledge that if they behave commercially and sensibly they will be able to carry through an undertaking which a Minister has said it was proper to undertake. I think that this is a very reasonable request indeed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.59 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall not give a direction to the Board under this section the effect of which would be to require them to dispose or require a subsidiary of theirs to dis-
804
pose, of any part of their or its undertaking, or any asset, which is managed or used wholly or mainly for the purposes of colliery activities."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the last Amendment that I shall ask your Lordships to consider. If your Lordships will refer to columns 391 and 392 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of March 16, 1971, you will see that we discussed the provisions in this clause on the Committee stage. In column 391 I drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that it was:
"clearly illogical to restrict the Secretary of State's powers in regard to activities, while not doing so in relation to part of an undertaking or assets that may be directly associated with the carrying on of the activities."
In short, it seemed to me at that point of time that there was an omission in the drafting and that, just as certain activities, certain powers, had been restricted, so other powers should logically be restricted in the same way—because there is more than one power in this clause.
I moved an Amendment to that effect, and it seemed to me from the reply which I received from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that some Amendment might be suitable to the Government, although the Amendment which I had moved was apparently unsuitable because of certain words which had been used. I have now substituted the word "used" for the word "held" in the last line but one of the present Amendments, which refer to:
"…any assets, which is managed or used wholly or mainly for the purposes of colliery activities."
My recollection is that the noble Lord referred to a computer; he said that a computer might be used for a variety of purposes, so that ownership was not a sufficiently clear definition. I therefore propose that we should accept the essence of his argument and change the qualification from "ownership" to "use", and I hope that the present Amendment, which merely seeks, as I think to remedy an omission in the original drafting, will be acceptable to the Government.
I have a second reason for hoping that it will be acceptable to the Government: the next Amendent is not going to be moved. We have already discussed it, so the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, should take serious account of the fact that this is the last opportunity which he

805
will have of removing from my mind the impression, which is pretty deeply embedded by now, that his job differs not a jot from what my job in the Government was for six years—that is, to say "No" to everybody on every conceivable occasion. However, I hope that he will rid me of that impression by saying that this Amendment at all events can be accepted.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wish I could gratify the noble Lord; I would willingly do so if it were possible. The reason I cannot is not that I am a kind of "abominable no-man", but simply that again, I am sorry to say, this Amendment is not acceptable. In the first place it is unnecessary. May I make it clear to the noble Lord that the status of an asset depends on whether or not it is essential for colliery activities, as he will see from subsection (1)? The proviso thereto says that
"the Secretary of State shall not give any such direction unless he is satisfied that the carrying on of the activities … is unnecessary for the proper discharge of the duties of the Board or, in the case of a direction to the Board to restrict any activities, that any extension of them is unnecessary as aforesaid".
The fact that, in so far as an asset is used at all, its sole or main use is in relation to colliery activities should not debar it from being put to some other use if its retention is unnecessary. If its retention were necessary, the Secretary of State would be debarred from disposal by the proviso to subsection (1), for a direction for disposal must not be given unless he is satisfied that the retention of the asset is unnecessary for the proper discharge of the duties of the Board, The Amendment is therefore unnecessary. It is also unacceptable because it would increase doubt. The words, "managed … for the purposes of colliery activities" might be interpreted as covering assets used for activities other than colliery activities—for example, for using the products of colliery activities.
My Lords, it is for those reasons that I cannot accept the Amendment. I am very sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord once again, although I repeat that I take my hat off to him for the way
806
in which he has conducted the proceedings from his side of the House without his notes.
5.6 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, if I may have the permission of the House, as I moved the Amendment I should like to reply to it. I am most grateful for the courteous remark of the noble Lord, and wish I could reciprocate fully. I have noticed that the noble Lord has taken to himself the exclusive right to represent the views on the other side of the House. I do not think he has been assisted by any noble Lord or Baroness from that side of the House; nor indeed has he been assisted by his noble friend Lord Ferrers who made one or two valuable contributions.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I have been very tempted once or twice to come to my noble friend's rescue but there is an important debate coming on to which we all want to listen.
LORD DIAMOND: That is why I have been anxious to deal with these matters as shortly as possible. I am bound to give some comfort to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who has been good enough to sit here and watch the whole of our proceedings without taking part in them and to assure him that although I do not know why those matters which he dealt with previously are no longer being dealt with by him, he could not have given a worse answer than his noble friend has given. I hope that that will be taken as the courteous response to the noble Lord's courteous remark. As to this Amendment, I note what he says. We are in the same difficulty: the noble Lord says that my Amendment is not suitable, yet he offers no Amendment of his own, although it is a valid point. We have now reached the stage when, for all practical purposes, this Bill, after being discussed very fully and very seriously by a number of Members of your Lordships' House on two separate occasions, will, I suspect, finally leave this place, precisely word for word and dot for dot, in the same condition as it entered it; and that must give us all cause to think.
On Question, Amendment negatived.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM IN SCOTLAND
5.9 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Government proposals for the reform of local government in Scotland (Cmnd. 4583). The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this White Paper was published on February 16 and, as your Lordships know, there is widespread agreement that the time has now come to reform local government. It is not surprising that a structure which was made over forty years ago has become in some respects inadequate. In many cases it has only been the devotion of councillors and officials that has masked the defects of the present structure. Since the last reform in 1929, movements of population and changing social habits have made many local boundaries artificial and new demands now call for authorities with larger resources and for more sensible arrangements for dividing functions.
Local government reform has been under public discussion for over seven years. Your Lordships will recall that it started in 1963 when the previous Conservative Government published a White Paper on the subject. This was followed by two Working Parties. Then the Labour Government decided that the matter should be examined by the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley—and, if I may, I should like to pay tribute to the clarity and the professional character of this very detailed study, which lasted from 1966 to 1969. I am sure I speak for all your Lordships when I say how much we are looking forward to the maiden speech of the chairman of this Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, and we can all feel that he certainly knows his subject backwards.
The Royal Commission reported with a majority conclusion, one Note of Dissent and three Notes of Reservations. Thereafter, there were debates in both Houses of Parliament, and discussions between the Government and local authority associations. I should like to acknowledge that when we took office we were given access to the representa-
808
tions—about 400—which were made to the previous Government, and to the notes of the meetings which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, had as Minister of State with the four local authority associations. We did not of course have any access to the internal discussions of the previous Government following these meetings.
I have had the pleasure of meeting the four local authority associations again, and having valuable discussions with them. It is clear from these consultations, as it was from those conducted previously, that there is no consensus of opinion in Scotland about all the Royal Commission's recommendations, except on four very important matters. First, most people felt that there should be more regions; second, most peoule felt that there should be more districts; third, most people felt that more functions should go to the districts—particularly the housing function—and, fourth, everyone seemed to want an end to uncertainty. It was therefore clearly the duty of the Government, lacking this consensus, to reach conclusions on the main outline of reform, on boundaries and the chief functions. These form part of the White Paper before us now but, as will be seen, there is much yet to discuss and to decide, and to fill in the outline of administrative change. Noble Lords will particularly note those subjects which are yet to be discussed with local authorities and others, in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8.
My Lords, I noticed in the Order Paper this morning that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has tabled an Amendment—which of course is not before us now and we do not know whether or not he will move it. However, I think it is in order for me to discuss the spirit of the Amendment. It suggests that the associations of local authorities should not be denied the opportunity of suggesting Amendments. The local authority associations have made great numbers of representations, as I have already said; they are still making them, and I am sure that they will make them in the future. So far as the spirit of this Amendment goes, I shall be very glad indeed to accept it, if it is moved, although I was surprised to see it upon the Order Paper only this morning when this debate has been notified for about

809
two weeks. But, of course, it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will think particularly about the main boundaries and the main functions.
As I have described to the House, there was no consensus of opinion, and since the publication of the Wheatley Report this has been discussed for about two years, and local government reform for about seven years. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State said, however, to all the local authority associations whom we met the other day, and in answer to a Parliamentary Question in another place, that he would of course listen to any representations and consider possible changes if there were significant new factors.
As your Lordships will be aware, most of our conclusions are based on the recommendations of the Wheatley Commission, although we dared to differ on a number of important points, bearing in mind the opinions to which I have already referred, and the Minority Reports. The Commission recommended a two-tier system, and we entirely agree. They suggested that the 430 authorities of the present day should be replaced by one tier of 7 regional councils and another tier of 37 districts. We have always felt, and so have nearly all those who have made representations, including the Association of County Councils and the Convention of Royal Burghs, that there should be more than seven regions. We created a special Border Region, from the Wheatley South-East Region. This area has become accustomed for a long time to working together, and it looks as much South and East as to Edinburgh. Many felt, as we did, that the size of the Wheatley Highland Region was too large, and that the case for independent arrangements for Orkney and Shetland was perhaps stronger than the Commission thought. The Highland Region has therefore been reduced in size and made more compact by giving Orkney and Shetland separate status, and by transferring a large part of Argyll to the West Region, which appears to have greater affinities in the West than in the North. This, then, totals eight regions, and two with separate status.
We also felt that the district authorities should be increased from the 37 recommended by the Commission. This is in order to ensure that although local government is strengthened it can still
810
keep the personal touch. Therefore we propose 49 districts, an increase of 14. We could, of course, have proposed more districts, as some would have liked, but the number of districts is of course influenced by their functions. Although we felt that the number ought to be increased if at all possible, we could not make the districts too small if they were to undertake such a function, for example, as housing, but we did agree that it was most important to ensure that really important work was available for district councillors to undertake.
Your Lordships will no doubt wish me to comment on the great variations in the eight regions. The size of the West Region seemed to us at the start, I must confess, far too large, and we studied thoroughly several alternative structures, including those suggested during our consultations. We tried the straight division of the West into three or four regions, but the Wheatley idea of strategic planning over the whole region seemed to be the most realistic because, even if it is bold, the problems of Glasgow, the Clyde and the West seem to need a large area in which they can be tackled. We then tried a region of the West, which was served by indirectly elected councils, between the region and the districts. But again we felt that the Wheatley system of two directly elected tiers of local government, responsible to their electorates for clearly defined functions, was the more practical. We tried various other combinations, but in the end we returned to the Wheatley proposal for the West which is the solution in the White Paper.
My Lords, fundamental to the proposals on the West, and indeed for all the regions, is that the cities should be recognised as the centre of the regions they influence. This was one of the main recommendations of the Commission, that economic land use and population problems should be considered as a whole. This is not on the whole the view of the cities, although they differ, but as one distinguished convenor in the North-East put it:
"The North-East without Aberdeen would be like a body without a head."
It seems that the interdependence of town and country is as essential to the cities as to the smaller urban areas. Within their existing boundaries the

811
cities would be unable to solve many of their problems, which are in fact regional by nature, and by the same token it seems unreal to confine the cities within district boundaries set at the present city limits. In many cases all that separates them from the surrounding built-up areas is a suburban street, and there is little doubt that the inhabitants of the suburban areas just outside the city limits draw upon the city resources for many of their needs. This point was very carefully discussed by the Wheatley Commission. They tried to take in only those parts of the hinterland which would be better served and more effectively administered from the city than from the centre of any other district authority. That is the reasoning behind this White Paper; that is why we accepted the recommendation that places like Bearsden, Clydebank, Bishopriggs and Rutherglen should join the city to form the Glasgow district.
We gave very careful study to Fife, as did the Royal Commission, because we were well aware of the strength of opinion which is held by the County Council that Fife should remain inviolate; but there are, of course, other opinions, even in Fife. No one in this Government underrates historical tradition, and Fife may well have the resources, population and administrative experience to form a region of its own. It would, of course, politically have been far easier to let it he, but we have to try to look ahead and foresee as best we can the likely development over about forty years, which is about the same period as since the last major reform of local government. I think, or hope, one can foresee that there are bound to be better communciations. Already the Forth and Tay road bridges have made a difference; and with the substantial industrial expansion in South Fife the links between South Fife and Edinburgh and the Lothians are already strong. Those between North Fife and the rest of Tayside, one would have thought, are likely to strengthen steadily. Therefore, having considered all the advantages and disadvantages we reached the same conclusion in the end as the Wheatley Commission.
Although we created Orkney and Shetland as special authorities responsible for most functions, we did so because of their separate identity and problems, and we
812
felt that the Western Isles are different not only in geography but in tradition. They form a chain of islands with more than one link to the mainland. We also felt—and this is very important—that they could command larger resources by developing this long association. The proposed division of the major functions between the two tiers is set out in the White Paper at Appendix B. The regional authority will be responsible for the major planning and related services, through which they can influence the economic and physical work of the region, and for services such as education, social work, police and fire, which have to be organised on a large scale with sufficient resources. The district authorities will be responsible for the local environment and local services. My Lords, the main difference from the Commission's recommendations on functions is that we agree with many of the comments made during our discussions, that the principal housing function should become the responsibility of the district authorities.
We have adopted the principle of splitting the planning function, as recommended by the Royal Commission, and we proposed that, subject to the regions' structure plans, the districts should be responsible for local plans, with their own staff. It seems to us that in Scottish conditions this is important, so as to enable each level of authority to concentrate on its own different problems.
My Lords, the numbers of professionals in the planning field at present employed in Scotland will in any case have to be increased to meet the requirement of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1969, and I am glad to say that the numbers coming from the planning schools have increased considerably and are now running at the level of about 100 a year. In any case, these proposals involve reducing the number of planning authorities from 58 to 41, and of housing authorities from 234 to 51.
The Wheatley Commission put housing, both building and management, at the regional level. But housing is a service which has been and still can be carried out by the authority nearer to the electorate. This was certainly the opinion of practically all those whom we consulted. The Commission, of course, suggested that house improvement alone

813
should be a district responsibility. Yet it has also to cope with comprehensive improvement of bad areas by a mixture of slum clearance, new housing and improvement of out-of-date stock. That was why our conclusion was that the whole house building management and improvement functions should go to the districts, subject only—and this is important—to a reserve power to enable the regional authorities to ensure that houses required to carry out regional strategies will be built where and when they are needed for this purpose. The present New Towns, of course, have their own development corporations and will continue as at present. The future responsibility for New Towns is one of those subjects for discussion with all those concerned.
We felt that in the smaller regions of the Borders, the South-West and the Highlands, their sparsity makes necessary some adjustment of the distribution of functions. For instance, we thought it would be wiser to reserve all the planning functions to the regional authority. We also realise that the Borders and South-West Regions may find it necessary to call on their neighbours for help in providing the full range of some of the facilities—for example, in police, fire, social work, and perhaps even further education.
Education and social work together are of course two functions of the greatest importance, and we agreed with the Commission's recommendations that they should be discharged by the regional authority. Both these services need a large scale to command the resources and to support the full range of services that are required. In both cases the Commission thought that the size of the authorities should range between 200,000 and 1,000,000. With some reservations about the Borders and the South-West, this level fits all the regions except the West. This will be much larger than the 1,000,000 level suggested by the Commission, and it is true that we do not have experience of such a large education or social work authority in Scotland, although it has been done elsewhere. But we felt sure that the region would be able to devise modern methods of administration and operational devolution.
My Lords, there are some who felt that social work should be set at the district
814
level, because many of these problems are of a personal nature. In fact, I shared this view at the start. But it is also true that a high degree of training is needed by those who have, for example, to help the elderly or the handicapped. Moreover, the resources needed for social work will become increasingly demanding. It does seem, however, that, whether responsibility lies with the regional or the district authority, both will offer really interesting work to those who wish to serve local government. The regional councillor will have very wide responsibilities to provide much of the physical framework of life in his area. He will also decide education and social work policies, which will involve taking decisions on many major projects. The district councillor will plan, and to a large extent provide, the local environment because of his councillor's responsibilities for local planning, housing, building control, libraries, community centres, to give just a few examples.
I hope that I have made clear some of the reasoning behind these proposals for the framework of local government reform upon which future legislation can be based. While there is widespread approval for the general framework, there are four or five difficult decisions which have to be taken. The arguments for and against alternative solutions of these issues have been considered many times. After all the consultations, three years' work by the Royal Commission, and the previous work that had been done, the time had arrived for the Government to try to take the mean decision and make up their minds on these main issues. Until these are decided, progress cannot be made on the many other related matters.
There must now be discussions with representatives of the present authorities about such matters as the new electoral arrangements, some functions where allocation has still to be decided, the review body which the Commission suggested should be created to keep the arrangements for local government under review, and the question of community councils. There are many other important matters to consider together, such as the improvement of allowances for councillors, whether there should be salaries, the future of local dignitaries, the names of the authorities and vital administrative

815
questions which fall within the ambit of the staff and property commissions to which the report referred; also—and this is important—how we can limit the number of matters on which local administrators must refer to the Secretary of State for decision.
I did not mention finance, and do so now only briefly, because we propose to publish later in the year a Green Paper on this subject on which we shall have separate discussions. The process of consultation on this White Paper before your Lordships has already begun. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State met the four local authority associations on March 12. I myself saw the Association of County Councils last Friday, and I will be meeting the Convention of Royal Burghs on April 6. In the meantime, our officials and theirs are starting to go ahead with the detailed consultations agreed at the meeting on March 12. We hope to submit the detail of all proposals to your Lordships in the form of a Bill, which we hope to introduce in the 1972–73 Session with the intention of holding the first elections in 1974, and to securing the final changeover to the new system in 1975.
My Lords, we all know that the reform of local government is necessary. We believe this White Paper achieves the right balance between many differing views which have been expressed. We believe that where it differs from the Wheatley Commission's proposals it does improve upon them. I therefore commend our proposals on local government reform to your Lordships to-day.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Government proposals for the reform of local government in Scotland (Cmnd. 4583).—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie).
5.33 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion, at the end to insert: "but does not consider that the associations of local authorities should be denied the opportunity of suggesting amendments.". The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I start off by expressing thanks to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has spoken to the White Paper, and to say, quite frankly, that if a certain event had not taken place last year I doubt very much whether the con-
816
tent of the statement which I should have made on the White Paper produced by another Government would have differed a very great deal from that which the noble Baroness has just made. I certainly would not have wished to differ on the first point which she made, in expressing pleasure at the presence here this afternoon of the Chairman of the Royal Commission, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley. In so many aspects the people of Scotland have been in his debt, and I think it will be shown in due course that not least of these has been the devoted work which he and his colleagues put into preparing this Report, from which the Government have not departed—as we would not have departed—except in detail.
There has not been a departure from the major structure proposed by the Wheatley Commission—at least, so it seems to me. My one regret in speaking at this point is that it denies me the opportunity of saying to the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, how much I have enjoyed his speech. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to say that at the very end of the debate, perhaps some four or five hours from now. But I can say—and I say it with complete confidence—that, like everyone else, I am looking forward to hearing his maiden speech. Certainly the House will seldom have had the opportunity of listening to a maiden speech by a practised orator on a subject on which he is so completely a master.
My next task is to say that the White Paper, in much of its detail, differs little from that which would have been in the White Paper prepared by the previous Government. I was, however, rather glad to see that, where there were differences, they were generally that our White Paper would have been a little more in accord with the representations of the local authorities than the present White Paper is. For example, the proposed division of functions between the regions and districts is not identical but is very similar to our own. And may I say at this point that for ease and simplicity when I say "our" or "we" I mean the previous Government.
We had come to the decision that the Commission's proposals for district powers would be improved if they included one major function for the district

817
authority, provided it could be given to districts of suitable size. We concluded that this major function should be housing, so I am very glad that the Government are of the same mind. The exclusion of certain other functions from the powers of districts in the outlying regions seems to me to be a sensible way of enabling a few more district authorities to be created in these outlying regions.
I should like next to look at the number of regions. The previous Government also thought it right not to lump the Borders in with the South-East Region, although we had in mind what we thought was a more viable region of 125,000 people, which would have included a considerable part of East Lothian which, to my mind, has more in common with the Border counties than it has with Edinburgh and the industrial Lothians. Not the whole of East Lothian, because the Western part of it looks naturally to Edinburgh, but I think about three-quarters of it probably have a greater affinity with the Border counties, and it had the added advantage that it brought the population up to something nearer what Wheatley called for.
The reduction in the size of the Highland Region by excluding from it most of Argyll and giving virtually all-purpose status to the Orkneys and Shetlands is identical with the previous Government's intentions. We believed that this could not be done without considerable disadvantages to these islands, but we were satisfied that they would prefer to have it that way. We had no indication that the Western Isles would want similar status, but we had intended to say that if it became clear in the discussions following publication of our White Paper that the Western Isles also wanted it, we would have given them the same status as the Orkneys and Shetlands. I know that meetings have been taking place, but even now I should think it is too early to say that there is that degree of unanimity in the Western Isles. But if it does emerge—perhaps if it surprisingly emerges—then this is one case where it would be wrong for the Government not to take account of what emerges after the publication of the White Paper.
The enlargement of the South-West Region by the inclusion of the Girvan district, and the inclusion of the whole of Kincardineshire in the North-East, would
818
also have been in our White Paper. The presence of the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven, enables me to call in aid here some evidence which shows that I am not just saying afterwards what we would have done, because the noble Viscount will be able to confirm that when his county council were proposing to embark on considerable expenditure on a survey of their electors to find out what they wanted, I tried to save his ratepayers money by telling him not to push at an open door, and that he should wait. By that time, however, the noble Viscount was able to tell me that things had gone too far. In any event, he did not think it would do any harm to emphasise the point.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I am a firm believer in paying an insurance policy. Do not forget that there was also always the possibility of having to contend with a Conservative Government. Not only that, but the cost did not fall on the ratepayers: half of it was borne by the public good fund and therefore did not fall on the ratepayers, and the other half was paid for by the noble Lord's then Department, which was a very clever feat by our county clerk, of which I think the noble Lord was unaware.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Viscount will recollect that I told him I did the best I could to stop this, but found that I had no powers to stop money being spent, because I knew—and he eventually knew—that it was indeed a complete waste of time and they were all going to go into the North-East Region, anyway. However, I am glad to know that he regarded the possibility of a Conservative Government as something to be feared rather than welcomed. But in this case, even there, the fears were unjustified because the decision is the same.
The great degree of similarity in these proposals, to which I have called attention, amply justifies the decision of my right honourable friend, the then Secretary of State, that the minutes of my meetings with the local authority associations should be made available to the new Government. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she has acknowledged the saving which this accomplished. It certainly fits in with our national characteristics, that we ought not to waste public money by having

819
another set of Ministers doing the same job all over again.
May I now turn to the West Region? At first glance nobody could be happy about a region which contained half the population of Scotland. Given, however, the need for co-ordinated planning in the region, it proved impossible to break it up in any satisfactory way. I am quite certain, as the noble Baroness has indicated, that this aspect of the reform took up as much of the present Government's time as it did of their predecessors' time. We looked, and I am sure that this Government have looked, at every possible way of improving on this, but we always came back to the fact that, from the strategic planning point of view, the West Region could not be divided. This need for unified Clyde planning by one authority is so clear that it is understandable that the Commission translated it into an estuarial principle, to apply also to the Forth and Tay estuaries. The Government have accepted that reasoning. I must confess that I was not completely persuaded that this was necessary. Problems which had seemed intractable without a single authority on the Clyde had never seemed to approach that stage on the Forth and the Tay.
It is the acceptance of the estuarial argument—the argument that the whole of an estuary should be within one regional authority for planning purposes—which calls for the division of Fife, for it would certainly otherwise function as a region. I think the noble Baroness has made this quite clear. If one disregards that argument, Fife has everything that is necessary to form a satisfactory region, but it is bounded by the estuary of the Tay. I think, therefore, that the Government would be wrong to exclude consideration of Fife as a ninth region. It may prove at the end of the day that this is not desirable, but such a decision will be acceptable only if the proof emerges openly and as a result of the fullest possible consultation with all interested parties; and that position has not yet been reached.
Whatever is the result at regional level, it is palpable nonsense (and in this I am disagreeing not only with the Government, but also with Wheatley) to include
820
in the Dundee district a strip on the South side of the Tay. This should be a part of the North Fife district. Even in the case of the Clyde it has not been suggested that districts should straddle the river; nor is this the case with the Forth. I do not stress this point now, because I think this is the sort of case for which the Government have made provision when they say that there can be minor adjustments of boundary. Putting this little bit of Fife—Tayport, Newport and so on—into the North Fife district, instead of into the Dundee district, could not be regarded as other than a minor change of boundary, so I say no more about that.
Accepting the need for one West Region, of the great population size that it has, as a strategic unit did not blind us—and I note from what the noble Baroness said that it did not blind the Government—to the difficulties of having it as a single education authority or social welfare authority. One shudders at the problems that face this authority in finding officials of the calibre necessary to undertake this task; and, even if they do get the right sort of people, I shudder at the prospects that face the Scottish Education Department, faced with virtually another Scottish Education Department, sometimes, perhaps, in complete opposition to the official one.
We welcomed the Commission's recommendation that regional authorities should provide for decentralisation and introduce arrangements involving local committees in the administration of certain services. We thought that this would be particularly valuable in the education and social welfare spheres. We agreed that the introduction of these committees and administrative arrangements should be a matter for the discretion of regional authorities, except in the West. There, because of the very large population, the opinion of the previous Administration was that the regional authority should be required to prepare an administrative scheme which should be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. We would not do that in other regions, because we believe that if they are left to their own devices there will be a variety of types of administration coming forward, and this will be valuable. This is a field in which some experiment will probably be very useful

821
indeed, and one region may hit on a more useful way of doing a job than another—and one which the others will in due course be prepared to copy. But with these 2,500,000 people coming under one education authority, under one social welfare authority, we consider that there is merit in ensuring that there is a scheme of decentralisation, and the Secretary of State should be directly involved in its approval, though not in its working.
I now refer to the number of district authorities. In total, we would have had very little more than the Government have proposed, but their spread throughout the regions would have been quite a hit different. If the Western Isles had remained in the Highlands Region, we should have had six authorities with populations ranging from 15,000 to 64,000, instead of the Government's ten. Given that the districts are to have housing powers in every case, it does not seem to me that it can be in any way regarded as sensible to make Uist, for example, with a population of 6,000 and a rateable value of £50,000, a housing authority. You have only to think of them employing one official for housing purposes, and they have 5p on the rates right away. I do not think they would thank you for that. Perhaps the answer is that nobody intends to build any houses in Uist, and that the Government therefore think they are not going to have a housing authority there.
Nairn, with a population of 8,000—from a population point of view the smallest district authority on the whole mainland of Scotland—is just about as big a nonsense as Uist, with 6,000; and the position is aggravated when we see that the adjoining district of Moray, and the next one, Banff-Buchan, have populations of 79,000 and 68,000 respectively. Given the nature of the area, I am quite certain that Nairn is unreasonably small and that the other two are needlessly large. I would have made the latter two into four districts. I believe that there is advantage, also, in making Angus into two districts, and making Perth and Kinross into two districts; and that, in fact, is the division that would have been made in the alternative White Paper.
In the West, it is a big disappointment to see that Glasgow is to be as big as 1,107,000. I can see no need for including Bearsden, Bishopriggs, Clydebank,
822
Milngavie and Rutherglen in greater Glasgow—and because of the difficulty of walking on eggs I have put those places in alphabetical order. If those were excluded, Glasgow would still be over the million mark. The noble Baroness must be well aware that a great deal of the objection felt by people outside Glasgow at the size of the West Region is not that it has 2,500,000 people, but that a million of them are in Glasgow, and the rest of them, to some degree or another, fear domination by Glasgow.
In the result, the other White Paper would have had 16 or 17 districts in the West, as against the Government's 13. Your Lordships will see from what I have said, therefore, that the differences between the two White Papers (if I may so put it) is a matter of detail rather than of principle, and it is because the differences are of detail that I am not terribly worried about what is in the White Paper so far as these details are concerned. My disagreement with the White Paper is a disagreement with the philosophy of it. The Government are entitled to say that, the fundamental decisions on the type of structure and functions having been taken, these should not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. But they have gone much further than this, and I think they have gone much further than reasonable people would consider necessary.
Like the noble Baroness, I had a series of meetings with the local authority associations at which reasonable progress was made. At these meetings, I was authorised by my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State to tell the associations that he did not propose that his White Paper would be a statement of things which would be unchangeable. He in fact specifically required me to say that he wanted to get back to the conception that a White Paper was a statement in the structure of which the Government had made up their mind but on the details of which they were prepared to have further discussions. When I read the White Paper and reached paragraph 20, with its emphasis on the need for flexibility, I thought that even on this matter the two Governments were operating on the same sort of wavelength. However, when I got to paragraph 60 I changed my mind, because paragraph 60, with its reference to the

823
number of regions and districts not being open to adjustment, was not the sort of statement I thought should be in a White Paper. Then, when I got to paragraph 89, with the statement to which so much exception has been taken in so many parts of Scotland—that this White Paper is
"a prescription for action and not a basis for negotiation"—
I was not surprised that certain newspapers in Scotland normally more sympathetic to a Conservative Government described this as being arrogant.
This is not what a White Paper is meant to be. A White Paper is not a new process in legislation preceding the First Reading of a Bill. It is a statement of principles from which the Government have the right to say, "We will not depart", and I do not think anyone has the right to expect the Government to go back to square one. But, for instance, taking the sort of things of which I have spoken, there is the possibility that the people of the Western Isles might surprisingly, at this late stage in the day, come to the conclusion that they would rather join together in having the kind of structure they have in the Orkneys and Shetlands, in which case it should be possible for the Government to say, "Well, we will do that". It is not a difference in the kind of conditions under which they live which led the Government not to do it at this stage: it is the fact that whereas in the past there has been a remarkable degree of unanimity of opinion in the Orkneys about what they wanted and a unanimity of opinion in the Shetlands about what they wanted, in the Western Isles, in fact, as soon as one island said a particular thing another island knew quite definitely that that was what it did not want.
If that continues to be the sort of way they look at things, then obviously they will not want an all-purpose authority; but it may well be that this is the opportunity for bringing that unsatisfactory state of affairs in the Western Isles to an end. We do not want to have a permanent situation in which, when one determines "Yes", that automatically determines that the other will say "No"; and if they desire to come together in a single all-purpose authority to bring an
824
end to this situation that would be something which would be worth while in itself. If we hold to the Government's White Paper as it is stated, that possibility is ruled out no matter how much the Western Isles may say that this is what they want. If it was felt reasonable that Moray should have two districts instead of one, or that it would be reasonable that Angus should have a district based on Montrose and Arbroath and another one based on Forfar and Brechin, and that this would make a much more workable arrangement, why should not the Government accept it? Because obviously that is not interfering with the structure; it is not changing the functions. It is an alteration of the way in which it is going to be done, but it cannot be described as a minor change of boundary. It comes under the category which is hit at by paragraph 60: it is changing the number of districts.
I was asked to quantify what I would regard as a reasonable change. The Government have 49 districts; we would have had 50. If as a result of discussion it turned out there could be an even greater measure of agreement with the local authority associations on 52 or 53 authorities, I should think that that would be eminently reasonable. But if as a result of the discussions the Government found that what the local authority associations were holding out for was 60 or more, then that would in fact create a difference of structure, and if I then had to come down on one side or the other, I would come down in favour of the Government's 49 rather than an unworkable 60. My Lords, I had intended to look up what I said in your Lordships' House when we discussed the Royal Commission's Report, but it seemed to me that what I said then was that the object of the Government's activities in due course should be not to attempt to lay down what they regarded as a perfect structure for local government but that we should be content with something which was less than perfect if, for that, we could get a greater measure of agreement. I think we can get more agreement than there is at the present time.
My Lords, when I gave the local authority associations the assurance to which I have referred I meant it, and I can say as definitely that my right honourable friend meant it when he authorised me to

825
make that statement. The local authorities would be entitled to think that I had abandoned that pledge if I did not make an effort in your Lordships' House to get the Government to return to some degree of flexibility, and it is for that reason that I put down my Amendment. I must apologise to the noble Baroness for this Amendment having gone down so very late. I appreciate that this causes difficulties, but I should like her to accept my assurance that I did not intend to create any difficulties. As she knows, the original Motion on this subject was in my name. The noble Baroness made no attempt to disguise the fact that my placing of the Motion on the Order Paper had precipitated pressure from her: she had already asked for Government time to discuss this White Paper.
At the time when my Motion went down, there had been no decision as to whether and when this would be discussed. The tabling of my Motion proved to be helpful to the noble Baroness because she got time; but when she told me that it was to be on the 23rd March I told her then that it made great difficulty for me because I had an appointment in Scotland from which I would obviously have to withdraw. I could not in all conscience put down an Amendment on the Order Paper until I was in fact certain that I would be here to move it, and I did not know absolutely for certain until last Thursday that that was the position. I may have been misinformed, but I understood that if I had tabled my Amendment then, it could not be here before Friday, and people would not in fact have known it any earlier than in fact they did. My Lords, on Monday my plane was late in getting down. I think that within 15 minutes of my getting into the House I handed over my Amendment. May I say a little about it? This is not a censorious (if that is the right word) Amendment. It is not an Amendment of censure on the Government; it is merely an attempt to carry out the undertaking I gave when I was Minister of State that when the White Paper came out there would be yet a further authority for a discussion of some of the details. The White Paper seems to exclude that.
The noble Baroness seemed to indicate that she was disposed to accept my Amendment. I do not know whether that meant accepting the Amendment as
826
it stood, or whether it meant giving an undertaking that the sort of thing of which I have spoken (notwithstanding paragraphs 60 and 89) would be open for further discussion with the local authorities' association. I want to make it clear that I am not anxious for a Division on this matter. This is much too important a matter for Scotland to become the subject of Party wrangles between the Government and the Opposition. What is important is that we should go out of our way to make certain that no one at the end of the day can say that we did not have the proper opportunity of putting our points of view once we saw what were the Government's final ideas.
It may be wrong to talk about the Government's final ideas and then have something else discussed which could change them; but at the time of producing the White Paper these were the Government's final ideas. There is nothing wrong in that. What is wrong is when the Government say that this is not a matter for negotiation. It is for that reason that, if necessary, I would divide the House on this Amendment, even at the end of this debate. But I hope that what the noble Baroness has to say when she comes to reply will make it possible for me to avoid any such Division; because a Division is the last thing that I want. At this stage I formally move my Amendment.
Amendment moved—
At the end of the Motion, to insert ("but does not consider that the associations of local authorities should be denied the opportunity of suggesting amendments.").—(Lord Hughes.)
6.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, may I first add to what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, how much I, too, am looking forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley. Lord Wheatley will go down in history as a man who has altered the face of Scotland; but I am confident in saying that he will be remembered with gratitude. If what I now go on to say may sound somewhat critical of certain parts of what he has suggested or what the Government are suggesting in their White Paper, let me assure him and your Lordships that it is mainly intended to be critical of the White Paper itself and

827
of its tone, in a similar way to that in which Lord Hughes has criticised it.
I respect men and women of principle and I applaud a firm defence by them of the principles which they uphold. Equally, I detest the mere insistence on dogma which cannot stand the test of the touchstone of principle. I am therefore filled with a certain amount of suspicion at the arbitrary, indeed sometimes arrogant tone of the White Paper on the Reform of Local Government in Scotland. I suspect that its dogmatic insistence on being a prescription for action veils many concessions by principle to pragmatism. It is therefore in the light of Her Majesty's Government's own principles that I propose to examine this White Paper.
The objective, we are told, which the Government had before them was to endow the new local authorities with power, effectiveness, local democracy and local involvement. To achieve this, they have gone for a two-tier basic structure, not only in Scotland but also in their proposals for England and Wales. It seems clear that a two-tier structure for local government must be the first of their principles. But is it? In the consultative document on Welsh local government reform, we find that a third tier, community councils, are to have powers; they are to have executive functions substantially the same as existing parish councils have at the present moment executive functions. The English White Paper states that the establishment of two operational forms of local authorities does not remove the need for authorities at the parish level. So England is to have parishes with powers.
In Scotland, however, these principles do not seem to apply. Or is it that in Scotland we are just being handed a lump of dogma? In Scotland, all that we are to get is optional community councils which will have no statutory functions, which will be outside the local government system, and furthermore it is suggested that these community councils would not need to be fully democratic. Yet many of them will contain within their boundaries the bleeding corpses of ancient historical burghs with royal charters and traditional ceremonials and a long proud history of democratic service to local government which will just have been beheaded on the block of
828
progress. The whole section on community councils is written in a patronising tone but, thank goodness! it is at least slightly less arbitrary than the rest of the Command Paper. As part of a prescription for action it is astonishingly undecided. I therefore urge Her Majesty's Government when they come to make up their minds what to do about this tier of local government in Scotland to remember their own principles: make these councils fully democratic; give us no less in Scotland than you give to the people in England and Wales; safeguard our ancient historical heritage and preserve the burghs whose charters and local government history go back far beyond the Act of Union by making them the lively nuclei of community councils embracing their hinterland. Give them powers of executive function, and in this way you will still be following your own avowed principle of local democracy and local involvement. If you do not give the communities powers and functions not only will you be killing off ancient institutions, but you will be murdering local democracy and local involvement over wide areas of Scotland.
My Lords, I speak advisedly and with some knowledge of this subject. I have been a county councillor for Caithness since 1949 and I am currently a baillie of the Thurso Town Council as well as a Caithness county councillor. I have seen and taken part in lively contests; I have seen the electorate turn out on polling day in percentages which would have done credit to a General Election. I can tell your Lordships, therefore, from my own certain knowledge, that there are deep misgivings for the future of local democracy and local involvement as the result of some of the provisions of the White Paper. There are deep misgivings in the minds of thinking people in the remoter areas.
If the Government will not give us the real community councils which might make use of some of our ancient institutions, something must be done, as I shall say later, to strengthen the role of the districts in the new set-up. Especially is this true in the Highland area. In my view, the Highlands Region is still too big for it to be possible for many of the people at present usefully involved in local government to be able to contemplate taking any further part. I know many

829
councillors whose departure will be a distinct loss to the area, but who will find it quite impossible to work in an area as big as this. By Her Majesty's Government's own standards the proposed region is too big. This is shown in the White Paper. To the Borders they have given regional status, a wise move which I applaud; and the reason they have given it is that further development which the area so urgently needs will best be achieved by a Borders regional authority.
We are here told that population levels are only a rough guide, so what about development in the Highlands? Is there not in this vast area almost half of the total area of Scotland? Is it not nearly one and a half times the size of the Principality of Wales? Truly, there is a crying need for development. Yet the proposals which we are now discussing may well sound the death knell of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Reading between the lines, one can see how, in the future, the case will be made out for doing away with the Highlands Board which covers merely a regional area. That is a question which is very much unanswered in the minds of many people. The need for development, especially if we were in the future to lose the Highlands Board, could best be met by giving this area two centres of growth instead of one, two nuclei from which growth energy could be generated.
In my view, the Highlands Region ought to be divided into a North Highlands Region and a West Highlands Region, along the lines of the present Ross and Cromarty-Inverness-shire county march. To do so would create two regions, one North and one South of that boundary line; each larger in population than the Borders Region; each equal in rateable value to the Borders Region. Each would have its growth point; the West Highlands Region would have growth points at Inverness, Aviemore and Fort William, and the North Highlands Region at Invergordon, Wick and Thurso and Stornoway. By the Government's own test of power effectiveness, the creation of these two regions would put sufficient power in the right places to be effective.
It is not really true to say that the whole of the Highlands area think as one. We have already heard that not even the whole of the Western Islands
830
think as one. Certainly we feel some community of interest as, to a large extent, we share the same kind of problems. But we just as well feel a community of interest with the Borders. The real community of interest lies in much shorter radii. Can you imagine, my Lords, living in London and having your centre of regional government in Nottingham? That is what it will be like for many of us if this whole area is left as a single region. Can you imagine how difficult it will be to feel any sense of local involvement? Can you imagine how difficult it will be to make the arrangement effective? The devolution problems alone will defeat the original purpose. By the time you have re-established the necessary sub-centres of administration you will have created an even more unwieldy and ineffective administration than exists at present. In areas as vast as this it will not be possible to obtain economies of scale. The newly created North of Scotland Water Board is a case in point. Immediately following its creation it obeyed Parkinson's Law by doubling its staff and its establishment of vehicles; and the consequence was obvious in the speed at which the water rate went up.
I do not know why it should be assumed at St. Andrew's House that in the Highlands, or indeed in the Borders, or the South-West, we are incapable of managing our affairs at district level. Take planning, for example. Ever since the 1947 Planning Act two small burghs, Thurso and St. Andrew's, have opted to retain, and have exercised, their own planning powers. They have used them powerfully, effectively and economically, with full local involvement. In that time Thurso has doubled its population, and it has three times won a Civic Trust award. It has probably the only C.D.A.—at the moment in full swing redeveloping the shopping centre of the town—which has gone through anywhere without a costly public inquiry.
Over the whole period it has been doing all these things Thurso has still kept its planning costs to the lowest level in Scotland. In Thurso, planning costs 10p per head. In St. Andrew's, the university town with, consequently, more complex planning problems, it still costs only 20p per head. In Edinburgh it costs 30p per head. In Scotland as a

831
whole it costs 67p per head. In Glasgow it costs 90p, or nine times Thurso's costs, to carry out the planning function. Certainly it is clear to me that no advantage is to be reaped by denying the districts in the Highlands the functions which are thought right for districts elsewhere to exercise. Devolution problems will nullify the economies of centralisation, and centralisation would remove the immense source of strength to be got from local involvement.
My Lords, in spite of all I have just said, I hope it will not be thought that I am trying to condemn the White Paper out of hand; not at all. I agree with its principles. I agree with the two-tier system, provided either that community councils are created with real functions to carry out, or that a sort of second-class district council is not created in certain parts of Scotland. If you believe in the two-tier system, have the courage of your convictions and have a full two-tier system everyhere. I feel that the White Paper has departed from its own principles by making the Highlands Region too big, and I think that this is tacitly admitted in the White Paper. Yet in spite of agreeing with the White Paper as a framework, I recognise that it is absolutely and utterly worthless without the reorganisation of local government finance. The creation of the new framework will mean nothing until we really know where the money is coming from, and whether in fact the power will be devolved along with the money.
I support the devolution of power to the regions, but unless there are new sources of money for the regions this devolution will be illusory. I hope we may take it that the Government intend to give the new regions and districts the sources of finance to carry out their functions without being tied to the apron strings of St. Andrew's House. If this is not done, all that the reorganisation of local government in Scotland will achieve is to ensure that the government of the people by bureaucracy shall not perish from the earth.
I therefore hope that when she comes to reply the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, will not merely, with all her usual charm and grace, stick to the arbitrary and inflexible terms of the White Paper, I hope that she will tell us that Her Majesty's Government
832
have enough confidence in their own principles to re-examine some at least of the detailed proposals in the light of these principles. I hope that she will not tell us that Her Majesty's Government intend to bully public opinion in Scotland into submission, because that will not only be unfair, it will also be most shortsighted. I hope it will be possible for the Government to say, if there is a genuine desire for some of their proposals to be altered in detail, that they will listen, because if they do, they will be harnessing the goodwill of local opinion to the task of helping to make these new proposals work. And it is the goodwill, the co-operation and the local involvement of the people which is the very stuff and substance of local government.
6.22 p.m.
LORD WHEATLEY: My Lords, having lived intimately with the subject of the reform of local government in Scotland for nigh on five years, I feel almost wedded to it, even if only by the old Scots custom of habit and repute. I thought that I might spare myself the ordeal of making a maiden speech, and your Lordships the ordeal of listening to one, simply by referring to the 278 pages of the Report and saying that they contain my considered opinion on the subject. Alternatively, I felt that I might make a passing reference to the White Paper and then adopt the classical and much-used form of judicial judgment by saying, "My Lords, I concur and have nothing to add". While I do concur, I do not concur in omnibus; and I do have something to add.
One of the most pleasant things I have to add is to render my acknowledgment of the kind things which have been said about the Commission and their Report. I do so not only personally but also on behalf of my colleagues, because I cannot stress too firmly the fact that this was a co-operative effort by all the members of the Commission, who worked very hard and with great industry for over three years. Each and every one had an equal part to play, had an equal share of responsibility, and accordingly is entitled to an equal share of the praise that has been bestowed. I should like to add to that the members of the Commission's staff, who worked with so much industry and with so much understanding of the requirements, and

833
played such a significant part in our endeavours. In particular, I should like to mention our Secretary, Mr. Donald Mackay, whose deep understanding of the subject perhaps transcended that of all the Commissioners and whose facile pen can best be seen perhaps in the writing of the Report itself.
My Lords, it must be a source of great satisfaction to all the Commissioners that the basis of the proposals in the White Paper are to be found in the Commission's Report. It is very gratifying to us to find that the philosophy, the principles and the objectives have been embraced and accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and, I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, had been accepted by the previous Government. And, of course, it is a matter of great pleasure to us that so many of our recommendations have found implementation in the Government's proposals, and would equally have done so in the proposals of the previous Government. Therefore I do not propose to get involved in arguments of detail as to where certain lines should run. What I think is of the utmost importance is that there should be an acceptance of the philosophy, of the objectives and of the principles; and if they be accepted, then certain consequences must follow.
Anyone who wishes to examine and pass judgment on the proposals in the White Paper ought to do so on the basis of these accepted principles. If, on the other hand, counter-proposals are going to be offered, then, if the philosophy is accepted, the counter-proposals must measure up to the philosophy and not run counter to it. By the same token, if people do not accept the philosophy expounded in the Report and adopted in the White Paper, then, before they come with counter-proposals, they have a duly, I think, to explain on what basis and on what philosophy these counter-proposals proceed. Because, my Lords, what we are looking for is a system of local government in Scotland, not a series of individual units for different parts of Scotland. Therefore, at the risk of wearying your Lordships, may I just remind the House, in telegraphic form, of the principles and the objectives which go to make up the philosophy. Power, effectiveness, local democracy and local involvement—these have to be looked at in
834
the creating of a system that is stretching into the 21st century and not against a background of a system that goes back to 1889.
I do not want to go into the details of these factors, but may I say that quite obviously the purpose, if there be any purpose in this, is to create a revival of local government in Scotland. Let us not burke the issue. Local government was losing credibility in Scotland, and the principal reason for that was that it was not seen to have the power that a self-respecting body ought to have. Too many decisions were being made for it elsewhere. And if it was to regain that credibility, it must be given the power and the responsibility to make many more decisions for itself and to be able to carry out the functions which were committed to it for their discharge. There we have the power and efficiency, and into that, whatever system may be required to achieve that, we have to inter-weave, in the modern idiom, the principles of local democracy and local involvement.
All I should like to say in that respect is that many emotive phrases have been used in order to criticise the larger nature of the units which are proposed. The phrase "grass roots" has been very much over-employed. Let me remind the House that when we talk about local democracy, we are talking not only about "local" but also about "democracy", and there is no real democracy where there is no real power. 'Therefore if we want to get real democracy we must try to build up a system containing units with real power. What the consumer of service would want, may I say in parenthesis, is not necessarily to have the council round the corner: what he is looking for is that an official of the local authority supplying the service should be readily available round the corner.
When we come to the principles (and we must have regard to the principles when we consider not only the proposals but also any counter-proposals), they are fairly easy to enumerate: direct elections, with the corollary that there should be direct answerability and responsibility to the electorate; direct responsibility for finance raising. While there must always be in this partnership with the central Government a certain degree of subvention from central Government funds, they must be brought into a more realistic relationship—and may I say that

835
this probably touches on a point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso? If there is this overweighted contribution by central Government towards local government finance, you cannot expect anything else than an oversight by central Government as to how that money is being spent.
Therefore those who want to see local government having more power vis-à-vis central Government, more responsibility to make its own decisions, and less oversight and less direction from central Government have to face up to the consequences: and these consequences will be found both in finance and in structure. If you are not prepared to face up to the consequences on finance and structure, then you have no right to seek the counterpart. So you have responsibility for finance raising being direct, and not having recourse to requisitioning, which can lead to so much discontent. Each level of local government should have a self-contained code of powers and duties, and should not be dependent upon delegation for any of the functions that it is called upon to discharge.
There is a recognition in the White Paper of something upon which we laid great store in the Report, and that is that groups of functions which naturally should go together and be within the umbrella of one administration must be grouped at the same level. Manifestly, the optimum size for any one individual function will differ considerably from the optimum size of another. But since you cannot have a separate authority for each function, once you settle the format of your structure and decide upon two tiers—as the bulk of the evidence suggested we should, and as the Government have accepted—then you have to try to get that size of authority at the particular level which can best embrace the functions that you are trying to give to that level of local government without doing any material damage to any individual function. It is against that kind of background that I think the proposals of the White Paper must be examined and that any criticisms of the White Paper, or any alternative proposals, ought to be scrutinised.
Once you are settled on this two-tier structure you have to divide it into its
836
levels and then make an allocation of the functions. That means that you have to look at Scotland as a whole, in the first instance, and then look at the different parts of Scotland. But what you do not do, in my opinion—and this was the opinion of my colleagues—is to say: "We are looking at Glasgow; we are looking at Galashiels; we are looking at Edinburgh; we are looking at Elgin; we are looking at Dundee; and we are looking at Dumfries. What would be the best system for each of these individually?" You have to look at the part of Scotland in which Glasgow and Galashiels are situated and find out what is the best answer for that part of Scotland.
It is in that situation—and here I come, I hope very strongly, to the support of the White Paper proposals and to counter some of the criticisms—that the suggestion that the four cities should remain all-purpose authorities will just not bear examination. The cities will be the core and the focal point of the new Region in which they are situated, and to extract the core would make a non-sense of the whole concept. Contrary to the simile of the man from Aberdeen referred to by the noble Baroness, it is not really the head that would be lost, but the heart.
So, when I come to look at the proposals (though I have reservations) I think that they are broadly right. I will not delay your Lordships with any minute criticisms of proposals which I think are perhaps marginal and where arguments can be levelled one way or the other. I am not going to argue, for instance, about the eighth region which has been added. That always was marginal. We felt that it did not have the population to justify it at this stage. We felt that at this stage it was lacking a focal point; but we recognised that in due course the numbers would increase and a focal point might emerge. Therefore, if I disagree, it is merely on the ground that possibly the decision is premature rather than wrong.
So far as the West Region is concerned, may I say that we shared all the difficulties and apprehensions of Her Majesty's Government, and their predecessors, about the size of this region. I do not want to repeat the considerations which have been urged already from both

837
sides of the House as to the inevitable justification for this type and size of region. I would remind your Lordships, however, that over twenty years ago the Clyde Valley Planning Committee reported that regional government was required for this part of Scotland in order to solve the economic problems of the West of Scotland. The considerations which were applicable then are even more applicable now, and while the present recommendations, like ours, extend the boundaries further than those recommended by that Committee, I think the developments which have flowed since fully justify the extended boundaries.
Like Her Majesty's Government and their predecessors, we tried drawing smaller circles to see whether we could get the logical point; and there was no logical point beyond somewhere in the area where it has now been dropped. I may have reservations about the inclusion of Argyll: again it is debatable, and I do not want to occupy your Lordships' time with it. Geographically it makes more sense, but I think it would probably find its more natural home in the Highlands Region. I adopt, and hold as repeated, as we say elsewhere, brevitatis causa, what was said about Fife and will not enter into that controversy. So far as the Highlands area itself is concerned, may I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that we tried dividing it both longitudinally and laterally (I am sure that the Government and their predecessors did the same thing), and we could not get the right answer. So perhaps the noble Viscount might look at this again.
I leave it at that, and turn to consider where I feel that the proposals are wrong. Here I find myself in opposition to all the speakers who have preceded me, and one wonders how right one can be when one finds oneself in opposition to the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party—with a sneaking feeling that one might be right all the time. But that is in relation to giving all-purpose powers to Orkney and Shetland. Let me make one thing quite clear from the start: that I am not anti-Orkney and Shetland. There is a feeling that if you deny them what they want, you are anti. My Lords, I am not anti.
838
My reason for criticising this proposal is not that it runs contrary to what the majority of the Commission recommended. I say this with all deference, because three of my colleagues thought that this was the right answer, and the Government are entitled to pray that in aid. My reason for objecting to it is simply that the decision offends against all the principles of the White Paper. It offends against, and makes nonsense of, the criteria for the major services—the criteria laid down by the Government's own Departments. That is point No. 1. But I am sure that other areas, if there be further negotiations, may find it difficult to understand why they cannot get higher status, when they have a much larger population to justify the carrying of that higher status, although it can be given to Orkney and Shetland, each with roughly 17,000 population.
The decision also perpetuates a feature which both the Report and the White Paper criticised; that is, the expedient resorted to in the present system of joint committees and joint boards. Yet it is suggested that this criticised procedure should be carried forward into the new procedure. It has already been stated openly in the White Paper that the joint committees for police and fire already in existence will have to be carried forward into the Islands. The White Paper is significantly silent on the question of water, but there may be reasons for that.
Then the specialised services in education and social work have to be received from adjoining authorities. This is equally envisaged, both in the South-West and in the South-East. But how is it going to be achieved? Is it going to be through joint committees, or purely on a customer basis? I think we are entitled to know what is involved in this proposal. If they are getting it on a customer basis they are getting it not as a matter of right but as a matter of grace. Where will they stand in the order of priorities so far as the servicing authorities are concerned? In isolation, the Islands of Orkney and Shetland may become, of necessity, more dependent on finance from central Government, with all that that involves. What, in effect, is being done is the creation of a second-class form of citizenship within this structure. I think any new structure marching forward into

839
the 21st century which starts off by creating different grades of citizenship within the various levels, proceeds on the wrong basis.
That is carried on into the district councils. Again I find a certain amount of surprise that there is complete affinity between the two Front Benches that different levels of functions should be granted to the central district authorities compared to those granted to the district authorities in the three perimeter regions—the Highlands, the South-West and the South-East—because the district authorities in these three areas have not received local planning, building control and libraries. I should have thought that the argument which apparently persuaded Her Majesty's Government, and their predecessors, that housing should go to the district level in order to give those authorities a worthwhile job to do was even more forcible in relation to local planning, because in local planning there is greater opportunity to play a much more important part and to have a much more important say, not only in the creation but in the preservation of the environment. To deny the whole series of district authorities in these three regions that right is something that I find difficult to understand.
I think the granting of housing powers is inadequate compensation for that. To grant housing powers without granting local planning at the same time may not only create complications; it may very well give rise to feuds. That also is something which ought to be looked at by Her Majesty's Government. You may find districts like Dumfries, with a 58,000 population, and Inverness with a population of 47,000, saying, "Why is it that we cannot get local planning, building control and libraries, but Orkney, with a population of 17,000, can be an all-purpose authority?" It does not seem to make sense. With respect, the noble Baroness and her colleagues may be building up a certain amount of trouble for themselves when these issues come to be argued, as I hope they will be.
This is the direct result of trying to increase the number of district authorities. You may create any number you like of district authorities, but that number must be correlated to the functions which you intend to give to them. That
840
was recognised by my dissenting colleagues in the Royal Commission, who recommended 101 district authorities. They recognised the logic of the situation and suggested that those authorities should have very limited powers, more limited than the Government propose to give district authorities to-day. Those of us who recommend 37 did so on the basis that that would enable district authorities to have greater powers. It seems to me, with respect, that this exercise has been carried out to get more authorities without due regard to the consequences. The creation of a number of authorities with 6,000, 8,000 or 9,000 population, with the truncated powers which have been given to them, does not seem to make sense. I hope I do not appear unduly critical when I say that special pleading seems to have overcome philosophy.
May I remind your Lordships of this point? It has some reference to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, with regard to community councils and the powers he thought they should have. Like Her Majesty's Government, we thought they should not have any statutory powers—this applies also to other compromises that may be sought, or may have already been made. May I remind your Lordships of what happened in 1929, when the present structure of local government was being formed? It was at the Report stage in another place that it was first suggested that district councils, such as we have at the present time, should be formed, because it was thought desirable to have a unit of local government nearer the grass roots. So in order to placate that pressure, the Government of the day introduced district councils, but gave them minimal, and almost derisory, powers. They had the right to get some delegated powers from county councils, but that delegation was seldom operated, and often when operated was soon withdrawn. The biggest critics of that system before our Royal Commission were the district councils themselves. It just shows the danger and the fallacy of yielding to sympathetic pressure at a given time when you cannot match the answer with the requirements.
I should like to say a word—if I am not detaining your Lordships too long—on the question of functions. I intend to deal basically with the decision to send

841
housing to the district authorities. I realise that there is a strong argument in favour of this, and I should be the last person to deny that, but we must look at the situation to see not what is going to face the district councillors that are to be but what is the best solution in order to overcome this terrible problem of housing that we have in Scotland, and what the right agency is through which this ought to be done. I do not know what representations were made to Her Majesty's Government, or to their predecessors, but when it came to housing basically the argument was that housing will give the district councillors something worth while to do. With due respect, I do not think that that is the proper criterion. The proper criterion is the best medium or agency through which this great problem, which was recently highlighted in the Cullingworth Report, will be solved in Scotland.
What are the arguments against it? The noble Baroness said that nearly all the representations that she had were in favour of giving housing to the district authorities. I was rather afraid that she must have overlooked the representations from the Scottish Development Department, because they recommended that it should go to the regional authority. Perhaps that may have escaped the notice of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, too—
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am well aware that it is quite wrong to interrupt a maiden speaker, but the simple answer is that the Development Department changed their minds after they gave their evidence.
LORD WHEATLEY: My Lords, there may have been reasons for that. It was on such evidence that we reached our decision. And may I remind your Lordships what the evidence was, so that you may make up your own minds whether their first impression was the right one, or whether the subsequent decision was right? I recognise that there are arguments on both sides. The first argument was that there should be one authority charged with the responsibility of assessing the needs for housing in any one regional area. The needs for economic development housing and for social housing were equally paramount, and the distinction between the one and the other was fast becoming blurred. That
842
is why one authority was required to look at the whole economic development as well as the social development of the area, in order to determine the needs and assess the priorities.
Then what happens? Realising that the regional authority must also have housing powers, the expedient is adopted of giving housing powers to the region but to be exercised through agencies, the agencies being first of all the Scottish Special Housing Association, which has a limited capacity for building houses—a capacity which they informed us they could not exceed beyond a certain limit, and yet they had to be at the beck and and call of all the regional authorities in Scotland—or the district authorities who are the housing authorities themselves. Here we are going to have the breeding ground of trouble once again, because if the regional authority are planning the economic development of the area they I have also to be dependent on the provision of houses. We have seen this controversy almost stopping industry from coming to Scotland before now, where one interest lay with one authority and the other interest lay with another. It does not necessarily follow that the housing required for economic development will be supplied by the district authority whose assessment of priorities may be different from that of the regional authority. This is something which ought to be faced up to. There is the problem of the competition for land. Who will have the requisitioning powers? Will they both have the requisitioning powers for requisitioning the same piece of land?
What is perhaps the most difficult issue of all is this. As a result of this decision there has been a separation of housing from social work and education. We regarded that as being of paramount importance. The Seebohm Committee in England which sat dealing with the question of the personal services came to exactly the same conclusion. Her Majesty's Government in the White Paper have accepted the principle that the groups of services that should go together should be within the one administration. We all know in social work to-day that in most cases the problem is not the problem of the individual; it is the problem of the family, because the family's problem is usually manifested through

843
the individual. And the solution may very well be a family solution. In many cases the solution to the social problem of the family may be in the granting of a new house. That may be at the very centre of the solution to the problem. Yet under this arrangement that will not be available to the social work authority.
I am afraid that I have been occupying too much of your Lordships' time, and I shall say only a passing word about refuse disposal, which does not seem to matter very much. There is an obvious argument, which seems a logical one, for having refuse disposal in the same authority as refuse collection. But may I remind Her Majesty's Government that there is a growing dearth of land for tips, and therefore a growing need for plant for crushing and incineration and this is very expensive plant. It is capital expenditure of a kind which the regional authority could much more easily bear than the district authority.
My final point concerns the apparent delay in the implementation of the proposals. I have listened with care to the various statements made to justify the reason why apparently we in Scotland will be one year later in bringing into operation the new system of local government than will be the case in England. Frankly, I find it difficult to follow the reasons for this, because we in Scotland have as much of the blueprint ready as England has. But what is of the utmost importance is that we are perpetuating the period of uncertainty. This will affect local councils during the transition period. But, more importantly to my mind, it is going to affect psychologically the officials in local government and increase their period of uncertainty in not knowing what the future holds in store for them. We said clearly in our Report that we recognise that a fair amount of time will be required, not only for the parent Bill to go through Parliament but for much other amending legislation; committees will have to meet and other arrangements will have to be made with regard to staff, buildings and the like. All these things will be time-consuming, but that apart, and that being taken into account, the shorter the period of uncertainty, the better it will be for the morale of those who are waiting to see what the future has in store for them.
844
My Lords, as I said in relation to the Report which was issued, if we can within the framework of the proposals find something better then we ought to be prepared to accept it. I have made some criticisms, but may I reaffirm that I subscribe very strongly to the broad proposals within the White Paper. I am sure that we shall hear from the noble Baroness that the Government will not be as inflexible as the wording of the White Paper might suggest. But I can see her point that we do not want to start from square one again and have people putting up all the old arguments that have been regurgitated. In that event, one of two things always happens: either you have the same argument put up as was previously proposed and turned down, or people turn a somersault hoping to land on their feet on this occasion. But if we can get something new and appealing, and if the Government can be persuaded that there are good reasons why there should be an alteration (and I should like to think they might find some from the speech I have just delivered), I am sure they will be quite prepared to open their minds to that. Any criticism should not be by way of a justification of our own judgment, but an endeavour to find a better system of local government for Scotland—and by that I mean for the people of Scotland. I am sure that that is the wish and object of all your Lordships.
6.57 p.m.
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, it is a privilege and indeed an honour to speak directly after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, and to be in the position of congratulating him on his maiden speech, which I do most heartily. I am quite certain your Lordships will all agree that he has spoken on a subject of which he is a master and to which he has given no less than three years of a very full life. But, apart from his knowledge of the subject, the way he addressed your Lordships and framed his remarks will make us all hope that he will speak to us in your Lordships' House as often as his full life allows.
My Lords, when we debated this subject fifteen months ago I am ashamed to have spoken for much too long. During that debate I, among others, made various

845
suggestions with respect as to ways in which the Report of the Royal Commission might be improved. It so happens that a number of those suggestions have been included in the White Paper. I take no credit whatever for that, but it will shorten the remarks I have to make this evening. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, I also start my remarks on Chapter 5 of the White Paper headed "Community Councils". I do not agree with him that they ought to have powers; I do not see how they can. But they are extremely important and it would be a good plan for them to be properly appointed; not for it to be left to the whim of the local community whether they are brought into being or not. If that is done I think they will just come and go. As a complaint arises they will be active and then they will just die away.
Another point which the noble Viscount mentioned and which was raised in the previous debate 15 months ago by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, concerns the position of the small burghs, these very ancient foundations with a long and very proud history. I cannot think why their councils should not be used as a basis for the community councils of particular burghs and the surrounding area. They could be enlarged in the same way as the cities which are including the hinterland in their area. Why should not a small burgh include its little hinterland in its community council?
I should like now to mention the new Borders Region, consisting of the four counties with a population of 94,000, which is of course well below the accepted range of viability. But the wish, most strongly expressed, is that they should have their own region, and the Government are in effect telling them to implement this wish. The Border counties, especially the burghs, have recently been most successful in bringing new industries into the area—this despite the fact that the large Tweedbank scheme has so far failed to get off the ground. It has none the less been a very active spur in encouraging the burghs to go out and get this new business. They are showing such promise that one can really hope that the scheme will be a success. It is most important that it is; if it is not, they will inevitably slip back into
846
entire dependence on Government finance and will be even more closely supervised and run by St. Andrew's House than was the county council.
My Lords, that brings me on to the question of finance. As I said in the last debate—indeed, as was said to both the previous Administrations which were dealing with this subject—without finance there is no possible real solution to the reform of local government. How this is to be done is extremely difficult, because obviously one does not want just to raise extra money through the local authorities without some recompense to them, or the population getting some recompense by a reduction in taxation. As one knows very well, this is much more easily said than done. It should be possible for the rating system to be enlarged, not complicated but changed, so as to do more than simply lay on an annual valuation, but to go further and obtain something in the nature of a sales tax.
I do not know if it is competent in your Lordships' House to talk about raising taxes, but if local taxes are raised there must be a recompense to the payers of this extra imposition by reduction of national taxation. That just must be done. I hope that, when the Green Paper mentioned in paragraph 68 of this White Paper comes out, it will contain some radical and constructive suggestions so that the regions and districts can really be independent of local government and that there will not be excessive central control but that it will ensure that these authorities are partners in and not dependants of local government.
My Lords, I said that I was going to be brief. All I have to say finally is that I agree with the boundaries that have been set out in the White Paper. Subject to what I have said. I agree with what is contained in the White Paper and I think it provides a sound framework on which to reform local government for Scotland.
7.5 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I have listened with enormous interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, and I should like to congratulate him on the lucid and brilliant way in which he spoke of the great Report. I am also glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that on this

847
matter the difference between his Government and the present Government is more a matter of detail rather than of principle. I should like to pick out one or two points which the noble Lord made, because he gave the impression to me—I do not know whether to others—that the opportunity for discussing the Wheatley Report or rather the reforms as suggested in the Wheatley Report, had been rather truncated. I do not agree with him at all.
I have been a member of a local authority for a great many years, and I do not think that on any subject we have ever discussed have we taken more time. We have given evidence to the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, and his Commission when they were taking evidence. We discussed it in the county council over and over again, and only last week we had another discussion when we accepted with great enthusiasm the proposals in the White Paper. I do not think the Government have been dogmatic; I do not think they have been lacking in consultation. That is really not true. I think they have given all of us in local government many opportunities to discuss the proposal and to put forward our views. Whether or not they necessarily accept them is another matter, but they have given us the opportunity to state our views and we have taken it, certainly in the Border area.
I also think that it is vital to take a decision. The noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, has emphasised that. He thinks that the Government are moving too slowly. As I understand Lord Hughes, he thinks they are going too fast. I think it is vital to take a decision. Some people in your Lordships' House remember very well indeed the 1929 local government reform. Forty-two years ago my husband was Under-Secretary of State in the Scottish Office, and I can remember that local government reform was so unpopular in various parts of Scotland that he and others were burnt in effigies proposing that there should be no reform at all. To-day, people who are in any way opposed to the Wheatley Report point to the Local Government Act 1929 as being the Ark of the Covenant that should never be changed.
In these things you cannot please everybody. What is perfect local government? If we knew that we should be angels and
848
everybody would be madly voting for us every time there was an election. There is no such thing as perfection. All we can do, as Lord Wheatley said, is to make the best form of local government we can for Scotland. Many people have been trying to make the local government pattern applicable in all the areas, but, my Lords, I would say that there is no country in the world that I can think of that has greater variety in its make-up than Scotland. We have huge areas very sparsely populated, and relatively small areas enormously over-populated, and therefore you cannot make a pattern to suit exactly every place in the same way. I am sure that would not go down at all well in Scotland. That is why I am very glad indeed that the Government have agreed to the extra regions, the Border Regions, and I do not share the dismay of Lord Wheatley about Orkney and Shetland because it is so absolutely different from any other part of Scotland. Although their population may be tiny, their problems are in many ways different from those of any other area and it is therefore a good idea for them to be allowed to have their own region. I agree that it does not make sense in the way of arguing town for town, or person for person, or job for job, or whatever it may be; but the people there are quite different from any other part of Scotland, and I do not see why they should not be treated differently.
With regard to the area which I represent as a county councillor, which is the Borders (and your Lordships have had to hear two Borderers speaking one after the other on this subject), I would say to the noble Baroness that we are delighted to have a Borders Region. I know it has been thought that this will not be financially entirely viable, but the very fact that we are now able to have this region of four counties all with the same kind of community and of interests—and also with industrial development, as the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, has mentioned—in different parts of the Borders makes us into an area which I hope will have great pride in being a Border area and in consequence will provide good local government and also good district government.
I am particularly interested in social work and education, and the allocation of social work and education to the regions is in my view an exceedingly wise step.

849
On the development of social work in Scotland, I strongly support the new organisation set up by the last Government. It is working well, certainly in the area in which I know it. And I am quite sure that with a wider region in which we can plan, for instance, for the welfare of old people, so that we do not all need to have old people's homes, or all to have Shelter housing; if we can plan on the basis that the homes in one area can be used in another area—something that previously was impossible, because of the county boundaries and the raising of rates, and so on—it will now be much simpler and much easier.
It will also be economic, because we shall not all need to provide the whole range of services for, say, old people or mentally handicapped children, or any other of the specialised services which we want to provide for our varied population. Therefore I consider that this will be a tremendous asset, and I am delighted that the social work organisation is to be on a regional basis. I believe that it can be closely linked—as indeed all social work that is any good is closely linked—with the districts, with towns, with villages and with the community in which they are working but the overall pattern should of course be on a regional basis.
The question of education is also most important. There are certain types of schools that can well be shared in a region, such as schools for mentally handicapped children and for different types of children, where a region can utilise the services covering the whole region, rather than have each county trying to do a little bit of one thing by itself. All this will be most valuable, and I am glad that education and social work will be carried on together in close co-operation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, raised a question on the subject of housing. I do not feel quite as he does about this subject. It is possible to have a close liaison with a housing authority in a district and the social work can be run on a regional basis. I anticipate very close liaison indeed, and certainly in the rural areas I see no reason why housing should not be the responsibility of the district councils. I know the wider problems of a city like Glasgow, where the problem is almost insoluble. For some forty years or more of my life I have been associated in one way or
850
another with Glasgow, and although they build a great deal, the housing problem never gets any better. The housing lists are still very long. But, on the whole, I would say that it is quite possible to have the district councils dealing with housing and working closely with the education and the social service regional authorities.
I am glad that in paragraph 33 reference is made to the need to look to the developments sponsored by the Scottish Special Housing Association. This is a valuable matter and one which can be operated at the same time as the building of housing by local authorities. I do not see why these should not work together. It is true that there may be difficulties, but I think they can be ironed out.
I only have one criticism to offer to the noble Baroness and I do it with some diffidence, but I offer it because it is the unanimous wish of the Roxburgh County Council, which I represent. I may say that the county council thoroughly approve of the Borders Region and of the local government organisation. I refer to the taking away of the Castleton district and Newcastleton, which has been part of Roxburgh for all time and which is part of the Liddisdale area, a most historic part of Scotland. This is to be taken away and given to Dumfries. I suppose it has been done because it is supposed to be nearer from Newcastleton to Dumfries than it is from Newcastleton to Hawick, but in fact it is 21 miles in each case—it is equidistant. The children from Newcastleton have always gone to Hawick, where there is a first-class high school. They have travelled there for generations, and they are anxious not to sever their connection with Roxburgh-shire.
Equally, if I may just mention shopping, the people shop either in Hawick or in Carlisle but they never go to Dumfries. I hope very much the noble Baroness will look into this question. It is only a small matter, but it is one which might well be looked into. The Liddisdale Valley, curiously enough, holds a community that is closely linked by hill farming and forestry. They have been a community for a very long time and they have a communal life. One of their most formidable community activities for some 300 years was fighting the English! They do

851
not at any point wish their status as members of the Borders Region to be changed.
On the miscellaneous points which arise in Chapter 7 I have no very strong views. The payment of councillors may be necessary, but I should prefer the system which we have in your Lordships' House of paying people for their attendance and expenses. It may be necessary to pay salaries, but I hope this matter will be carefully examined before a final decision is reached.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, that the question of the small burghs—and indeed the large burghs, too—with their historical traditions and practices, such as in the Border area of Common Ridings and so on, can well be carried on under the present regional arrangements. I had not thought about it before, but the noble Lord may be right in saying that some of these well-known historical centres could form a nucleus of the community organisation that is envisaged. In any case, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to have their activities and their historical customs, such as the Common Ridings, on the Borders; why they should not wear their robes on ceremonial occasions and why they should not remain an important and integral historical part of any given region.
In this miscellaneous paragraph there is a reference to nomenclature and what counties and regions are to call themselves. I can see that that may lead to some trouble. We are lucky, because we do now call ourselves "the Borders". That is a region recognised by everyone; therefore, we are not in such a difficult position. There may be some difficulty in the Central Region and in the South-East Region, but as soon as these matters are cleared up and people start working together, I think they will become a homogenous community which will work very successfully.
The Government have done well in putting out these suggestions. I do not think that they are dictatorial, or are intended to be dictatorial. I know that on many occasions opportunities have been given to us, to the county councils, to express our views, either individually or in community, and I therefore think that the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord
852
Hughes, that we are being put upon, as it were, is not really true. I hope very much—although I shall wait to see what happens—that he will not press his Amendment. I think we are in a position where we can discuss and put forward suggestions, and so far as my experience goes (it covers quite a long time) these suggestions have been received in a very friendly manner. I wish the Government every success; I hope that the proposals will be given a fair chance, and when it comes to drafting the Bill, I shall do all I can to support them in the work they are doing.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, before the noble Baroness resumes her seat, may I ask her whether she would have made exactly the same contented speech if the eighth region had been Fife and the Borders had remained part of the South-East?
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, the fact is that it was not so. We made representations; we asked that we should be the Borders Region, and this will show the noble Lord that the Government are very receptive to suggestions. We asked the Government to consider the Borders as a new region and they said "Yes". With regard to the hypothetical suggestion that we should have been linked to the South of Fife or even closer to the city of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I prefer to leave that unanswered.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am not surprised.
7.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, after that pleasant little exchange I would like to say that I think this White Paper is commendably short; and it is none the worse for being rather imprecise in certain of its proposals, because this may allow more scope for reconsideration by the Government. As the hour is getting so late, I shall try to cut down what I was going to say about those parts of the Report which I think are good, but I must say a word about them, because I think they are rather more important than the parts which are not so good. And I shall then hope to conclude with another short word about the defects which I see in this White Paper and which I hope may be improved.

853
At the beginning of the last Session of the late Parliament I put down on the Order Paper a Motion about the Wheatley Report, which had just been published, and I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for substituting a Government Motion in the same terms so that we might have an early discussion about it, which we did on December 9, 1969. I think that on the main feature of the Report, which is the creation of these large new local government regions, the Government have done most of what most of your Lordships in that debate asked them to do. We were nearly all agreed, I think, that the Highlands Region was too big and that the County of Argyll ought to be separated from it, and I am glad that the Government have done this.
We were, I think, unanimous that Orkney and Shetland should be separate, small, all-purpose authorities; and I am particularly grateful to the Government for agreeing to this, because about three years ago your Lordships carried, against the late Government, an Amendment to the Scottish Water Bill which I had moved seeking to preserve the independence of Orkney and Shetland in dealing with their water. I felt so strongly about this that when the other place disagreed with our Amendment I had wanted to ask your Lordships to insist upon it, within the limits of the Constitution. But many of my friends at that time thought that the propects of all-Party agreement about reform of your Lordships' House were much better than they afterwards proved to be, and I was persuaded not to spoil the chance of agreement by fighting a losing battle for the independence of Orkney and Shetland.
The Wheatley Report very strongly recommended that water boards should form part of the functions of the regional authorities, but, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, said, this White Paper preserves what seems to me a stony and perhaps rather sinister silence on the subject of water. I should therefore like to ask the Government whether, if the proposals of this White Paper are implemented, the islanders will or will not be given back the management of their own water.
To the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley—to whose maiden speech we have listened with such great pleasure, and whom we
854
hope to hear often again—may I say that he need not worry in the least about finding himself in opposition to every single political Party? There is nothing at all to worry about in that. But perhaps he might console himself with the reflection that in this matter, although all political Parties are against him, I think he will have the support of every single bureaucrat in the country, because they are all in favour of these large water areas, irrespective of the wishes of the people who live there.
But if the noble Lord's remarks should be given much publicity, I think I would advise him not to go to Orkney or Shetland for some lime to come, because after the Water Bill went through this House the Secretary of State at that time, when he went to Orkney, was received with certain marks almost of unfriendliness—including, I think, a gift of over-mature eggs. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, will find himself much more unanimously opposed by the population of Orkney and Shetland than by anybody in any political Party here.
LORD WHEATLEY: My Lords, is the noble Earl suggesting that it would be better if the Orcadians and Shetlanders came and appeared before me?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that would be even more inconvenient for them than the journeys to which they would be subjected if they had to go to regional meetings in Inverness by rather circuitous air journeys.
My noble friends, Lady Elliot of Harwood and Lord Stratheden and Campbell, asked for a Borders Region, and that has been done. My noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie very kindly sent me a message a few days ago asking me to say something about Fife in this debate. As both she and the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, have indicated, many people in Fife., including some of my own greatest friends (because I happen to live there), want Fife to be a single undivided regional authority; and I have the warmest sympathy for the feelings of local patriotism which have prompted this demand. But since my noble friend has asked me to state my own views, I think I ought to reply, speaking of course entirely for myself, that I think the future improvement of local government in Scotland, which is the object of all of

855
us, will be better served by the proposal of the Wheatley Report, which has been accepted in the White Paper.
That proposal, of course, is that the southern part of Fife, laying to the South of the Cleish and Lomond Hills and towards the Forth Bridge, should form part of the South-East Region, while the remainder of Fife, the northern part, should be joined with Kinross, Angus, and most of Perthshire to form the Central Region. As my own mind happens to be a strongly traditionalist one, perhaps I may be allowed to add that I have ascertained from the Lord Advocate's Office that the Sheriffdom of Fife, which really is an ancient entity, will not be affected in any way by any of these proposed changes in local authority boundaries.
The administrative functions of the county councils in Scotland are not of very great antiquity, and boundaries have often been changed in the past. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, and others have said, some of the most ancient local authorities in Europe are the Royal Burghs of Scotland. Some of them go back as far as the beginning of the 12th century, or even further. It is the smaller Royal Burghs that are most in danger, on account of these projected reforms, of losing their status, and perhaps some of their usefulness. I very much hope that the Government will see that the smaller Royal Burghs are given some significant status in the local authority tiers of any new regional structure which is erected. In fact, I think the Government have already mentioned this point sympathetically in paragraph 84 of the White Paper.
Of course, the real justification for having this new local authority structure is that it is intended to bring about a marriage between town and country. I think that the proposals in the White Paper, so far as the regional boundaries of the proposed new areas are concerned, will do this successfully—a little more successfully, indeed, than the original proposals in the Wheatley Report; and I think that will be a great gain. I should like to add (although this is a point on which I may be, and very likely am, completely wrong) that I think it is possible that the local government of these new large regional areas may perhaps be
856
rather less dominated than some of them now are by Party political strife, which in my view has always been the curse of local government.
My Lords, I am afraid that I must conclude with a word of criticism about the White Paper. I deeply regret that the. Government have not seen their way to accept what I regard as much the most valuable part of the Wheatley Report; and that is the Note of Dissent on page 281 by Miss Betty Harvie Anderson, who is Member for East Renfrew in another place, and Mr. Russell Johnston, who is Member for Inverness. The other place is exceedingly lucky, I think, to have such an admirable Deputy Chairman of Committees as the Member for East Renfrew, and the only pity is that her tenure of that high office will effectually prevent her, during the lifetime of this Parliament, from talking about Scottish local government, on which she is an exceptionally knowledgeable authority. As for Mr. Russell Johnston, I am afraid that in these days it often happens that when two or three are gathered together in the name of the Liberal Party, you may sometimes have as many as four or five different opinions. But I hope that if Mr. Johnston chooses to speak his mind on this matter, he will get some support both from his own Party and from other Parties, too.
My own reasons for thinking that the Wheatley Report made a double error in recommending that planning should be split, and in proposing the larger size of district authorities called the "shire" level, rather than the smaller type called the "locality" level were given to your Lordships when I stated them all in our debate in December over a year ago. I should be quite happy to repeat them to your Lordships now, if they were not expressed far better than I could express them in the Note of Dissent on pages 281 to 286 of the Wheatley Report which your Lordships can read at any time.
These two Members of Parliament are the only two Members of Parliament who were members of the Royal Commission. Both have very great experience of local and national government, and they warn us in this Note about the danger of dividing planning functions between two different types of local authority, each with an appeal to the Secretary of State. They quote the evidence of the Scottish Town

857
Planning Institute, set before the Commission, which states that there are not enough qualified planners in Scotland, and that there will never be enough qualified planners in Scotland to man more than one branch of local government.
On the other hand, I cannot help feeling that the main Report seems rather to rate the interest of the planners higher than the interests of the people for whom they are planning. In the Report itself, in paragraph 714, the Wheatley Commission say:
"It is important that the second-tier of local government should have worthwhile functions."
I caught an echo of this in what the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, said this afternoon. The Commission continue:
"We do not consider that the environmental, amenity and other miscellaneous functions that could be assigned to the 'locality' scale of authorities would by themselves form a sufficient range of functions."
Then:
"The picture changes completely when the second-tier authority's range of responsibilities is extended to include such functions as local planning. …"
Finally the Commission say:
"Those who wish second-tier authorities to be a credible part of local government must face up to the issue and make them bigger."
This is exactly the argument of the old farmer who used to ride about in a very large and slow dog-cart pulled by an aged and ponderous horse. When his friend said to him that it would be much more efficient and much less expensive to have a small motor car, he replied, "But if I get rid of my dog-cart I shall have nothing worth while for my horse to do". When they asked him, "But do you really need to keep this very large animal?" he replied, "Yes of course I do. If I got rid of the horse, then I should have nothing to pull the dog-cart." With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, I think his Report is really arguing in a circle here.
But I do not want to quarrel with him, because it seems to me that the arguments which he used about housing are exactly the same as the arguments which I ant now using about planning—even down to the evidence. He said that the Development Department gave evidence in favour of regional control of housing. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, interrupted
858
and said that they changed it. I never heard of their changing it; at any rate, they did not go and publicly recant to the Wheatley Commission. In exactly the same way, about a year after the Scottish Town Planning Institute had given their evidence to say that there were not enough planners to man more than one branch of local government, I heard the former Minister of State in another place, Dr. Dickson Mabon, saying that the Scottish Town Planning Institute had turned round and changed their evidence. He did not say how, when or where, but they certainly did not go and change it to Lord Wheatley's Commission and that is really what Lord Wheatley is entitled to consider.
In deciding to make housing a district function the Government are in a much weaker position, because on planning they at least have the majority of the Wheatley Commission on their side; there are only the two Members of Parliament who dissent. But when they put housing under the control of the district authorities, they are rejecting the unanimous advice of everybody on the Wheatley Commission; and on this point I am on the side of Wheatley and against the White Paper.
I think I know the reason why both the late Government—according to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—and the present Government have decided to reject the advice of the Wheatley Commission on this point. I think that when they had their discussions and meetings with representatives of local authorities and other representatives of opinion in Scotland, they encountered the massive inertia of conservative sentiment, the disinclination for change, the hostility to reform which we find in all human beings, even in the trade unions, and I think they felt that this inertia was a little too formidable for them to overcome.
I know that there are many Scottish local authorities who have done well, or at least better than some others, in their building programmes; but, in general, the inescapable truth that fair rents are better than no homes has, in my view, never really been acted on at all in Scotland. Local authorities have neglected to charge fair rents because they are afraid that if they do all their tenants who are also their constituents will vote against them in the local elections. That is the chief reason why in the last sixty

859
years Scottish housing progress has lagged so far behind our needs that we can still sometimes be told that in certain parts of Scotland housing conditions are worse than anywhere else in Europe.
When Walter Elliot, the late husband of my noble friend behind me who has just spoken, started the Scottish Special Housing Association in 1937, he did not intend it to be merely a useful minor auxiliary as it is now; he intended it to be a major agent in rehousing the Scottish people. Of course it was crippled a year or two after it was born by the outbreak of war, but, even so, since the war it has done very well when it has been invited to act or when it has been allowed to act, and it is not afraid to charge reasonable rents because its existence does not depend on the votes of its own constituents.
The only reference in this White Paper to the Scottish Special Housing Association is in paragraph 33, which states that although regional housing authorities are not themselves going to be responsible for housing, and although they will not do direct building, they will be given power to ensure that housing for industrial development and for redeployment of population—which I hope may include slum clearance—is provided where and when it is required. Paragraph 33 also states that that can be done on the instructions of the regional authority, either by the Scottish Special Housing Association or by other agencies which will be responsible for the construction and management of those houses. I hope that that may turn out to mean that the regional authorities will have power to build, either through the Scottish Special Housing Association or through private agencies, houses for letting or for sale, without having to get any sort of planning permission from district authorities. I also hope that the regional authorities will do this on a very large scale, because if they do not we may still have as many slums at the beginning of the 21st century as we have now.
I do not want my noble friend to give me an answer to this question now, because I want the Government to have every opportunity of thinking again, and thinking hard, before they commit themselves to their final proposals which will no doubt include the very difficult question
860
of what powers on local taxation shall be given to regional authorities and to district authorities respectively. All I want to do now is to suggest very earnestly to the Government that if we are going to set up district authorities which are able to act as rivals to the regional authorities or to pursue any policy which conflicts with the policy of the regional authorities, then we shall lose the fruits of those reforms which are so long overdue in the local government of Scotland.
7.59 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, on his maiden speech. I must confess that this is the second time that I have heard the noble and learned Lord expound the Report that bears his name. The last time was in a more academic atmosphere and at somewhat greater length. What has struck me in both cases about his speeches is that he, at any rate, leaves one in no doubt about where he stands. This is a great advantage both to the hearers and to those who have to act on his Report.
However, I would take issue with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, about whether the White Paper is in any way inflexible. We have to get a move on, and we are getting a move on. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie on pushing ahead. We are ahead of England in this matter. We must accept certain things, and we are accepting the fundamental philosophy that went into the Wheatley Report. I think we should stop girning at that part and get on with filling out the details which have to be completed. After all, the first White Paper came out in 1963, and it looks as though it will be twelve years before action can properly be taken and the new local government system set in motion.
I should like to support what has been said about Orkney and Shetland, even though it means a disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley. I have lived there for a year, and I realise that those two archipelagos are fundamentally different from the other parts of Scotland. Not only are they surrounded by water, but their communications are very difficult: they are laborious and costly, and

861
produce problems which are quite different from those in other parts of Scotland. I support my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood on how this Report must be adjusted to the variety of circumstances to be found in Scotland.
My Lords, the Royal Commission recommend that the regional and district elections should be staggered, with all the district elections taking place one year and then, two years later, all the regional elections taking place. With a four-year term this would mean a disharmony of two years between the regions and the districts, and success in certain matters, including house-building, parks and recreation, could be put in jeopardy by such an arrangement. I hope that The Government will consider biennial elections, when half the members of both regional and district councils will be elected. This will give a measure of continuity, as well as allowing for a quicker adjustment to the will of the electorate and for changes in the composition of the electorate.
I welcome the fact that the Government have an open mind on the payment of councillors. The decision on this aspect will, I think, have far-reaching effects on the working out of the whole of local government. If the Government accept the recommendation of the Royal Commission that as much responsibility as possible should be delegated to officials, while councillors decide policy, then I submit that the substantial salary recommended by the Royal Commission would stultify this. To make councillors virtually full-time means that they would find work for themselves. This can only result in interference with the officials in matters of pure administration or detail. As my noble friend Lady Elliot has already said, councillors should be given liberal expenses, including a tax-free element for the loss of earnings. I would not object to salaries for the convenor of regions or for chairmen of the committees.
My Lords, the White Paper rightly states that local government in Scotland has a rich heritage and history, and I would support the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, in considering the burghs and their historic significance. My noble friend Lord Dundee has so clearly
862
pointed this out. I think that, if they so wish, all existing cities and burghs should continue to have their distinct entities. They could exist in lieu of the community council. They should retain their common good, which might be funded, and should be furnished with a fixed sum from the rates—for instance, a quarter of a new penny in the pound. This sum would be determined for them by the Government.
I would support the proposal made by my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell, that we should avoid further elections; that the composition of the burgh council might be by some form of nomination, but including the appropriate regional and district councillors: and that these would elect their own Lord Provost or Provost. My Lords, I would again congratulate the Government on the White Paper and on getting a move on. I would also again congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his maiden speech, and say that I look forward to hearing him again quite soon.
7.56 p.m.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, at this stage of the debate there is not very much left to say on the major issues, but I should like to begin by congratulating my noble and learned friend Lord Wheatley on his maiden speech. Local government is by no means the only subject on which he is an expert; and I hope that we shall hear him frequently again.
There is only one point of the major issues to which I should like to refer, and that is the vexed question of the size of the West Region and Glasgow's position in it. On that, I was extremely glad to hear the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, regarding the administrative action to be taken to ease the obvious difficulties caused by the size of the region and the size of the Glasgow City District. I think this is particularly acute in the case of the social work department, and it does not take very much imagination to think what sort of an agenda is going to come up to the social work committee of the region when it is coping with business from no fewer than 13 districts, of which one is Glasgow City Council. Now we may regret that there was not some better way of doing this but, admitting that administrative decentralisation is in fact the only possibility open to us, I

863
think it is going to have to be a good deal more imaginative and more unorthodox than is frequently customary in these administrative decentralisation plans. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that Her Majesty's Government should, if possible, retain responsibility for ensuring that this starts oil on a reasonable basis. It is not only that there will be an excessive overload of work on the elected members of the social work committee, for instance; it will fall also on the officials. There is the possibility, too, that a further somewhat embarrassing situation may arise. I think it is an arguable point that the social work director for the Glasgow District will have a more exacting job and will be worth a bigger salary than the regional social work director. That is another reason why I think some very imaginative administrative planning should be done.
In addition to that, my Lords, I want only to refer briefly to what is virtually virgin soil at this stage, I think, and that is Chapter 5, "Community Councils." It was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, but I must say that I thought he was "offside", so to speak, because he was really talking of a third tier. If we are not to have a third tier, we must do some serious thinking as to whether or not these community councils are possible. There is very little information in the White Paper or in the Wheatley Report to go on. The White Paper in paragraph 62 says wryly that existing local authorities have not been enthusiastic. And no wonder!—because as depicted these community councils really look very little more than an elaborate complaints organisation. And what organisation is going to encourage that?
It is not very difficult to think of ways in which these councils could be elected and organised, but it is difficult to think what they are to do. The only suggestion so far is that they would be a source of information coming up from the so-called grass roots to the district level; and they would also have an amenity interest in their own areas. But, surely, the vital points, if they work at all, have to be three: there must be information collected from the grass roots; there must be a proper channel of communication for carrying that on
864
further up; and there must be somebody at the district council to receive it and do something about it.
In addition to those functions, the traffic should be two-way. It is not merely that you want information coming up from the electorate to the district council, but that there is a great need—which will be greater with the bigger councils—for the councils to be able to disseminate, to send down, information; even to ask for information and opinion on specific subjects and, very likely, to arrange for meetings to be held at the lower level to explain the district council's policies. So I think that it must be a two-way traffic. But, frankly, I cannot see that even that is going to provide a worth while job which will attract good people to do it. I have no really brilliant suggestions as to what these councils can do; but I think that unless we can make some suggestions this idea may prove to be a non-starter.
Supposing you have a system of community councils, at locality level probably, the councils being composed of representatives elected on a parish basis, with a channel of communication up to the district, there are a large number of organisations, largely the voluntary organisations, who are co-operating or functioning in those areas and many of them are working extremely closely with local Government officials and authorities. Is that not one field in which these community councils might do a useful job—if only in co-ordinating and encouraging the work of the numerous voluntary organisations and oiling the wheels of co-operation between the voluntary and the official sides? I feel that that is worth considering; but that something more constructive than that would be highly desirable if it could be thought of.
I feel that if you set up an organisation outside the local government field proper, it should not be grant-aided; although it would be open to the district to make grants for specific purposes. I would think that the only expenses for the council that would be involved would be secretarial expenses, in whatever form they might be—perhaps somebody from the district or a part-time secretarial worker—and, of course, there would have to be provision for the recovery of the

865
usual outlays of travel, postage and telephone where these are incurred. I do not know whether on that basis the work would be sufficient to attract really good confine their inquiries to local government start to go into this more closely, as I understand they will, I would make one suggestion; that is, that they should not confine their inquiries to local Government circles. I have already given one reason why local government officials and members might not altogether welcome this system, and no doubt there may be others; but there are a great many organisations which work with local authorities and which might give useful advice as to what purpose such community councils could serve. I am afraid that any results we may get from this are likely to be patchy; but, on the other hand, if there are areas where these councils could do a useful job they are well worth considering on the one condition that they must have something useful to do.
8.7 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I should like to join my voice with those other voices which have given wholehearted support to the appearance of this White Paper. I would also express strong agreement with my noble friend Lord Balerno not only in welcoming the speed with which my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie has acted in getting this matter going, but also in what he said about the need for carrying on with that pressure and speed and for removing the uncertainties which the present situation brings about in the minds of local authorities and especially of the officials. These uncertainties should be cleared up as early as possible.
My noble friend Lord Balerno saved me the trouble of saying much of what I was going to say about the question of the remuneration, or otherwise, of councillors. I agree that the matter should be dealt with by the payment of expenses, and I agree with the word he used: that they should be "liberal". I say this because I have often felt—and this certainly applies in the county in which I have lived for many years—that very great sacrifices were made, particularly by professional men, in serving local authorities. These sacrifices in serving were often very much greater, in terms of their own pockets, than those made by other
866
thoroughly worthy and heavily burdened members of the local authorities. For that reason I should like to repeat my agreement with what my noble friend said about the remuneration of councillors.
I am not quite sure whether we are talking about the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, or the Motion of the noble Baroness, because I heard her say that she was accepting the idea behind the noble Lord's Amendment. Now, my noble friend Lord Dundee referred to paragraph 84. I feel that it is quite clear from the White Paper that there is no question of its being arrogant, or overriding the necessity for further thorough consideration. The last words of paragraph 84 are:
"But the Government will study this question closely in consultation with the local authority associations."
That shows clearly that the Government are not intending to finish the whole matter with this White Paper.
My Lords, I propose to strike two notes quite different from those struck by other noble Lords. I intend to refer only to paragraphs 25 and 26 in Chapter 3 of the White Paper. These paragraphs deal with road authorities and the police and fire services. I beg of Government to ensure that part-time fire services are retained in country areas. It is my experience that one of the most onerous and serious duties imposed on fire brigades is work at road accidents, and it would be a mistake to rely on units which have to come from substantial distances when, in sparsely populated areas, part-time firemen might have a shorter distance to travel to attend a fire or an accident.
The proposals regarding roads, contained in paragraph 25, are wise. The larger regions to be covered by the proposed road authorities will, I am sure, lead to better planning. In respect of the South-East Region there will at least be a single authority to address itself to the road system in and around Edinburgh. That I should take as a typical example of the advantages set out in the White Paper with regard to road authorities. One of the great obstacles to the creation of the Edinburgh orbital highway has been the multiplicity of authorities which are at present concerned with it. That major obstacle will be swept away. I am confident that one of the first

867
undertakings of the new authority will be the completion of the connection between the A.1 and the Forth Road Bridge; the by-pass road was planned years ago.
In the light of what is set out in the White Paper, it is fair to ask Government to impress upon existing authorities the need to stay their hands in respect of developments which may eventually be overridden when the provisions in the White Paper are put into effect in the shape of the wider planning that will then be possible. The Question initiated earlier to-day by my noble friend Lord Albemarle, relating to traffic conditions in East Anglia, emboldens me to suggest that it might be worth considering that a caveat be entered warning road authorities to think twice before developing major road projects and to wait until such time as the centres of population which the proposed roads are intended to link have been by-passed by orbital highways, or at least the designs and plans have been prepared for their completion to coincide with the completion of the main inter-city links.
As the number of road vehicles increases it will be only by reducing traffic in and through city centres that the civic amenities and the very fabric of our cities and towns may be preserved. I am tempted to turn to the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, who emphasised that the important thing is to retain the civic sense, the entity, of the local community. This point was well brought out also by my noble friend Lord Balerno. I believe that we are on the threshold of very serious trouble over the destruction of the physical fabric of these units, of which our beloved and beautiful towns are the very heart and soul. They are in danger of being irredeemably destroyed by traffic.
8.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I want, first, to join with other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, on his maiden speech. I heard the gist of it many months ago in the Mackie Academy. He has improved it, and I look forward to hearing him again. My Lords, when considering the failures of local government and the apathy dis-
868
played at election times, I think that one should remember that, just as good news is not news at all, a contented electorate does not bother to elect anyone else. Mercifully, we in Kincardineshire are free from Party politics in local government and we should strive to retain that freedom, because Party politics and local government do not go together. People are not really so apathetic or dissatisfied as they may appear, and if one puts up a "black" they jolly soon tell you about it.
I am glad that under the present restrictive methods of working—I do not know what are the problems—the reign of St. Andrew's House looks as if it is nearing its end. The effectiveness of local government is frustrated time and again by St. Andrew's House, possibly for very good reasons, and probably for reasons which cannot be helped. Nevertheless, if we are to have a new "go" at local government, this is something which should be swept out in the course of the general reorganisation. At the same time we might remove the difficulties which I am sure exist at St. Andrew's House. There is only one way to achieve local democracy and local involvement: you must have a sufficient number of local representatives elected by local people. If this means having big councils, it cannot be helped. If you do not elect these people and give them a job to do, and if you have the numbers proposed in Lord Wheatley's Report, the result will be totally inadequate and local government will be killed. I think it essential to have proper local representation.
When one considers what services people require, one realises that if people think they are getting services free, there is nothing for which they will not ask. But it is quite a different kettle of fish when people discover that the amorphous "they" happens to be themselves, and that if they want services they will have to pay for them. Then finance comes much to the fore. As things are at present, "economy" is a dirty word in local government circles. I would particularly underline the last words of paragraph 11:
"… there must be concern lest local government becomes remote from the individual."
I entirely agree that the best solution is probably the two-tier solution. Therefore

869
I do not criticise that at all; but I should like to stress the absolute necessity of extreme flexibility in outlook and the delegation of higher authority to lower tiers. I think that that is essential.
I am a member of two regional boards, one in one part of Scotland and one in another. Because I happened to complain bitterly about the iniquities of the East of Scotland Water Board, I was promptly stuck on it. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who I think was complaining of the southern shore of the Tay being taken into the Dundee area, that I believe the reason for it is that there happens to be a water pipe going over a bridge there, thus putting it into the Water Board's area. St. Andrew's House invented a wonderful political catcall, "From source to tap in one district". That went right against sound technical advice. Nevertheless, the political catcall won. That is past history. It is not going to be easy to put it right. I think I may be the only noble Lord who has read Appendix B, which places water supply among the operations of the regional authority. I feel sure, from the experience we have had, that from the regional point of view the responsibility for water should stop at the bulk supply to burghs and big users. The detailed work should be carried out by the local administration. It becomes so unwieldy and almost impossible to produce the service on a regional level but it can be done on the local level. This is something which should be looked at very carefully. I may point out that the efforts of the water boards are really hamstrung by interest charges. Of the total cost of supplying water, more than 50 per cent. is made up of loan charges. The economies of scale have actually resulted in a steady increase in water rates.
I am in a little doubt about the standing of the four cities. Paragraph 17 says:
"the four cities should cease to be all-purpose authorities and should become the centres of the wider areas they already influence."
I am not quite sure what that means, whether the districts into which the cities have been put are the areas or the regions. I know that the parishes of Banchory-Devenick and Nigg are furious about coming under the jurisdiction (as they see it) of Aberdeen City. I do not know whether or not they will have any chance of a hearing, but they are very unpleased with this idea. I do not see that it will
870
make much difference one way or the other to the general working of the scheme whether they are in Aberdeen city district or not.
Whether we get a successful democratic local administration under the system depends on the districts, and the districts must have adequate local representation. I think it is wrong to abolish provosts, baillies and burghs. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, produced what I thought was an excellent idea. Nevertheless, I am still going to produce another one of my own. I suggest that the district representatives elected by the burghs could form the provost and baillies of that town and could operate as a committee of the district council, of which they would be full members, roughly in the way they are accustomed to doing now. However we do it, the important thing is that we must keep these dignitaries—and not just as a fancy dress parade. They must still be able to carry out their old functions, however it is done. I think that is essential.
I think that the community councils, in the form in which they are proposed, are non-starters. Unless people are going to have responsibilities in worthwhile jobs they will just be perambulating complaint boxes. I do not think that that would be any good at all. With the general functions allocated I find myself in pretty good agreement, but I should like an assurance that delegation will be universal and rapid. A point that comes to my mind is that if we have regional responsibility for roads, who puts on the salt or clears the snow? If you have to ring up some office 50 miles away and the lines are down, what happens? These are the sort of details that can only be looked after with a very flexible outlook.
I want to say a word about housing. At the moment from first to last the cost to a local authority of building a five-roomed house is £24,000. Yet the Government grant to anybody who builds his own house is £300. It seems absurd to keep the grant at that figure, and I suggest that it would be good business to produce a grant of something in the order of £2,000 for someone willing to build his own house, which he can do for about £6,000, and to pay for it on the nail, because the local authorities then get the full rates and they would not have so much debt hanging round

871
their necks. From the point of view of finance, housing haunts the local authority. If the regional authorities can direct districts to build a large number of houses, it seems to me that they could place the district authorities in financial difficulties. I hope that this is not so, but it is not made clear in the White Paper.
On the question of payment of councillors, I am personally absolutely against this. We must remember that by changing the system of local government we shall not suddenly get a new race of supermen. We shall have exactly the same chaps on the councils who are doing the work now. And if we start paying, we could attract the wrong type of individual, which I think would be highly undesirable.
The suggestion of complaints machinery is very good. Another thing that should come under regional authority is the controlling of scrap yards. They are the most unsightly things. There are far too many of them, and at the moment they can virtually be placed anywhere. Scrap is mobile, whether on its own wheels or whether taken on the back of a lorry. These hideous dumps of car bodies, with all the worthwhile scrap removed, are eyesores that should be tolerated no longer. I think that they should be looked after on a regional basis.
I hope that the district provision of crematoria, museums and art galleries does not mean that every district will be called upon to produce these, because that would be a waste. We have a very good crematorium in Aberdeen, a good art gallery, and also a museum. I do not think we want any more.
In general, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, I think that the White Paper is an improvement on the original Report, provided that it is carried out sensibly and with extreme flexibility, and—perhaps a new idea in politics—that decisions may be reversed when they are found to be wrong.
8.31 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I must first apologise for having missed the noble Baroness's opening speech and the opening speech from the Opposition Benches by the noble Lord,
872
Lord Hughes. I was able to write to the noble Baroness in advance, but I was unable to warn the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. My absence was due to a personal event which I could not foresee, let alone divert. But I was, happily, here in time to hear the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, and I too, much instructed thereby and held riveted throughout it, would like to join my modest plaudits to those that have gone before.
I should like to continue by echoing Lord Balerno's plea: let's stop girning. The old Scots proverb has it:
"Biting and scratching is Scots folks' wooing".
Or, to put it in modern parlance, they want you to win and lose at the same time. But "quarrelling dogs come halting home", and in these "do or die" days for Scotland the issue is not a mean one.
By far the most important issue for Scotland in this context of local government reform is not whether we have five or eight regions (I think we could do without the Central one, at any rate); still less whether the boundaries are to be thus or thus; nor again what is to become of this or that county convenor and his whole apparatus of county clerks and the rest, overgrown as they are; nor, least of all, whether we have contrived the right complaints mechanism. In the context of local government reform in this day and age, what matters supremely is whether we have a set-up that can face the cardinal economic questions for the industrial heart of Scotland, which mightily affect the wellbeing of the whole from Shetland to Gatehouse of Fleet.
So I wish to concentrate briefly on the one aspect of the critical strategic functions reserved for the regional units which are listed in paragraph 28. These embrace both land use planning, in the accepted sense, and the formulation of an economic strategy: and I say this particularly in the light of the critical problems now before the West Region. For it is these functions which are the turnkey to revenue-producing rateable value, and hence having citizens and ratepayers to govern at all. Again as an old proverb has it:
"Samson was a strong man, but he couldn't pay money before he had it."

873
I am bound to introduce a slightly discordant note. I have found, in a certain sense, that this debate has been rich in its irrelevancies. For it is taking place against the background that there are to-day more than 120,000 workless people in Scotland—a higher figure than for many years; and the emigration rate, though it has been slowed latterly, has been higher in the last decade than we have remembered it for a long time. These things are due partly, of course, to the state of the economy in general; partly, of late, to the special disaster of Rolls-Royce; but they are due also to a deep technological and economic crisis in the industry which lies at the heart of our shipbuilding and engineering, and hence at the heart of the entire Scottish economy: I refer to steel.
I ask your Lordships' indulgence for one moment, because you would hardly expect the leading article of this month's Journal of the Institute of Directors to have much of a bearing on the White Paper. But bear with me, if your Lordships will, for a moment if I quote. First of all, Japan alone now makes more than three times as much steel as the United Kingdom. Then I quote from the Journal of the Institute of Directors.
"The standard steel-making unit reckoned as suitable for competition in world markets from now on is the 10 million tons a year plant sited on deep water and able to draw the best international supplies of coal and ore … German sources have informally proposed building in Britain a private enterprise 10 million tons works. The Germans do not have any hope of developing a big works inland in the future. They are looking to Britain as an offshore island base where they can find maritime facilities that such a works would need."
The questions for the West of Scotland, in the context in which we must look at this local government reform proposal, are these. How are we to match the blandishments of Tees-side and Deeside? We need to match them and either win the British Steel Corporation or—if Mr. John Davies, driving his "lame ducks" before him, drives us, too—seek a European entrepreneur to seize the geographical opportunity of the Lower Clyde and develop such an integrated 10 to 15 million tons a year plant on a greenfield site, using 1,000 men (not 4,000, as now) for every million tons of steel, enabling Scotland to beat Europe and America and to match Japan in the
874
export of cheap hot metal. This is the opportunity knocking at our gate, and this is the problem that our regional strategic economic plan in the West of Scotland must be of a calibre to match up to.
When county convenors, deluded with sterile phantasies, protest at being amalgamated, may I put the question in another way? What more effective organ than this proposed West Region would the county convenor protesters of West Scotland propose, seeing that they have already put their names to the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee and its West Central Scotland Steering Committee? The big local government job in the West of Scotland is to get the ore terminal now. It is to plan now for Lanarkshire when Motherwell's steel is no more. It is to pattern now the lure of secondary and tertiary industries—not just any industry that we can get, as I was told by our Lord Provost the other day—in order to adhere to the primary industries of to-morrow: the new deep-water steelmasters and oil refineries, with all the varied users from plastics to jewellery and cutlery.
The task of the West of Scotland local government, now and in the next five years, is to understand why data links are needed, and to be able to clamour for them intelligently. It is to plan the advance industrial sites to be ready to receive these necessary incomers, and not expose them to the humiliation and obstruction they have had in the last three years. It is to determine where housing will be needed, and to have some realistic population policy. It is to identify the communications needs: to ensure, for example, the motorway spur from the North Ayrshire plain to the M.74, along the A.71 valley route; or, to take another example, to make sure that there are proper rail links with the Greenock container terminal; that the railway trains stop at Prestwick Airport, and that there is a rail spur to Abbotsinch. This is the kind of problem we have to face.
The present machinery of the Clyde Valley Planning Committee and its Inner Steering Group, on which, as I take it, the convenors of the West now pin their hopes (the latter body, the Inner Steering Group, I may say, having no fewer than

875
48 voting members), is far too cumbersome. I heard the other day one of Scotland's leading industrialists leaving a meeting of this large body and saying, "What an almighty waste of time!" In terms of facing up to this sort of problem, which is the heart of our life and future in Scotland; in terms of facing up to redeveloping Scotland's industrial and economic base, I believe that the new set-up proposed is a vast improvement. In place of the total fragmentation of weakness in local government hitherto we may now look to some real diffusion of power, ever mindful that—
"… the greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
I am glad that the White Paper promises a programme of action, and that in broad outline, subject of course to discussion, this scheme will be pushed ahead.
"But good works without deeds are rushes and reeds".
I have, therefore, a few questions for the noble Baroness when she replies, of which I have given her notice, although I shall well understand if, in view of the shortness of the notice that I was able to give, she prefers to write to me about them.
First of all, on the combination of land use and physical planning, on the one hand, with strategic economic planning, on the other, is the Scottish Office also to resolve its own dichotomy in this regard as between the Scottish Development Department, which engages in physical planning, and its Regional Development Department, which is concerned with economic planning? For it is this dichotomy that has plagued us hitherto. It is the amalgamation of the two which is a happy sign in the White Paper, but we should like to say, gently but audibly, to the Scottish Office:
"Physician, heal thyself".
Despite the good words in paragraphs 10 and 60 about power for local authorities, and partnership with the central Government, does the Secretary of State intend to retain his power to call in planning applications and thus reserve his veto power?
Then a point about housing—and we are told about the regional authorities having power to ensure that housing is available for major redeployment of
876
population, or to support a substantial industrial development. Does that mean that regional authorities will have, or will be capable of having devolved to them, the powers of a New Town development corporation, if need be? My fourth question reflects a strange omission. We have this apparatus of power diffused, but the veto is still at the centre and, inevitably, the Secretary of State is the arbiter between East and West. What we are at last concerned with is some means of controlling Scottish government itself. Is it not time we heard a little more of the kind of Convention that is in view to be an effective watchdog over St. Andrew's House, wielding genuine power to direct and lead the Scottish economy?
My last question concerns paragraph 84, the burghs, especially the small burghs. I have loyalty to several, but to none greater than perhaps to one of the smallest of them all, the Burgh of Lauder. I plead with the Government to think, and think hard; I plead with the Government to hear the eloquent appeals of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, my noble friends Lord Dundee, Lord Balerno, Lord Stonehaven, Lady Elliot; and to those names I add my own. I plead with the Government to think, and to think hard, whether some suitable basis cannot be found to maintain the ancient dignities of the provost's office and, if you will, of his court.
My noble friend Lord Balerno spoke of funding their Common Good. In Lauder we have the special burgess system for burgh lands. Surely these priceless traditions can, with a little ingenuity, be put to a useful communal use in this day and age. When we think of community councils may I tell your Lordships this: although we have fewer than 600 folk in the Burgh of Lauder on no more than 100 acres, we have such a keen community sense there that we raise £500 a year by our own efforts for the Common Riding, and the parish raises £1,000 a year by its own efforts for outside charities, and another £1,700 for the Kirk. Only recently a farmworker up at Channel Kirk was in distress when his house was badly burnt, and he received within a matter of weeks a gift of several hundred pounds from the people of the burgh. This is typical of a genuine community, and therefore I anticipate that there will be a community council emerging very

877
quickly at Lauder. But I beg the Government to think most seriously, indulgently, affectionately and most respectfully about the future of the burghs, even though some are very small.
My Lords, do not let us quarrel about boundaries—
"We can live without our friends
But not without our neighbours."
What I say to the Government is:
"True wisdom knows it must comprise
Some nonsense as a compromise—
Lest fools should fail to find it wise."
I bid the Government good fortune and bid them—
"Set a stout heart to a stey brae."
8.47 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I wish to start by associating myself with the tributes already paid to the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, and the very great work he has done, which we all appreciate, even though we do not necessarily agree with every jot and tittle of his Report. I shall be as brief as I possibly can, which in my case your Lordships need have few alarms about because I am always brief. But there are one or two questions I should like to ask, and one or two suggestions that I should like to make, partly because I and my noble kinsman opposite, Lord Thurso, are the only two real representatives of the Highland area.
We have already debated Wheatley at some length in your Lordships' House, and some of us at local government level as well. I myself and, I think, most people in the Highlands, consider this White Paper to be an improvement on the original Report, and I wish to put before Her Majesty's Government some points which I consider to be worthy of consideration. As on the previous debate, we are at a considerable disadvantage as none of us has any idea how all these changes are to be financed; and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has so graphically illustrated, unless there is a radical change in financing the poorer areas, in particular the Highland Region, the last state may well be worse than the first, with less rather than more local participation, an increase in the number of officials, and more rather than less dominance by Edinburgh and Whitehall.
878
My Lords, my first plea refers to nomenclature. Let us scrap the term "region" and call the first-tier a "province", historically a far more apt name for the larger Scottish Divisions. Then again why, "district" for the second-tier when, with few exceptions, the boundaries of the so-called "districts" conform very closely to the old county boundaries, especially in the Highland area? We then come to the community councils which, in spite of what my noble friend who has just spoken had to say, in the opinion of most people who know anything of local government in the rural areas of which I have knowledge, can only be stillborn, unless they have autonomous powers and finance. The consideration in Chapter 5 of the White Paper shows an ambivalence which destroys the policy decision of Chapter 2, paragraph 13. Why not retain the "district" councils who have the necessary powers and finance already and have operated in the past very efficiently? In short, the district council would replace the nebulous community council, though there is no reason why they should cover exactly the same area as they do now: they could be based where convenient on the burghs and fewer district councils could serve a rather wider area.
As we are speaking about a geographical division, may I make a plea here that the Royal Burgh of Tain remain with the County of Ross and Cromarty and not be transferred to Sutherland. The future of this burgh and district lies with the Cromarty Firth Complex rather than with the Dornoch Firth. The boundary should therefore follow the watershed between the Carron and Oykell Rivers. Perhaps it is unworthy, but one has the suspicion that some planner has wanted to square off his paper plans without knowing anything of the social situation, or indeed the position of the Tain on the map, in relation to these two counties. I see some danger so far as the Highlands' second tiers are concerned by the removal of the day-to-day planning and control of building. These should be returned to the second tier, which I want to call "county", who have dealt with these matters in the past very successfully. So far as day-to-day planning by the second tier is concerned, staff for this could be seconded by the top tier as we are told that there is a shortage of suitable

879
planners in Scotland. Unless these duties are returned, there will be neither good quality officials nor members to serve on the second tier as they will have far too few powers and duties; and the object of the exercise, I would remind your Lordships, is more, not less, local government and more participation.
I would interpolate here that care must be taken that the duties of the Highlands and Islands Development Board do not overlap with local government authorities. This is not good economics, and economy is one of the objects of these reforms. It is suggested that social work and health are to be in the same category as education and should be exercised in the same area. There are, however, some personal services which are very local in nature with particular reference to the administration of residential establishments and homes provided under social work functions. Therefore, it is considered that the administration of such establishments should be delegated by the second tier (county) to a third tier "district" council which, as I have already stated, should replace the community council. Though there may be good reason to modify the structure of local government as it affects burghs, it should be remembered that their history is a very long one and that they fulfil a very important function in the life of the people of Scotland, and it is therefore important that they do not lose their identity.
Just a word on the difficult question of payment for councillors. Personally, I am utterly opposed to this suggestion for a variety of reasons. The door will be open to the professional councillor; the failed Member of Parliament who, not having "made" the other place, will be encouraged to try local government. This itself leads to another objection, as once this is accepted we in the Highlands will lose what we greatly value: the non-Party political council which allows able people of all Parties or no Party to give their services to local government. It is admitted that there are cases of financial hardship, but in my opinion this should be met by a more realistic code of expenses, as has been suggested by my noble friend elsewhere.
Finally, there is the question of the Outer Isles. For personal reasons, I should mourn the loss of any local gov-
880
ernment connection with the Island of Lewis, but it is hard to see, if we accept the solution for Orkney and Shetland which we in the Far North all applaud, why the Outer Isles should not be an "all purpose authority", also, of course in the sincere hope that the men of Lewis will talk politely to and about the people of Harris, Uist, Benbecula and Bara.
8.55 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I hope to be very brief indeed. I will not waste much time by telling your Lordships about the excellent debate we have had to-day, which has been very exciting. I know you will understand my reason. But obviously I should like to convey my warmest congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, on what must have been in many ways a unique maiden speech. For one to have presided over a Royal Commission, and then to come into your Lordships' House to deliver a maiden speech on the Report of the Commission over which one has oneself presided, must be almost unique. Having known his Lordship for many years, I certainly know what a tremendous personal satisfaction he will have had in delivering his speech to the House this afternoon.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, that when a debate reaches this stage—we started this discussion five hours ago—and the debate has been going on for about five years, there is little new to be said. But the noble Viscount underestimated his own capacity, because at least he produced one suggestion that would cost nothing. If there are any suggestions of that kind which can be operated in Scotland, I can tell your Lordships that they will be very welcome. May I turn to the last speaker, the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie. He and I get on together very well indeed, but I did not like the way in which he described Members of Parliament, having failed in another place, going to look for a bit of payment with a local authority.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I was not implying any strictures on Members of Parliament who, through the great value of their work in another place, joined us. I was referring to those people who were not successful in getting there in the first place.
LORD HOY: My Lords, that is exactly what I thought the noble Earl said. All I was about to reply was that when your Lordships decided to accept payment for attending here, you did not think you were being bought over. I think we might show a little gratitude to another place, who have made it possible for some of us to attend your Lordships' House. Let us not underestimate it. So, while I should not like to say what those of us on this side of the House feel with regard to payments, at least let us for the moment consider them. In fact, we cannot make a decision until it is decided what these local authorities are going to do, how much time is going to be entailed and how much work must be done.
I liked the opening speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. He gave us a hit of the Highlands, and in this respect I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie: there was a real bit of Highland flavour in it. He used some very nice words indeed about the decapitating of old burghs; bleeding corpses were lying about the streets in the Highlands. That was good stuff indeed, and I enjoyed it immensely. Let me bring in one little consolation. For a quarter of a century I represented a constituency which was an old burgh in its own right and was amalgamated in the city of Edinburgh, but I can assure your Lordships that even to-day the people of Leith still talk about "going up to the city of Edinburgh"; they really have no connection with it. No matter how changes may be made, no matter how big amalgamations may become, people with local connections will always maintain those connections; and there is sufficient character in the Scottish people so that, no matter what the changes are, that character will not go. If we start off remembering that, then we shall not get into very much trouble.
I would say one word to an old friend of mine, the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. I think he made up his mind a little too quickly about the payment of members in local authorities. It is a very old argument that once you start doing that, members of local authorities will find jobs to do and, as a consequence, will upset the officials. With all due respect, I do not mind officials being upset. There is a considerable section of the community who think that local authority
882
officials are not upset enough but in fact they, and not the elected representatives, dominate the city. So I am all in favour of members having a little time to do this, if it is going to be of benefit to the local residents.
What I can never understand is this: that while noble Lords are voicing that argument, nearly every other noble Lord is saying the nastiest things possible about St. Andrew's House. Indeed, Lord Stonehaven said that if we have one stumbling block in Scotland it is St. Andrew's House. If we can find a little time to disturb them, paid or unpaid, the noble Viscount will not be upset about it. That is the kind of point we have to look at.
I make only one other point before I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who said that in local authority work the great contribution and the great sacrifice was made by professional people. I would not deny for a moment that professional people have made a contribution, but their sacrifice is in no way greater than that of many members of the working class, because it is only in very recent times that payments in compensation have been made to people who devoted their services to local authority work, and it was a much greater sacrifice for a working man to give up a day's wages so that he could render service to the community than it was for a businessman, a professional man or even a land owner to serve without payment. So I say, let us all, on an occasion like this, express our gratitude to all of them for what they have done.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I think that when the noble Lord sees the record to-morrow he will see that I paid due tribute to the people—I did not use the word working-class—in the low income groups who contribute to local authority work. I simply made the point that where you have professional people with large incomes, it follows that if they give so many hours at so much an hour it amounts to more than in the case of somebody who is not similarly remunerated. One of the difficulties is the disappearance of the small, self-employed shopkeeper and the like, and the conversion of the self-employed community into people with salaries—
LORD HOY: I do not want to take the matter too far, but I simply do not accept the noble Lord's argument. Indeed, if I may put it another way, many people go to kirk and put in two shillings a week out of a very small income, while many wealthy people may put in £1, but there is no comparison between the latter and the two shillings of the poorer member of the congregation. May I leave it at that?
After thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, for all his services, may I now take the opportunity—this may be one of the last of the few opportunities—to thank everyone who has given service to local authorities? Many have made great sacrifices, and if we are going to change the whole format of local government in Scotland then let us remember on this occasion the tremendous services that have been rendered to Scotland's local authorities throughout the length and breadth of our land by voluntary work from every section of the community. If we are going to make changes from smaller into bigger areas, it is not because we are critical of the people who have been doing the work; it is simply because we are facing up to the reality of recent developments, and over a period of time it has become more and more apparent that if local authorities throughout the whole of Britain are going to operate successfully they have to be bigger units of local government.
When we make this change we are conscious of two things: not only of the size of the area but of the numbers of people involved. Indeed, I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and to the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, that in this outlook we never forget the Highlands. I shall come back to the point raised about finance. We all have an interest in the Highland and Island areas. I think it is true to say that somewhere between 70 and 80 per cent. of the total expenditure at the present time is met by central Government. So our interest is important to the people in those areas because without this contribution they simply could not live. I use this point as an argument because I was going on to say this: that it does not matter what areas you have or what areas you join together, if they are both uneconomic
884
they will remain uneconomic after you have joined them together.
It may be that in the amalgamation they will have an opportunity of working out certain schemes and plans which will lessen their expenditure and I hope that that would be the consequence of that action. If we agree that that is what we are setting out to do, then of course we have to see that certain other things follow, and we are all just a little too glib in talking about creating viable units in this respect. Sometimes it is very difficult to explain what we mean by a viable unit. I think we have behind our minds the sort of unit that not only would be able to be managed economically, wisely and efficiently but would pay its own way. We should regard this as being viable. Immediately that unit becomes dependent on other contributions, viability may have gone; and not only viability but its independence.
So, while we can do this, we have to try to create units which are not too big; and I agree with the noble Viscount that we remove from these units the sense of local approach to any business they have to attend to. If we seek to divorce the people from the unit in which they are going to live, we shall have them living in a vacuum. They have to feel that they are a part of this government. If in fact this is what we are attempting to do, one of the questions we have to face up to is the question of finance. It is not much use all of us discussing how it is going to be done, and how it is going to work, unless we know how it is going to be paid for. This is very important.
Perhaps this debate to-day has come a little too soon—not that it is too soon to discuss the White Paper, or the Report of the Wheatley Commission, but I think we are discussing it somewhat in a vacuum because we do not know at the end of the day how it is going to be paid for. So we shall look forward to the publication of the Green Paper on Finance, and when the noble Baroness replies to the debate she may perhaps be able to tell us when we can expect it. We look forward to it because then we shall be able to make a better assessment of how we are to tackle these problems.

885
I think I can fairly safely sum up on behalf of all your Lordships by saying that two or three questions have stood out in the course of this debate. Certainly the last one is terribly important, and while I would not expect the noble Baroness to be able to tell us how this scheme is to be paid for, at least we should like a hint as to when we may expect this Green Paper so that we may look forward to its coming; then we can make up our minds how all this is going to be paid for.
The second matter which has given considerable concern to all your Lordships, from the speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, right down to the last one by the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, has been the question of the community councils. There has not been a single noble Lord this afternoon who has not said something about these community councils and the part that they will play. Indeed, we have even had a suggestion by the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, that they may be got rid of altogether and that the old district councils may take their place. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Earl say that the district council had money; in all the time that I was associated with Government I was assured by the district councils that the one thing they did not have was cash.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that they can of course raise a penny rate, which is not very much. Possibly we run our county council very well; and we look after our district councils as well as we can.
LORD HOY: My Lords, knowing the Highlands, I am certain that the noble Earl does. I do not think I am overestimating, but he will correct me if I am wrong: I think that something like 80 per cent. of the expenditure of his own county council is borne by Central Government. So he can afford to be a wee bit careless with the cash! All I would say to him is this, that whether there be a district council or the new suggested council, what we should really be interested to hear from the noble Baroness tonight is what the Government have thought about the functions which these councils will undertake. It would be even
886
more interesting if she would tell us how they are to be paid for.
I finish on another note, the question of housing. The problem of housing has been raised on a number of occasions and there seems to be some difficulty (I am not being critical; I am in some difficulty myself) about what the Government really mean, as to whether the top authority or the second authority will be dealing with housing. Paragraph 33 of the White Paper says:
"Housing also has wider implications, as a component of the regional strategy, particularly in relation to overspill and industrial development."
It then goes on to say:
"The regional authority must be able to take the initiative in arranging for the building by the district authorities or other agencies (for example the Scottish Special Housing Association) of houses for these purposes. It is not necessary that regional authorities should themselves build houses, but they will be given the power to ensure that housing for major redeployment of population, or to support substantial industrial development, is provided where and when it is required."
I am certain all your Lordships would like to know how these housing responsibilities are to be divided. Are these regional councils not only going to have the power to direct the lesser authorities, but equally have the power to build themselves, or is the regional authority merely going to direct and employ people to do the housing job for them? Is this what is intended? I know we should all be grateful if the noble Baroness could make this clear.
Finally, I share the fear expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, that if finance legislation is going to be put off, or not introduced until the Session 1972–73, we are going to have a very long period indeed of indecision. How can we expect all the local authorities in Scotland to go on for the next three or four years, not knowing what the future is going to be?
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL: My Lords, surely when the noble Lord's Party were in office we were given exactly the same date?
LORD HOY: My Lords, with this Government that did things at a stroke I thought we might look for something better, and I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Stratheden and Campbell, should make that remark. I

887
thought the purpose of this debate was for us all to express our opinions, wherever we sit, and I should have thought that as the noble Lord and his friends were always assuring us that we were always too late in doing things, they would want to improve on our record.
I am saying to the noble Baroness quite seriously that the longer the delay in making decisions the more indecisive everyone becomes as a result. I should like to think that perhaps we might speed up this date. I should also like to have the assurance suggested by my noble friend Lord Hughes when he opened this debate. The addendum, if I may regard it as such, that we suggest to the Motion, ensures that before the Government finally made up their mind they at least give an opportunity to every local authority to make its opinion known to the Government.
9.16 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think we can all agree that this has been a very fascinating and, to me certainly, very constructive debate. I should like first to join with all those noble Lords who have congratulated the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, on a most brilliant maiden speech. I heard him speak not very long ago at a public dinner. It was a rather different type of speech, a very amusing speech, on that occasion. But I felt to-day that his speech was delivered with such tremendous conviction that it could not be anything but impressive, and I am sure it has helped all of us to clarify our minds on this very large and difficult question.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley and the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked why it is that we are not to have legislation until the 1972–73 Session, and would it not be very much better (both of them used these words) to end the uncertainty and get on with it. We wish to put everything possible into the reorganisation Bill. It is proposed at the moment, I understand, to bring the English legislation before the House in the 1971–72 Session. But that legislation will not define the equivalent of their districts; all this will be done by Order afterwards.
Quite apart from the legislation itself, we shall, of course, as I am sure noble
888
Lords have recognised, need to examine a very large number of statutes, some of great complexity. We feel that to get the Bill into the proper form for study by Parliament we need the necessary time. We also need the necessary time for consultation. In a way, this demand for speed and an end to uncertainty seem to contradict what was said earlier, at the opening of the debate, by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. He seemed to comment that in some ways we had been almost too quick, that we had come to some conclusions on the main outline of local government reform and that perhaps we should still leave these major questions open for further decision.
I think the best way in which I can convey to your Lordships what is in our mind is to quote a reply which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State gave to a Question in another place on March 19. He said:
"The White Paper on the Reform of Local Government in Scotland sets out the basic structure which we intend to provide for in our Bill. It also outlines the several subjects still to be considered in consultation with local authorities and others. The White Paper is the outcome of thorough consideration of all the information which has been collected, together with the views which have been expressed during the past seven and a half years. If, however, there are any entirely new factors to be taken into account, I am certainly prepared to examine constructive proposals based upon them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 19/3/71, col. 424.]
It is for this reason that I have said that I shall be very glad to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, which simply asks that the associations of local authorities should not be denied the opportunity of suggesting amendments. I can assure the House that the associations not only have suggested all sorts of representations, but are doing so now; and they certainly will continue to do so in the future.
May I go back a moment to the debate which your Lordships had on December 9, 1969, on the Wheatley proposals, and quote the noble Lord, Lord Hughes? He said:
"We hope to announce decisions on the main proposals concerning structure and division of functions in a White Paper to be issued in the spring of next year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/12/69, col. 442.]
Therefore, I feel that he and I have really come to the same conclusion, if I may say so, and I was delighted that in a general way he did indeed welcome the main

889
decisions which have been taken on the general question—for instance, decisions on the size of the regions and on the districts—although he said that there might be two or three more. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, as one would expect, spoke in a very reasonable way, taking as an example two or three extra regions.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, not regions.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I meant, of course, districts. I apologise for the error. Of course we may get proposals that have already been considered; and not all, I suggest, will be quite so sensible as all those suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. A good many are likely, as indeed they have done in the past, to strike at the principles of the White Paper—something against which the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, warned us. If I may say so, I felt that one of the most fascinating parts of his speech was that part in which he talked about the whole philosophy which lay behind the Wheatley Commission. He was perfectly right when he said that in all we try to do we must keep in mind what is the whole basis of this new system of local government.
On the other hand, I must admit that we have been illogical in one respect. I refer to the point which he raised, that we have given independent status to Orkney and Shetland with responsibilities for most of the functions. He put to me a particular question—he asked how Orkney and Shetland will be able to take advantage of, for instance, the common services for which they may have to call upon the mainland? Will they do it on a customer service, I think was the way he put it. I would say that it is perfectly true that there will have to be joint arrangements for the police or fire services for instance, and these services will be provided as a right (I think this is very important) and not, as he suggested—I think I quote correctly—as a matter of grace or favour. But the details of such arrangements are among the many questions which still have to be settled in the present consultations together with all those other questions to which I referred and which are roughly dealt with in Chapters 5, 6, 7 and 8.
890
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, gave us, if I may say so, a fascinating Highland speech. He was naturally concerned at the fact that perhaps the planning powers of Thurso together with St. Andrews, which have had planning powers for a considerable time, should not be given up under these new proposals. I agree with him that the record of this small burgh is a very good one indeed. We have said that we wish to be as flexible as we can in the distribution of functions, and I suggest that the proposals for the planning functions rather show this. On the other hand, flexibility can be taken too far, and we feel that it would go too far if we were to introduce different planning arrangements within a single region. We suggest that that would cause more conflict. Of course the reason why we suggested that in the Highlands, the South-West and the Borders the planning functions should go to the regions, and not to the districts, was entirely because of the question of size. I think that this question was also referred to by my noble friend Lord Cromartie.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, my noble friends Lord Stratheden and Campbell, Lord Dundee, Lord Stonehaven, Lord Lauderdale and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, all referred to the question of community councils. I should like to take what they said in the context of what we can do to conserve the experience of the burghs. We feel as strongly as every noble Lord who has spoken that so far as possible we must try to keep this experience, this knowledge, for the new system of local government, although obviously there will not be enough places for everyone to play exactly the same part as he has played in the past.
It is perfectly true that this local government reform will mean a great upheaval, and to some extent will cause considerable disruption. We are very concerned to find out how we can preserve a measure of continuity and take advantage of the experience of those who have served within a locality. We had thought that possibly in the discussions which we are going to have on this question of local dignitaries and community councils some place might be found in, say, the community councils. But it is true that the cities and the large burghs are likely

891
to form the undisputed centres, or what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, called the core or the heart of the districts within which they lie.
This is useful, because, as was brought out in a study done for the Wheatley Commission by Mr. Page, of Strathclyde University, the burghs, and even the large burghs, tend to have spare administrative capacity at the present time. Therefore they could be expanded considerably in size without strain on their ability to discharge what Mr. Page called a second-tier range of functions, and at the same time effect a worthwhile saving in expenditure. But what we can look forward to in these cases is a district authority which is not a town council under another name, but something which has a recognisable town council organisation and experience to build upon. There are the same advantages in a number of the larger small burghs and, in a different way, in some of the counties which will remain in recognisable form as districts in the new structure. In all these districts, whether burgh-based or county-based, there will be continued opportunities for many of the present councillors to make their contribution as elected members of the new district authorities.
Nevertheless, we have to face the fact that there will be a disappearance of about 170 small burghs and nearly 200 district councils, which is a real loss. Therefore we have to consider what those who have served in either the burghs or the districts could do. However when we consider the handicaps under which, because of its small size, the town council has operated in providing services and in meeting its administrative expenses, to which Mr. Page referred, the fact remains that we want to try to keep as much as possible of the experience which the small burghs and the district councillors have been able to apply to our local government traditions.
The Royal Commission saw no reason why an area might not choose to retain a council for ceremonial purposes, and I must say that in my own part of the world, in Aberdeenshire, Inch has still retained a provost and a council over these long years. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, that areas will always
892
keep their local affiliations. The noble Lord referred to Leith, but in my own part of the country Mar and Buchan are still names which conjure up a great local loyalty. Therefore we thought, as an idea to put forward, that the community councils might combine the burgh dignitaries with the function of providing a voice in the really local areas. They would also consider in what way they might perhaps get some responsibility for some expenditure, which would give them a worthwhile function to undertake.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Stratheden and Campbell welcomed the Borders as one region—and I am very glad that he did—as did also my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. I am glad to say that the Association of County Councils have by a majority supported the White Paper. My noble friend Lady Elliot spoke of all the controversies which surrounded the 1929 Local Government Act, and indeed how her late husband, Walter Elliot, was burnt in effigy all over Scotland. I hope that the same will not happen to us, but I suspect that it may because, my Lords, the other day I noticed that in my own part of the world the Provost of Huntly delivered himself of the comment that he felt that the Wheatley Commission Report, the White Paper and all those connected with it should be put into one pile and burnt up together.
My noble friend Lady Elliot asked me particularly about Newcastleton. I am well aware that many of the children go to school at Hawick; and it is not placed at the moment in the Borders Region because of the great affinities we felt that the Newcastleton area had with Carlisle. On the other hand, this is exactly the kind of example of a variation in boundary which I think really should be considered. I should not like to commit myself on the various points which have been made, but this is the kind of example where we have said that the local feeling will be considered in the adjustment of local boundaries.
I was very glad that my noble friend Lord Dundee spoke about Fife, because his was the first representation which I received on local government when I came to the Scottish Office; and what interested me was that, though he came from North Fife, he was quite prepared

893
to see the division of this great county as proposed by the Wheatley Commission. He asked me particularly about the Water Boards. He will see from the White Paper that we have placed water as a regional function; but, on the other hand, we have asked the Scottish Water Advisory Committee to advise us on the future of the Water Boards because we think this is just the kind of subject which needs further consultation, particularly, of course, as the water must be drawn from natural areas. My noble friend also asked about the planning function and about the Scottish Town and Country Planning Institute. It is perfectly true that they originally suggested that we would not have enough planners in Scotland to undertake the split planning function which was recommended by the Wheatley Commission, but which the Minority Report, to which he referred, felt would be unwise. I am glad to say that the Scottish Town and Country Planning Institute in fact changed their mind; and, as I said earlier on, we are now having about one hundred coming from the schools every term, and I think that this should be sufficient.
My noble friend Lord Balerno used a good Scots word when he said that he hoped we would all stop "girning" and that we would all get on with the job. For myself, I felt to-day, if I may say so, that this was not a girning debate: it was rather a constructive debate, and I believe it will be a very great help not only to us at the Scottish Office but to all of those who are going to take part in the consultations in the future. I was very glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, spoke to us about the community councils in the way he did, and I hope he will feel that what I have said about them may perhaps be useful as a basis for further consultation.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier spoke about the payment of expenses to councillors, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Balerno, and I noticed that he thought they ought to have liberal expenses. This is the kind of thing that we feel we ought to consider in detail with the local authority associations, because I think it is generally agreed that the expenses ought to be increased; but it is not generally agreed whether councillors should be paid. Some think that the regional councillors or those who are
894
convenors or chairmen of committees should be paid, but there is by no means any agreed consideration on this. That is why I feel that we must go into it in a good deal more detail.
My noble friend Lord Balerno also mentioned that he thought the regional and district elections should not alternate but should take place simultaneously with one half of the councillors of the regions and district councils coming up for election every two years. It is just these questions, difficult electoral matters, upon which we are also going to have further consultation. We shall shortly issue a Paper which will be a basis for comment and further study, but I will certainly take note of what my noble friend said in his preferences.
My noble friend Lord Stonehaven said that he thought St. Andrew's House frustrated everyone. I rather got the impression that he would like to remove us all. I hope that it was not quite as bad as that. We feel very seriously that we have to consider how we can, in fact, remove some of the many powers of references back to the Secretary of State which exist in so much legislation. By doing that we shall be able to achieve the powers of delegation for which he particularly asked.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale as usual managed to introduce a completely different debate from the subject which is before the House. If I may say so, I much admire his capacity for being able to do that. We had a most interesting discussion on the steel industry and on maritime facilities, which my noble friend managed to tie up to the fact that the large West Region had a very big job to do and that was why he supported the size of this area. He asked some particular questions; he asked about the power of the Secretary of State to call in all planning applications. That is the kind of thing we shall have to consider and to which I have already referred; He asked about the New Town corporations but he mentioned that he was not here when I opened the debate and when I said that the present New Town corporation would continue and that the question of new towns would have to be discussed with the local authority associations. Of course, he gave a plea for his own small burgh of Lauder which I thoroughly applaud.

895
My noble friend Lord Cromartie asked about the various different names. I note that he would like to call the regions "provinces" and the districts "counties". These are the matters that we will try to collect voices on as we go along. He said that he thought we should have district councils instead of community councils. But we have adopted the principle of the Wheatley Report that there should be a two-tier system of local government with clear and separate functions statutorily defined. Therefore, the community councils would be more suitable for trying to undertake some of the residual powers and privileges of the burghs, as I have already mentioned.
I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, in thanking all who have so far served in local government. If I may say so, I am glad that he took this opportunity to do so. We have had a great deal of fine voluntary service in local government at all levels throughout Scotland, as I think I said in my opening remarks, and if it had not been for the devotion and hard work of councillors throughout Scotland, over the last few years in particular, which masked the defects of the present system, we should never have got as much done as we have already. The noble Lord asked about the powers of the regions in relation to housing. We feel that the proposed regional authorities should have the power to ensure that housing required for reasons of regional strategy—in other words, overspill, to give one example, or for support of industrial development—is built when and where it is required. That kind of housing could be provided, constructed and managed by district authorities at times, in places, in numbers and on terms agreed between them and the regional authorities. But a reserve force is needed in case agreement cannot be reached, and it is the nature of this power—which we feel is important—that we have to try to work out in further discussions with the local authority associations.
My Lords, I hope that I have not spoken too long, but I wanted to refer to all those noble Lords who have waited so long and taken so much trouble to join in what I think has been a fascinating and useful debate. In conclusion, I would just say that we must remember that
896
local government will affect us all, and change of such a nature as this can never be easy. I hope that we shall now try very hard not to dwell only on the difficulties but to think also of what we can do together to provide these enormous opportunities for local government throughout Scotland. I hope that we can make a system which will be a magnet for the talented and give to Scotland a system of internal government that will serve her with energy and imagination for many years to come.
9.41 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have very little further to say. If the noble Baroness reads my opening remarks in Hansard to-morrow she will appreciate that she is misunderstanding me when she says that I think the Government are moving too fast. I do not, and I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, in the suggestion that legislation is perhaps taking a little too long. I also should have liked to see it a year earlier, but I came reluctantly to the conclusion that it is better to take the time to do the job well and to have everything in the Bill—just as the Government have done. But it was because of the knowledge that the legislation was suggested, not for the next Session but the Session after that, that I felt the Government were not too soon in presenting their White Paper, but too soon in determining that this was finality on certain items. There is time to look at some of these other items also.
Therefore, my Lords, I am grateful that the noble Baroness has said that she can accept the Amendment that I have proposed. Obviously, it is for the Government, in working out all these consultations, to decide what they can accept and what they cannot accept. It will be for the local authority associations to make the best use of this opportunity which they now know is available to them, but I certainly would not give any encouragement to any of the associations, or to any individual authorities, to try to tear up the structure which is accepted by all of us; and it is not an encouragement to them to attempt to go back to square one. If they use the opportunity afforded to them, they must use it wisely. If they use it wisely, and if the Government act wisely on that use, we shall find ourselves, at the end of the day, very

897
much in agreement. If either of them acts unwisely, the local authorities or the Government, we shall have the opportunity to come back at a later stage to comment on it.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.

CO-OPERATIVE BANK BILL NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK (NORTH CENTRAL FINANCE AND LOMBARD BANKING) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  SUSPENDED SENTENCES
  SUSPENDED SENTENCES