Sitting of 3 May 1971

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

  MINISTRY OF AVIATION SUPPLY (DISSOLUTION)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Ministry of Aviation Supply (Dissolution) Order, 1971, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WALES

    Water Supplies
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will now set up a Welsh Water Corporation.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): The future organisation of water services is being considered in the light of the recently published Central Advisory Water Committee Report. The recommendations contained in the Welsh Council's Report will be taken into account in this context.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is increasing demand for water from areas like Wales for areas like the West Midlands and the East Midlands? Does he not further agree that it would be a more advantageous method than at present to have
    982
    a water corporation for Wales? Would this not ensure that Wales got maximum benefit?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am sure that all Welsh Members will be grateful to my hon. Friend for his solicitations. The Welsh Council's Report, "Water in Wales", recommended the establishment of a Welsh Water Development Authority.

    Pembrokeshire (Hospital Service)
    Mr. Nicholas Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will now make a statement on the future of the hospital service in Pembrokeshire.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I am satisfied that the recommendations in the Report made to me by my Chief Medical Officer offer a reasonable solution to the problem of the health services in Pembrokeshire. The Welsh Hospital Board and others concerned are being informed.
    Mr. Edwards: I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's acceptance of these recommendations, which I understand have also been accepted by the Welsh Hospital Board. Can he confirm that everyone concerned is being asked to co-operate fully? What steps are being taken as a matter of urgency to ensure that the accident unit is adequately manned in accordance with the recommendations?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Some of the comments made to the Department were to the effect that there should be a consultant in charge. I was impressed by the arguments, and I propose to seek the advice of the Advisory Committee on Consultant Establishment to that effect.
    Mr. Fred Evans: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman similarly impressed by the arguments for retaining Caerphilly Miners' Hospital?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have considered the representations made to me in that case and am giving them very close consideration.

    Welsh Office (Departments)
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will transfer

    983
    some departments of the Welsh Office to North Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: There are already three small sections of the Welsh Office located in North Wales. I do not contemplate a transfer of other departments from Cardiff.
    Sir A. Meyer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether more might not be done to persuade statutory or other public bodies, such as electricity and gas boards, to transfer office jobs to North Wales? Jobs of that kind are badly needed in that part of the country.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Government are anxious to have this sort of office located in different parts of the country, but the Welsh Office is a small Department and I do not think we can transfer any more of our staff outside Cardiff.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that it is not the transferance of offices which will help to solve this problem in Wales? The basic difficulty is his non-availability because of his prior commitments as Chairman of the Tory Party.

    Prices and Charges
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Wales why he will not cease the present practice whereby his Department keeps under constant review the prices and charges for which he is responsible and initiate a system of monthly review of such prices and charges to enable him to show from month to month to what extent since June, 1970, the Government's policy of reducing prices and costs is operating so far as it affects his departmental responsibilities; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Such a change would not be worth while.
    Mr. Lewis: This is the usual evasive reply that we are getting from all the Departments. I thought the Welsh Office would be more progressive. Surely, if the Government are succeeding so well in carrying out their election promises, they should want to make monthly reports showing how they have been reducing prices or cutting them at a stroke. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not at least try to start the ball rolling by operating this proposal in his own
    984
    Department? Who knows but that perhaps other Government Departments might follow suit.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My reply was in accordance with similar replies from other Government Departments. We have given it because it is considered that the present practice is more efficient.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what was the outcome of his recent official discussions with the Deputy Chairman of the British Steel Corporation; what definite plans he has for a future meeting; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Colemanasked the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with representatives of the British Steel Corporation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I met the Deputy Chairman of the British Steel Corporation recently in order to review the situation in the steel industry in Wales. I expect to have further meetings from time to time as necessary.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Secretary of State appreciate that the steel industry is the key to future Welsh prosperity and that it is necessary to remove the threat of hiving off and to restore confidence, that it is not sufficient to make a spectacular announcement in the Welsh Grand Committee about the Spencer Works but essential to authorise the whole of the investment programme of the Steel Corporaiion—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the kind of supplementary question which I was asked to discourage. Will the hon. Gentleman ask a question and be brief, please?
    Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman urge the Cabinet to authorise the whole of the investment programme of the Steel Corporation if this vital industy is to have any future?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not think I could add anything to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in the House on 27th April.
    Mr. Coleman: When does the Secretary of State intend to have discussions with the representatives of the six trade unions involved in the steel industry in Wales so that he may discuss with them the outcome of any closures which may take place, and the social consequences arising therefrom?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have not as yet received an invitation from the six trade unions the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but I had a discussion with the South Wales Advisory Committee of the T.U.C. on Friday.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Does the right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that we warmly welcome the announcement which he was able to make about Llanwern, particularly because the Labour Government were able to reach the same decision more than 12 months ago? Will he now say whether he thinks it is a proper cause that he intends to follow in future when every individual investment plan of the Corporation is to be subjected to investigation by his Department?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Certainly not. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the reason for the deferment was the announcement by the British Steel Corporation about its financial difficulties.

    Animal Carcases (Byproducts)
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many carcases weekly of sheep during lambing time, and cattle at peak periods, respectively, are collected from the farms of North Wales and surrounding districts for disposal at each processing plant in North Wales.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am afraid that the information is not available.
    Mr. Ellis: Is not a valuable service performed by factories disposing of animan carcases? However, ought not planning decisions on the location of these factories to be decided only on the basis of adequate information being made available to the inspector and the authority making the planning decision?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am not certain to which factory the lion. Gentleman is referring. There are two cases concerning one factory. I limit my self to saying that this is an important service and that this is an important question.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the factories is in my constituency and that there is regularly an enormous stench or stink which makes life for many people in Saltney intolerable?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am aware of the complaints about smells from his factory. I understand that Flintshire County Council has recently issued an enforcement notice and that there is, therefore, a possibility that the matter will come before my right hon. and learned Friend on appeal, and so I cannot comment further at the moment.
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales where those factories are sited in Wales which process byproducts from animal carcases
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am informed that there are 20 primary processing factories in Wales. I will, with permission, list their locations in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Ellis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but does he not agree that, wherever possible, these factories should not be sited in urban positions and that if there is a proposal to transfer a factory from an urban area to a rural area, it should, other things being equal, be regarded with favour?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the environmental problem. However, several of these are the subject of inquiry at the moment and, therefore, I should not like to go further at present.
    The following is the information:

    Anglesey

    Menai Bridge

    Breconshire

    Gilwern

    Caernarvonshire

    Bangor

    Cardiganshire

    Tan-y-groes

    Carmarthenshire

    1. Pen-y-banc

    2. Cwnman Lampeter

    Denbighshire

    1. Marchwiel, Wrexham

    2. Llanfair TH Abergele

    3. Cefn-y-Beidd

    Flintshire

    1. Saltney

    2. Bodelwyddan

    Glamorgan

    1. Llansamlet

    2. Mountain Hare, Merthyr Tydfil

    3. Pencoed

    4. Grangetown, Cardiff

    Monmouthshire

    Mamhilad, Pontypool

    Montgomeryshire

    Guilsfield

    Pembrokeshire

    1. Camrose

    2. Whitland

    Radnorshire

    Knighton

    European Economic Community
    Mr. McBrideasked the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the possibilities of regional planning expansion in Wales if Great Britain enters the Common Market.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: A wide range of development policies are pursued by member countries of the E.E.C. The Government have no reason to think that if the United Kingdom enters the Community we should not be able to continue to pursue a vigorous regional development policy.
    Mr. McBride: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that answer shows a lamentable ignorance of the facts? Is it not the case that if we were to become a member of the E.E.C., under the monetary agreement Britain would have only partial control of her regional policy? Is it not the Secretary of State's clear duty to fight full time against this inhibiting threat to the future of Welsh regional expansion, which we all want? In other words, will not the threat of joining the Common Market militate against the interests of the Welsh people?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir; I do not agree. Regional policies in this country are compatible with membership of the E.E.C., and there is no reason to believe that as a member this country could not pursue a regional policy which met our circumstances. Co-ordination of the regional policies of member countries in Europe is at a very early stage, and the European countries are pursuing individual regional policies. If we entered the Community, we should be in a position to participate in the evolution of those policies.
    Sir A. Meyer: Has not the European Economic Community been extremely successful in assisting the modernisation of areas where there is an unduly high proportion of run-down industry, as in Belgium, and is it not also a fact that the European Development Fund offers tremendous potentialities for regional development throughout the whole of an enlarged E.E.C. area?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is true that it has had great success in Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—but at the
    988
    moment each country in Europe is pursuing its own individual policy, and coordination of policies has not yet taken place.
    Mr. William Edwards: Is it not a major problem with these policies in Europe that the Government never thought about the problem of entering Europe when they changed the successful regional development policy which the Labour Party gave them when they came into office? Would not the Secretary of State undertake to examine various investment policies in countries in the E.E.C? If he thinks that the policy which he is now pursuing is inferior, would he undertake to change it?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is not correct. Although a variety of measures are used by individual members of the Six, the general trend is towards infrastructure provisions, assisted loans and tax reliefs rather than straight grants, and that is generally in line with the British Government's regional policy package.
    Mr. Denzil Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make a statement regarding the discussion which his officials have had in Brussels with the officials of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Gwynoro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many of his Department's officials have visited Brussels; and what was the outcome of the discussions in relation to the effect on Wales of possible British entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Three officials of the Welsh Office had talks with the Commissioner for Regional Affairs and with senior staff of the Commission of the European Communities. Regional policies in the community and their likely future development were reviewed.
    Mr. Davies: I welcome those discussions so far as they go, but is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that there is considerable apprehension in Wales that entry into the Common Market would lead to an even greater concentration of industrial development in the South-East and, in particular, that the freedom of movement of capital and assets which would follow entry would

    989
    render the policy of refusing or granting industrial development certificates completely worthless and impracticable?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The discussions with officials brought out clearly the importance which the Community attaches to issues of regional policy, and show that there is a lively awareness in the Commission of the particular problems of the peripheral areas of the Community.
    Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Did the discussions circle around the question of agriculture and the effect of possible entry on agriculture, especially on the Milk Marketing Board and its functions? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that if the present policy of the Board over the transport costs system is to be disbanded as a condition of entry, this will be a damaging proposal in all rural areas?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The interests of Welsh agriculture are receiving full consideration, along with other Welsh interests. Agricultural policy is being dealt with, as the hon. Gentleman knows, in the negotiations.

    Rhoose Airport, Glamorgan
    Mr. Alec Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what advice he has tendered to the Glamorgan County Council regarding its application for a capital grant for developments at Glamorgan (Rhoose) Airport.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The county council has been told that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will be receiving a deputation to discuss this matter and that I will be represented at the meeting.
    Mr. Jones: Would not the Secretary of State agree that the development of Glamorgan's airport at Rhoose is of great importance for the whole region? As municipal airports at Newcastle and Teesside receive Government grants for their development, we naturally expect Glamorgan to receive similar grants.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am well aware of the nature and extent of the works being undertaken at Rhoose and of the significance of this airport to Wales.
    Mr. Gower: In any representations which he makes to his right hon. Friend, will my right hon. and learned Friend
    990
    take account of the fact that since the war, for various reasons, the proportion of capital resources devoted to civil aviation in Welsh airports has been minute in comparison with that devoted by the Treasury of the United Kingdom to aviation in every other part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I assure my hon. Friend that all the relevant facts and arguments will be carefully considered before a decision is made.

    Dee Estuary
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a further statement on the development of the Dee estuary.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have nothing to add to the statement I made in the Welsh Grand Committee debate on Economic Affairs in Wales on 28th April, 1971.
    Mr. Jones: A strong case could be made for the crossing on the ground of chronic traffic congestion in East Flint and increasing water shortages in the North-West, but is not the Secretary of State aware that the Dee crossing would be cultural dynamite for the Welsh way of life? Is he aware that there are blandishments from certain quarters to turn Flintshire into a smart bedroom for those in the executive classes in the North-West and Merseyside? Is he not prepared to grant equality of consultation? Will he listen to the wise statements of the Flintshire County Council and the Dee and the Clwyd River Authority?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: This is a complex matter, and many things have to be considered. The views of the local planning authorities have been sought, and the regional planning councils and the Water Resources Board are being consulted. All their views and other views which may be expressed will be taken into account before decisions are taken.

    Jobs
    Mr. Alan Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he is satisfied with the number of jobs in prospect in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Thomas: I should like to see more jobs in prospect, and the Government's policies are intend to improve the

    991
    economic prospects of the country as a whole. Wales will share full in this improvement. I am glad to note that the interest shown in Wales by industrialists remains at a good level.
    Mr. Williams: I am surprised at the last comment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Since the Budget did not even aspire to reduce unemployment, and since the rate of unemployment and redundancies in Wales is still rising, and since, according to an answer given on Friday, the level of job expectancy from I.D.C.s in the first quarter of this year is the lowest since the last Conservative Government, is it not time he recognised that the only thing the Conservatives can do for Wales is to resign from Government?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is about time that the hon. Gentleman realised precisely what responsibility he has for the situation in Wales. He was a member of a Government which abandoned the 2½to 4½ per cent. plan in their White Paper for the containment of wage rises—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer!"] He was a member of a Government which deliberately created inflation as part of the run-up to the General Election, and he was a member of a Government which deliberately discouraged investment by penal taxation. Far from trying to make political capital out of the difficulties in Wales, he should go round to his constituents and apologise.
    Mr. Gower: In addition to what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, does it not ill behove the hon. Gentleman to make such remarks since the policies of the Government of which he was a member, including devaluation, led to a decline in employment in Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: From 1966 onwards unemployment in Wales rose sharply. In the six months from June, 1966, it doubled.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware—he does not appear to be—that since he assumed responsibility for Welsh affairs unemployment has increased in the Principality by nearly 30 per cent.? Is he aware that there are over 11,000 more people looking for jobs in Wales? Does it not ill-become him
    992
    to make petty points at the Dispatch Box when he ought to be looking again at the question of investment grants, bearing in mind that the job expectancy in Wales to which my hon. Friend referred is half what it was a year ago?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: What I am aware of is that throughout the period when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State unemployment in Wales topped the 40,000 mark every year.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that he has a grave responsibility to the Welsh people and that it is about time he took responsibility for the grave and serious increase in unemployment in Wales since last June? Surely he accept responsibility for the Government's change of investment grant policy?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I accept responsibility for that. I am also fully aware that I had a very harsh inheritance when I took over as Secretary of State.

    Hospitals (Visits)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will list the hospitals in Wales that he has visited officially since 1st January, 1971; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Minister of State, who under my overall direction has special responsibility for hospital services in Wales, has paid six official visits to hospitals in Wales since 1st January.
    Mr. George Thomas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has answered a question which is not on the Order Paper. I asked him how many hospitals he has visited officially. Is he aware that while we appreciate the work that is done by the Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is the Minister responsible and yet he shows no sign of a personal involvement in the health service of the Principality? That responsibility cannot belong to the Minister of State.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Minister of State, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has, under my overall responsibility, special responsibility for hospitals in Wales. For that reason, he has shown a great interest in hospitals. He has visited 17 since he was appointed.

    Nursery Schools
    Mr. Denzil Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he has any plans to accelerate the provision of nursery schools in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Priority at this stage is being given to the replacement of inadequate pre-1903 primary schools. Later I hope that we shall be able to turn to the needs of nursery education. I will, however, continue to develop nursery education in areas of special need.
    Mr. Davies: Since it seems that only a minute proportion of children in Wales are able to take advantage of nursery education, and since it is now generally recognised that the years from two to five are crucial for a child's development, is it not time the Government started to show the same urgency in this matter as they seem to show in trying to assist public schools by tax concessions for those who are well able to look after themselves?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Priority at this stage must be given to improving the facilities for children of compulsory school age who are already in primary school. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the urban aid programme, which greatly assists the development of nursery education in areas of special need. At the moment we should concentrate on the primary schools.
    Mr. Fred Evans: Does the Minister not appreciate that every practising teacher knows that it is futile to over-expend in the 11-plus sector unless provision against inadequate home background and many other social factors is made at an early stage? Is he aware that the teachers in this section of education are the inheritors of a grave legacy which will continue unless something is done? Will he not admit that it is the differential between the cost of providing one nursery place compared with one primary or secondary school place that is the decisive factor in this matter?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: These are the sort of matters that are considered. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that in many areas in Wales it is customary to admit under-fives into primary schools. In January, 1970, for example, about 57 per
    994
    cent. of the four-year-old age group were in primary schools.

    New Heath Hospital (Parking and Roads)
    Mr. Michael Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for providing parking facilities and access roads at the New Heath Hospital.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hospital plans provide parking for over 900 cars. Consideration is currently being given to proposals by Cardiff Corporation for further car parking and a third access road to the site.
    Mr. Roberts: Would the Minister of State give further consideration to provide parking facilities, particularly for students, for whom no provision has so far been made? Would he also consider the provision of an access road to Eastern Avenue, which would greatly facilitate admissions in times of emergency and relieve traffic congestion throughout the neighbourhood?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am aware of the particular problem of students and the access road to which my hon. Friend referred. I was glad that he and other residents were able to meet the secretary of the local hospital management committee on 1st May to discuss the matter.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to publish details of the new proposals for local government finance in Wales.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The Government will publish later this year a Green Paper dealing with local government finance.
    Mr. John: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that to publish a consultative document without the basis for financing it is rather like publishing a menu without prices, and that many local authorities, such as Powys, cannot possibly consider adequately the viability of their areas as local authority units without knowing the financial considerations involved? Will he not take note of the anxieties being expressed by local authorities over the absence of financial details at this stage?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that did not stop the previous Government bringing forward a White Paper on local government reform. At the same time, I accept what he says, and the Green Paper will examine the present system and any reforms which may be necessary.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether strategic decisions in relation to local government finances were already taken before the Welsh Office published a White Paper on local government reorganisation some months ago?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: That is another question.

    North-West Wales
    Mr. Goronwy Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what decisions he has taken on the recommendations of the Welsh Council contained in "An Economic Strategy for North-West Wales", particularly, that South Caernarvonshire and North Merioneth be accorded special development status, and that Caernarvon, Bangor, Portmadoc and Penrhyndeudraeth be treated as growth points.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The claims of South Caernarvonshire and North Merioneth were fully considered before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced changes in the list of special development areas on 18th February. As I have already stated, I accept the Council's view that efforts to attract industry should be concentrated primarily, though not exclusively, on selected places in this area.
    Mr. Roberts: May I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he has not replied to the second part of my Question? On the part to which he has vouchsafed an answer, will he say whether the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in February was final, or whether the scheduling of new special development areas is a continuing matter, as is the scheduling of development areas—the very strong argument in the publication of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman called from the Welsh Council in favour of enhanced status for the area mentioned in the Question?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I studied that Welsh Council Report very carefully. The scheduling of all areas—development, special development or intermediate—is kept under review. When an area is scheduled, that does not mean that it will not be changed at some time in the future if occasion demands.
    Mr. Roberts: And my other point?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I said that I accept the Council's view that efforts to attract industry should be concentrated primarily, though not exclusively, on selected places in the area.

    Llantrisant New Town
    Mr. Probertasked the Secretary of State for Wales what capital sums will be involved in the development of the new town at Llantrisant.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The total public and private investment is expected to be about £300 million.
    Mr. Probert: I am sure the whole House will agree that that is a fantastic sum. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us where the people are expected to come from to fill this new town? Would not it be better to invest only a slight fraction of this tremendous sum to bring new industry to existing communities, since that would result in no waste of existing social capital?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The population is expected to come from the natural growth, from the fact that the proposal may help stop migration, and also from the valley communities which should benefit greatly from industry on this ideal site at Llantrisant. The new industry in that area should have the effect of stimulating growth generally throughout the whole of South-East Wales.
    Mr. Alec Jones: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct when he says that he expects that some of the population will no doubt come from the valley communities, how can this proposal be said to be of any help to those valley communities? Is it not dishonest to talk of a development at Llantrisant in this way, since it must mean the death

    997
    knell for many of the valley communities of South Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman must not exaggerate. It is wrong to use expressions such as that. Many people who might otherwise leave the valley communities might be persuaded to remain there. The travel to work from the valley communities to Llantrisant is reasonably good. Llantrisant is an ideal site for growth. It is an area which will grow in any event, and it is expected that growth in that area will stimulate further growth in othes parts of South Wales.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that these valley communities have an enormous pride in their communities and in their own culture? If he spent £20 million on refurbishing these valleys, he would do a great deal more to protect Welsh life than his present proposal will.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am fully aware of the importance of the valley communities, and that is why there is considerable concentration on making them better places in which to live.
    Mr. Probert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at an early opportunity.

    Employment
    Mr. Roderickasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many groups of local authorities or other bodies have asked him to meet them to discuss employment in their area; and how many he has met.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My Department does not maintain a comprehensive statistical record of such matters. By the end of this month I will have met all the county councils and many other authorities in Wales. Employment has usually figured prominently in my discussions with them.
    Mr. Roderick: The Secretary of State has not answered my Question. I asked how many groups of local authorities had requested meetings with him to discuss
    998
    employment in their areas. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that many such groups meet at most weekends to discuss worries about their areas? If the right hon. Gentleman has had very few requests, does he not feel that local authorities may believe that he is either unwilling or unable to help them?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I answered the Question when I said that my Department does not maintain a comprehensive statistical record of such matters. As for the other part of the Question, I am always ready to consider the request of right hon. and hon. Members that we should meet for the purpose of discussing the problems of their constituencies. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I had such a discussion with him and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) recently. It was following that discussion that I was asked to meet the hon. Gentleman again with certain local authority representatives, and I felt that little purpose would be served in going over the matter again.
    Mr. John Morris: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is growing concern with unemployment in Wales? Can he confirm that the Government regard high unemployment as a means of combating cost inflation? Will he agree that to the man in the dole queue it is part of Government policy to see 10 men chasing nine jobs in order to stop wage rises? Is not the word "Tory" once again synonymous with "unemployment" in Wales?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: That is quite extraordinary, as the right hon. Gentleman should know perfectly well, since he was a member of a Government which deliberately pursued policies which created unemployment. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look again at the measures in the 1966 Budget and the restrictive policies which followed. It is totally untrue that high unemployment is part of Conservative policy. Our policy is the creation of full employment.

    Northop, Flintshire (Primary School)
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans have been proposed for a new primary school at

    999
    Northop, Flintshire; and whether the plans provide for the building of this school on the north side of the A55 road.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Flintshire L.E.A. has included in its bids for the preliminary major building programme a proposal for a new primary school at Northop sited to the north of the A55.
    Sir A. Meyer: When my right hon. and learned Friend is assessing priorities for the construction of schools in Flintshire, will he give great weight to the undoubted danger to life which exists in the present layout in this case, with the school on one side of the road and the village on the other?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, Sir.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the County Borough of Newport concerning the consultative document on the reform of local government in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: None. Authorities have until the end of the month to submit their observations.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this council has now agreed to the proposal that it should be reduced to the status of a parish council? Will he appreciate that that is quite appropriate and understandable after four years of disastrous control by the Conservative Party, but will he bear in mind that there may be a few changes on 13th May?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is not suggested that a district council, under my proposal, should have the functions of a parish council. The hon. Gentleman is thinking of his right hon. Friend's proposal.
    Mr. Alan Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he intends to hold with Swansea City Council about his local government reform proposals.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I shall decide this in the light of its written comments.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Secretary of State, if he meets the city council, explain
    1000
    why, other than with the object of gerrymandering, in Swansea he has included in the new boundaries Tory voting villages 10 to 12 miles outside the city while he has excluded from within the new areas villages and parts of communities indistinguishable from Swansea which happen to contain Labour votes?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: If the hon. Gentleman inquires of the city council he will find that it has in the past proposed to extend the city boundaries to include areas such as the Gower rural district and a number of other areas adjoining the city. The hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends seem to be interested in the pattern of local government solely from the point of view of its possible effect on parliamentary constituencies. I think he should have more concern for the value of local government reorganisation. He talks about gerrymandering. That comes ill from a member of a Government which disreputably threw aside the recommendations of the Boundary Commission.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in discussing gerrymandering we are looking at a party of experts?
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that the sheer hypocrisy of his reply takes our breath away? Has he received many compliments from the Conservative Party constituencies for the excellent job of fiddling the boundaries on which he is engaged?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: That is not the view of the Conservative-controlled Cardiff City Council. Certainly it has made representations to me and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, has rejected my proposals. Therefore, it does not appear to be pleased. I am wondering what the right hon. Gentleman's attitude was to the Government of which he was a member throwing aside the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commission. Did he not think that that was gerrymandering?
    Mr. McBride: Is it not singular that although not so long ago the city which my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and I represent was accorded the status of a city, the right hon. Gentleman will now demote it to the status of a district council? Is he aware that we know of his

    1001
    distaste for political questions but that we are equally aware of his interest in political matters, particularly when they concern his party, and that we think that he framed this decision thus?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads my proposals—
    Mr. McBride: I have done so.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: —when he will see that they will still mean that Swansea will remain a city.
    Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the evasiveness and inadequacy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the exchanges with Lord Crowther as to the effect upon the present proposals for the reform of local government of the likely recommendations of his Commission.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: There were no written exchanges. I had a private discussion with Lord Crowther.
    Mr. John: Is it not remarkable to the House of Commons, conditioned as it is to premature disclosure of official reports, that the hon. Gentleman should have had such an assurance one year before the Crowther Commission is expected to report? Will he not consider publishing the text of those conversations so that hon. Members may judge the accuracy of Lord Crowther's assertion that his report will not affect these proposals?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The relevant point is that Lord Crowther made it clear in the private talks that I had with him that he saw no objection to the proposals for the reform of local government being put forward before the Royal Commission reported. He told me that I could say that was his view.
    Mr. William Edwards: But surely the point is that it is not so much what Lord Crowther thinks about the situation hut what local authorities in Wales will think if the Crowther Commission brings in a report which takes away from those authorities some of the power which they already possess after they agreed to a reorganisation on the basis of keeping those powers.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Obviously, I do not know what the Commission will recommend about Wales but, having regard to the terms of reference, I cannot see how its recommendations could affect substantially the structure proposed in the consultative document.
    Mr. John Morris: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether Lord Crowther was speaking for himself or for the Commission as a whole?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No. I asked Lord Crowther's view, which he expressed, and I took it that he was expressing his personal view.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Since the Crowther Commission from the very start laid great emphasis on the value of taking evidence and holding discussions in public, is there any good reason for believing that those remarks could not have been published in a formal form?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have discussed many matters with Lord Crowther. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] This was one matter which Lord Crowther said he did not mind being made public.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard it as an extraordinary development that such discussions should take place between the Minister and somebody in charge of a Commission of this nature and for the House of Commons to be left in the position that we do not know what the exchanges were? Could we be given the precedents for such discussions between a Minister and a head of such a Commission? Will the Secretary of State now agree that the matter is so serious that he should lay before the House some detailed documents on the outcome of these discussions which we can discuss?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: What I did was to let Lord Crowther know in advance and in confidence some of the proposals that I was thinking of putting forward for local government reorganisation in Wales, because I valued his judgment and his advice. Having told him what my proposals were likely to be, I asked him whether there was any objection to those proposals being put forward before the Commission had reported.
    Mr. John: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that

    1003
    I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

    T.U.C. Representatives, South Wales (Meetings)
    Mr. McBrideasked the Secretary of State for Wales what further meetings he proposes to have with Trades Union Congress representatives in South Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I met the South Wales Advisory Committee of the T.U.C. last week.
    Mr. McBride: Is the Secretary of State aware that all Cardiff is aware of the abortive nature of that meeting? Will he have periodic meetings with the Trades Union Congress representatives to remove the shadow of redundancy which is hanging over Wales and tell them speedily of any large projects going to Wales which will provide employment and, more important, opportunities for school leavers? Will he also tell us—I put this deliberately—how many firms have refused to go to Wales because of the inhibiting financial policies of the Government?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I shall always be pleased to consider any future requests for meetings with the Advisory Committee of the T.U.C.
    On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I certainly could not give an answer without notice.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that the T.U.C. Regional Advisory Committee members who met him were very disappointed that he had nothing constructive to say to them? Will he tell the House how high unemployment in Wales must rise before he will meet these people with constructive proposals?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman gets the impression that they were disappointed. They certainly did not express disappointment to me. In fact, at the end of what I considered to be a very useful meeting, at which we had a general and full dis-discussion, they expressed their thanks to me.

    N.H.S. Charge Exemptions and Free School Meals
    Mr. Nicholas Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of the population of Wales at present receives exemption from prescription charges and obtains free spectacles and dental treatment; and what proportion of Welsh schoolchildren has school meals paid for.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: About 40 per cent. of the population of Wales has been eligible for exemption from prescription charges and for free dental treatment; about 30 per cent. for free spectacles. Information about the numbers receiving exemption or free treatment is not available. 10·4 per cent. of the pupils in schools in Wales receive free meals. These percentages are expected to increase as a result of the new exemption rules recently introduced by the Government.
    Mr. Edwards: While noting the fact that 40 per cent. of the population of Wales receives exemption from prescription charges and welcoming the additional resources being allocated to those most in need, may I ask my hon. Friend whether any part of the current advertising campaign to encourage take-up is being specifically directed at Wales, particularly to those who speak the Welsh language?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on 14th April wrote to lord mayors, mayors and chairmen of local councils asking for their help in giving wide publicity to the new arrangements. Notices in Welsh setting out the new prescription charges and a general information leaflet have been prepared and issued.
    Mr. Alec Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account that many of the newspaper advertisements about exemptions from prescription charges, certainly in Wales, are misleading? I do not say that they are deliberately misleading, but they are having the effect of misleading older married couples who read into the advertisements that they are entitled to free prescriptions provided that their income is less than £16.45, whereas many of my constituents are not entitled to free prescriptions even though their weekly income is less than £12.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: We will look into this matter immediately. I accept the general feeling that the exemption should be as widely known as possible. I should only add that the publicity campaign is not restricted to the newspapers. It is, in addition, on television and radio.

    Western Scotland (Special Development Areas)
    Mr. Elystan Morganasked the Secretary of State for Wales what studies he has made of the areas in western Scotland which have recently been designated as special development areas.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My Department, as part of its duties in relation to economic policy, keeps me informed of the general situation in other parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.
    Mr. Morgan: Does not the Secretary of State suffer from feelings of embarrassment and shame because some 2 million people living in Western Scotland have been given substantial benefits by way of extended development areas although the conditions of those areas are exactly comparable with those in Wales? Can he hold out any hope that the Government will give something to Wales to make up for the investment grants which were taken away and had such disastrous results nine months ago?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Account was taken of the numbers unemployed as well as the rates and character of unemployment. Frankly, I thought that the areas in Scotland had a very special case to be made special development areas.

    School Meals
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the effect on the school meals service in Wales of the higher charge for school meals.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is estimated that there will be a fall of about 12 per cent. in the number of children taking school meals as a result of the higher charge.
    Mr. Jones: That was an astonishing answer. Does the Secretary of State agree that this increase is punitive for the children of parents who are already struggling to meet the rise in the cost of bus fares? Does he also agree that in the school kitchens it might be thought that the
    1006
    beginning of the end of the school meals service is in sight? Is it not a fact that there may soon be redundancies in school kitchens?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not think it was an astonishing answer. It is an estimate, and it is difficult to estimate with accuracy. The hon. Gentleman will remember that on the two occasions when the previous Administration raised the school meals charge the numbers not taking school meals were quite considerable for a time, but they fell within a few months. It is extremely difficult to do more than estimate, but the estimate is that it will be about 12 per cent.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that most people in Wales would regard as scandalous the Government's suggestion, in the education debate the week before last, that for children whose parents cannot afford school lunches and who do not qualify for free lunches, a system of half or partial lunches should be introduced? Will he tell us on what nutrional advice he bases such a crazy policy?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: That is an announcement which I never made concerning Wales. The increases in the charge for school meals will be offset by the introduction of a more generous scale for the remission of meals charges.

    Cardiff and District (Hospital Reorganisation)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will now make a statement on the proposed reorganisation of the Cardiff and district hospitals.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. and learned Friend on 23rd March, 1971.—[Vol. 814, c. 108.]
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are getting tired of the very long time that these plans have been with the Secretary of State, and that, if he spent less time chasing around the country as the Chairman of the Conservative Party, he might find time to reach a decision on this matter?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: In the latter context, the right hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense and he knows it. As for the delay, this is a complex reorganisation.

    1007
    It is our wish to ensure that the right decisions are made. The Welsh Hospital Board's proposals were submitted to the Welsh Office in February of this year.
    Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us will not mind further delay provided that the decision is taken to reverse the proposals of the Welsh Hospital Board regarding the Accident and Maternity Hospitals at Barry and, I believe, the hospital at Caerphilly and similar small hospitals, which serve a valuable purpose, even in the context of district general hospitals and university hospitals?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am aware of my hon. Friend's intense interest in this matter. I assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend and I will give every possible consideration to all these matters and all these hospitals.
    Mr. Fred Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman please realise that hon. Members on this side and their constituents are getting completely tired of so many questions—like the recent 26 put down by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans)—getting complete non-answers? Is it not high time that he started to bring something out of the egg upon which he has been sitting for so long?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I dare say that if the hon. Gentleman put down better Questions he would get better answers.

    HIGH COURT TRIALS (COSTS)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Attorney-General whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT as much detailed information as may be readily available giving for the longest most convenient period of time the number of public trials at the High Courts which have taken place where the accused have been found not guilty and costs awarded against the prosecution; and how long it has been before the taxed costs in each

    CASES IN WHICH COSTS AWARDED AGAINST THE PROSECUTION ON ACQUITTAL YEARS 1968 TO 1970

    Date and Court

    Name

    Offence

    Amount

    Date paid

    12.2.68—Cardiff Assizes

    Doxsey, S. W. and Ors.

    Conspiracy and Corruption.

    £1,260

    26.6.68

    5.12.68—Divisional Court

    Freed, G.J

    Exchange Control

    £420

    6.2.69

    27.1.70—Court of Appeal

    Bean, H. and Anor.

    Theft of Government Stores.

    £150

    18.2.70

    5.10.70—Central Criminal Court.

    Crouch, J. E.

    Corruption

    £42

    14.10.70

    case have been delivered; and whether he will publish details of such taxed costs.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): During the period 1st January, 1968, to 31st December, 1970, there were four trials in which the Director of Public Prosecutions was the prosecutor and costs were awarded against the prosecution. I will publish the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Lewis: We are used to the legal profession taking so long to do their legal work, no doubt because they get paid higher fees the longer cases go on, but why should it take so long and so many questions to get the facts and figures of these taxed costs? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be able to tell me the actual taxed costs of the recent Daily Telegraph case, which was a scandal? Shall I get them in two or three years, or shall I have to wait for about 10 years?
    The Attorney-General: On the last part of that question, the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not a case in which costs were awarded against the prosecutor. As for the delay in giving the information, his original Question asked for as much detailed information as was possible of cases in which costs had been awarded against the prosecution. I have given it.
    Mr. Lipton: What costs were involved in the last case mentioned by my hon. Friend—the prosecution under the Official Secrets' Act? How much did that cost the Government?
    The Attorney-General: Fortunately, although that does not arise out of this Question, I can give those details, because I have answered a Question about the matter before. The prosecution costs came to £5,816. The defence has not yet had its costs taxed.
    Following is the information:

    ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1970 (SECTION 13)
    Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Attorney-General whether pursuant to Section 54(4) of the Administration of Justice Act, 1970, it is yet possible to specify a date for the coming into force of Section 13 of the said Act.
    The Attorney-General: My noble Friend is waiting for the Attachment of Earnings Bill to be passed before bringing into force Section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1970, as the Bill will consolidate Section 13 of the other statutory provisions relating to attachment of earnings. If, as appears likely, the Bill receives Royal Assent later this month, the Lord Chancellor intends to make an Order bringing the relevant provisions into operation on 2nd August, 1971.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that that will bring satisfaction to many people, like the constituent who wrote to met on this matter last week, who, while they have very strong cases of liability in respect of these small debts, at the moment shrink from bringing proceedings in the county court because of the
    1010
    difficulties of execution? Will he do all he can to see that that timetable is maintained and, if possible, accelerated?
    The Attorney-General: I will certainly so assure my right hon. and learned Friend. It is hoped that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent on 12th May. There is then certain subordinate legislation to be introduced, and it is hoped that this will be brought into effect by the beginning of August.
    Sir Elwyn Jones: Is the right hon. and learned Gentlemen satisfied that the machinery will be ready for the implementation of these proposals by August? They are important proposals, since they serve the dual purpose of easing the collection of civil debts and reducing the number of people who go to prison for non-payment of civil debt. Could he give some assurance about the machinery aspect?
    The Attorney-General: I believe I can. Of course, there will be six weeks; it is necessary for litigants and advisers to familiarise themselves with this new procedure, which, under the 1970 Act, will greatly reduce the numbers of people who will go to prison for debt. I think the six-week period should give people enough time to familiarise themselves.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.32 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The House will already be aware from my statement, from the White Paper and from the Government Actuary's Report accompanying the Bill, of the proposals which the Government are putting before the House. The Bill which we are debating today covers only the national insurance and industrial injury ingredients of the total set of proposals. There will be an Instrument laid for war pensions in due course, and before long we shall be laying before the House an affirmative Resolution connected with the Supplementary Benefit Regulations.
  This Bill breaks new ground in several directions. Although it must share with the Act of 1959 introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) and with the Act of 1966 introduced by the Labour Government the distinctions of making the largest changes in the national insurance scheme, it has other distinctions all its own. It is the longest National Insurance Bill since the original Measure was piloted through the House in 1948, it disposes of the largest aggregate sum of money in any National Insurance Bill since then, and it introduces the most varied package of improvements.
  The Bill will be memorable, not just because it is the longest and in terms of money the largest National Insurance Bill since 1948, but because it makes a real start in filling the very large gap in our social security system, namely, in regard to the needs of the disabled and chronic sick. The Government are not pretending that the proposals which are now in the pipeline represent the final story of what is needed for the disabled and chronic sick. That would be very far from the truth. However, we maintain that 1971 will have been a notable year for two substantial steps in filling the needs of these two large and hitherto neglected groups of the population.
  1012
  There is first of all the £24 million of gross expenditure for the chronic sick embodied in the Bill, which will come into effect in late September this year, and then there is the £10 million coming into effect in December by way of an attendance allowance for the very severely disabled. I will explain the chronic sick package deal in its place, but I would draw particular attention to it at the start of my introduction of the Bill as the outstanding feature of the proposals which the Government are laying before the House for the National Insurance Scheme.
  The basic proposal for the standard weekly rate of national insurance benefit will be found in Clause 2 and Schedule 2 of the Bill. These provide that the rate should go up by £1 a week for a single person and by £1·60p for a married couple: from £5 to £6 for a single person; from £8·10p to £9·70p for a married couple from the week beginning 20th September this year. The other rates will go up in proportion, that is to say by about 20 per cent.
  I say with diffidence that there have never been bigger increases in money terms. I say "with diffidence" because we are passing through, and pensioners in particular are enduring, a very high rate of price inflation. Despite that factor, the Government are confident that these increases will make good the erosion in the value of the benefits since they were last increased in November, 1969. Since that increase until the last known date in March this year, there had been a fall in real value of national insurance benefits of 11·6 per cent. Therefore, there is a gap between March, 1971, and September, 1971, of a considerable amount. This is why we are confident that when the increased benefits come into payment they will represent a real improvement upon the benefits as increased in November, 1969.
  These all-round increases in benefits will be welcomed by millions of people. There are 7½ million retirement pensioners. Some 10 million people in a normal year draw sickness benefit for a greater or lesser length of time and all of them will get an increased benefit. Some 3 million people in a normal year draw unemployment benefit for a greater or lesser period and all will get an improvement. Those are the central

  1013
  changes in national insurance benefits proposed in the Bill.
  There are two smaller changes in the basic scheme that will be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides. As pledged by the Government, we are modifying the earnings rule. In Clause 2 the House will see that pensioners will be entitled to earn, after 20th September, £9·50p instead of, at present, £7·50p before their national insurance pension is abated by their earnings. This will help thousands of national insurance pensioners while still preserving intact the retirement condition on which successive Governments have remained firm.
  Then there is an improvement in the increments drawn for deferred retirement. The increment goes up from 5p to 6p per week for every nine flat-rate national insurance contributions paid. This will, in time, benefit about 300,000 people who have deferred their retirement in order to continue earning and who are still, therefore, paying national insurance fiat-rate contributions. There will be resulting increases in their retirement pension, when they come to draw it, either by retiring or by reaching the absolute entitlement age of 65 for a woman and 70 for a man.
  I have passed relatively quickly over the changes proposed in the basic benefits. I come now to the group of selective improvements for which the Bill will be particularly welcome by hon. Members on both sides.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Before the right hon. Gentleman does that, and in view of the particularly accelerated increase in the cost of living in the last seven months—I am not deliberately choosing the date of the change of Government; the cost of living has jumped particularly in recent months—has he any later figures to give of the erosion of the proposed increase of £1 since the Government announced it?
  Sir K. Joseph: No. The last figure I have for the cost of living relates to March, 1971. I am afraid that I do not have a more up-to-date figure.
  One of the election pledges of the Conservative Party was to give priority to those most in need, and we referred to
  "the over-80s without pension, the elderly disabled, the chronic sick, and children in families below the poverty line."
  1014
  Hon. Members will recognise that some progress has already been made in most of these directions. The family income supplement comes into payment at enhanced rates this August. Last December those who had no chance to join the national insurance scheme and are over 80 were brought into the old persons' pension arrangements, and the rates that they were then paid, £3 single and £1.85 for a married woman, are being raised by this Bill to £3·60 and £2·20 respectively. We have already passed into law the attendance allowance for the very severely disabled, which comes into payment this December. It was announced at £4 per week and by this Bill it is being raised to £4·80 and will be tax free.
  We are proposing by the Bill to complete the task accepted in our election commitment by extending the benefit to all those over 80, whether or not they have the chance to join the national insurance scheme, who either have no retirement pension or who have a pension of less than £3·60 for a single person or £2·20 for a married woman. This remaining group of over-80s, about 50,000 in number, will get the old persons' pension from the week beginning 20th September. Thus, there will be no person over 80 after that date who will not have either a retirement pension or the old persons' pension.
  I come now to the chronic sick package, which the House will find in Clauses 3 and 4. When I made the announcement to the House I spoke of the chronic sick as a "neglected group". As the House will realise, there is no distinction in the sickness benefit payable for a person whether he is sick for six days or six years, except for the period between the end of the second week and the end of the 28th week of sickness. No distinction is made between the short-term and long-term sick. That is a defect which both parties have recognised, but the Government are glad to have the opportunity to take the first steps to put this defect right.
  The proposal in Clause 3 is that there should be a long-term benefit for everybody incapable of work and continuously sick for six months or more. There will be a change of nomenclature for such people, from "recipients of sickness benefit" to "recipients of invalidity benefit." They will receive an invalidity pension at the standard national insurance

  1015
  rate, which is £6 for a single person under the Bill and £9·70 for a married couple, plus an invalidity allowance for those who fall sick more than five years before the pension age, that is before 60 for a man and before 55 for a woman.
  The amount of this invalidity allowance will depend on the age at which the incapacity for work began. The thought in our mind is that during a normal working life a man or woman should perhaps be able to put aside something towards old age. If that working life is interrupted by continuous chronic disability that capacity to put aside some reserves is eroded. That is why we propose that the invalidity allowance should be at its maximum earlier in working life at which the person is struck by chronic sickness.
  We do not pretend that the rates at which we are beginning this invalidity allowance are anything but modest. However, they make a start. They represent a new benefit and we will have to see how they work.
  The proposal is that there shall be a £1 per week invalidity allowance for those whose chronic sickness begins before the age of 35; a 60p invalidity allowance for those whose chronic sickness begins between the age of 35 and 45; and a 30p invalidity allowance for those whose chronic sickness begins between the ages of 45 and 55 for a woman or 60 for a man.
  The existing chronic sick who are under pension age will draw invalidity allowance from the week beginning 20th September, provided their chronic sickness began before the age of 55 in the case of a woman or before 60 in the case of a man.
  I wish to be sure that the House fully understands this point. The invalidity allowance will carry through into retirement. If it is still in payment at the date of retirement it will continue as a lifelong benefit. Hon. Members may not fully appreciate how quickly people will get the advantage of what we are proposing.
  Provided a person is under pension age—under 60 for a woman and 65 for a man—on the appointed day when this benefit comes into payment, and provided the chronic sickness for which the invalidity allowance is due started before, in the case of a woman 55 and in the
  1016
  case of a man 60, then at once from late September of this year the invalidity allowance will come into payment and will be a life-long benefit right through retirement.
  This is by no means the only improvement we are proposing for the chronic sick. Under Clause 4 we are seeking deliberately to help those chronic sick households where the wife of a chronic sick person is struggling to help the household income. Only too often the House has to help those who cannot help themselves; that is one of our prime functions as a Government. How much we rejoice to be able to help those who are struggling to help themselves.
  This is the case of a household in which the normal breadwinner is chronically sick but where the wife is able to work. We realise that there are many such households where there is no wife, or where the wife cannot go out to work because of her personal circumstances, because there are small children, or because the husband needs too much attention. Obviously we are not seeking to draw any moral judgment, but where the wife can and does go out to work she is at the moment subject to a very arbitrary and total cut-off rule. If at the moment she earns more than £3·10 a week, which is the level of the dependent wife's benefit, that benefit totally vanishes: the household is not entitled to a penny for that chronically sick person's wife; whereas the retirement pensioner is entitled to earn up to £7·50 now, which is to be increased to £9·50, before his pension is abated in any way.
  What we propose—it is the proposal suggested by the previous Government in the Bill which fell at the election—is that the working wife of a chronic sick man shall be entitled to the same abatement rules for earnings as the retirement pensioner—that is, instead of an all or nothing cut-off at £3·10, which is increased to £3·70 under the Bill, there will be a right to the full dependant's benefit of £3·70 provided that the wife's earnings do not exceed £9·50 as the figure will be under the Bill. The wife's benefit, therefore, will not totally vanish until her earnings exceed about £14 per week.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: Has my right hon. Friend given any consideration to a tax allowance

  1017
  in these circumstances, such as the allowance which is granted to a man who has a housekeeper? This would be an important aid for a woman in the circumstances that my right hon. Friend describes.
  Sir K. Joseph: This is entirely a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sorry not to be able to give my hon. Friend an immediate reply.
  So far we have broken new ground compared with the last Government only as to timing. Under the last Government's proposed legislation an invalidity allowance would have been paid but only over the years and according to earnings, so that the £1 invalidity allowance we are proposing would have taken many years—I believe about seven years—to come into payment. The improvement where the wife is earning would have been introduced by the previous Government.
  The third component of the chronic sick package in the Bill breaks entirely new ground. We are for the first time proposing to treat the children of invalidity pensioners more generously. After all, one of the most tragic results of chronic sickness is the strain on the standard of living of a family containing children. We are recognising that, and are proposing to provide for the children of an invalidity pensioner children's benefits at the same rate as those now provided for widows instead of at the normal rate for those who are sick. This will produce an improvement of £1·40 per week per child in the households of the chronic sick.
  All these improvements will be provided automatically for the chronic sick. There will be no need for applications or for a take-up campaign, mercifully. Those who have been sick for more than six months, provided that they fall within the age rules, will automatically receive the improvements.
  Mr. Charles Curran: We all warmly welcome the details which my right hon. Friend is announcing of this package. How many men and women will benefit? How many chronic sick are there who will benefit from these proposals?
  Sir K. Joseph: I have a few more points to make before I come to that subject.
  1018
  I do not want to mislead the House. Some people who are chronic sick will get no benefit from this package. If they are within five years of retirement pension, what they will get will be the £1 improvement in their basic single benefit or the £1·60 for a married couple or the equivalent benefit on supplementary benefits. There are some who are in the lowest bracket for an invalidity allowance and who will get only 30p per week on top of the basic increase—that is, £1·30 per week improvement for the single man and £1·90 improvement for the married couple.
  At the other end of the scale, where a man has fallen chronic sick under the age of 35, where he has a working wife who is earning more than £3·70 a week, and if he has one, two, three or more children, the transformation in the household income will be dramatic, and there may be improvements for individual households, even some small number of thousands of such households, ranging up to £400 a year as a result of the basic improvements in the chronic sick package in the Bill.
  I repeat that this is not what the Government regard as the end of the story, but it is a very worthy start to bring help to these households.
  In answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), there are about 415,000 people who have been sick for more than six months. About four out of five of these will benefit from the new invalidity allowance—that is, four out of five were struck by chronic sickness before the age of five years before pension and are not themselves pensioners. The House will realise when I give these figures that people over pension age are excluded. Pensioners in the future may gain from the invalidity allowance if they carried it through into retirement.
  About one-third of this number are on supplementary benefit and will have that benefit reduced by the improvement of which we are speaking. The cost to the National Insurance Fund in a full year will be £24 million, with £6 million offset for supplementary benefit sickness; so there will be a net cost of £18 million for the chronic sick package.
  Clause 5 deals with the very elderly. I have already explained that, subject

  1019
  only to a residence test, all persons over 80 will be entitled to a pension. The Government now propose to go further and to give every retirement pensioner over 80, whether they are normal national insurance retirement pensioners or whether they are old person retirement pensioners—they are the two groups brought into benefit by the December, 1970 Measure or by the Bill—an age addition of 25p per week. This age addition recognises, albeit in a small way, the special claims of very elderly people who on the whole need help rather more than others. I well remember the constant emphasis that the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) laid upon the plight of elderly widows. A very large number of the over-80s are widows, and by this age addition we are giving a small recognition to their need. As they grow older their possessions wear out and they need help for the necessary jobs which they used to do themselves.
  Therefore, the single person over 80 on the full standard rate pension will get from the appointed day £6·25 a week as against £5 now, and the married couple, where both are over 80, will get £10·20 a week as against £8·10 now. Those are increases of 25 per cent. and 26 per cent. respectively. 1·2 million people will benefit from this age addition. A third of them are on supplementary benefit and will therefore have the age addition offset against their supplementary benefit, but they—that is the third whose age addition is offset against supplementary benefit—will be helped by the parallel improvement proposed in the supplementary benefits scheme, which it would not be proper to discuss today but reference to which the House will find in paragraph 39 of the White Paper, whereby we propose an increase of 25p in the long-term addition on supplementary benefit, making it 75p as against 50p where a claimant or a dependant living in the household is over 80.
  The cost of the age addition will be £16 million in a full year of which £5 million will be saved in supplementary benefit, but then the increased long-term addition on supplementary benefit will cost £4 million in a full year. The total
  1020
  cost to national insurance or public funds will thus be £15 million.
  I turn to Clauses 9 and 12 which cover industrial injuries and diseases, All the main benefits in the industrial injuries scheme will be increased by the general uprating. The disablement pension for 100 per cent. assessment goes up from £8·40 to £10; injury benefit from £7·75 to £8·75; and the industrial injuries widows pension from £5·55 to £6·55.
  The selective improvements for the chronic sick and the very elderly, to which I have already referred, will be extended to industrial disablement pensioners receiving unemployability supplement and will be payable to them where appropriate in addition to their industrial injury benefit.
  A small but useful selective improvement peculiar to the industrial injury and war pensions scheme is proposed which will enable industrial death benefit to be paid to the widow or other dependants of a disablement pensioner if he was receiving constant attendance allowance at the nominal maximum or a higher rate at the time of his death, even though his death was not due to his industrial injury or war injury.
  Clause 11 gives power to bring industrial injury benefits into line with national insurance benefits as regards adjustments when the beneficiary has received free hospital in-patient treatment for prolonged periods.
  I turn to the relatively complicated subject in Clause 6 of earnings-related supplement. We propose no change this year and next year in the main provisions relating to the earnings-related supplement for the first six months of unemployment, sickness and widowhood. But for new cases starting in or after May, 1973, changes are proposed. The lower limit will be increased to £10 to take some account of the considerable increase in earnings since these supplements were introduced in 1966. The higher limit will be increased to £42 to correspond with the new upper limit of graduated contributions. Supplement will remain at one-third of earnings between £10 and £30 a week and will be 15 per cent. of earnings from £30 to £42 a week. Those whose supplements depend on earnings in the tax years before 1972–73 will not be affected by these changes.

  1021
  The limit on total weekly benefit of 85 per cent. of average weekly earnings will remain and will apply after the appointed day to cases where earnings-related supplements are paid in addition to industrial injury benefit.
  I now come to another rather complicated subject of unemployment benefit for occupational pensioners. Clause 7 is long and complicated and I will try to express its purpose as simply as possible. It deals with a problem which has been exhaustively examined by the National Insurance Advisory Committee, then by the previous Government, and now by the present Government. The granting of unemployment benefit and contribution credits to certain occupational pensioners who are not effectively in the field of employment can be regarded as a misuse of benefit funds. To counteract this, we propose, as recommended by N.I.A.C., that there should be a test of further work and a sliding scale reducing unemployment benefit for those over 60 who have occupational pensions above certain amounts. For those with occupational pensions of over £18 a week—the N.I.A.C. recommendation was £10—unemployment benefit will be reduced by the amount of the excess. If the occupational pension is £30 a week or more—N.I.A.C.'s recommendation was £20—neither unemployment benefit nor contribution credits will be awarded unless the claimant has worked for not less than 21 hours a week for an employer in a new job for at least six months in the year before the claim and since retirement.
  Although not covered by Clause 7, a related change proposed is to exempt all non-employed men between the ages of 60 and 65 from liability to pay contributions. This arises from the strong feelings expressed by some occupational pensioners about their liability to pay a weekly non-employed contribution till 65 for any period when they are not working and are not entitled to credits. They often complain that it is this liability which forces them to attend employment exchanges and register for work in order to have contributions credited on grounds of unemployment. We propose to make such contributions voluntary instead of compulsory, although failure to pay could result in a reduced rate of retirement or widow's pension.
  Clause 13 deals with a subject—polygamous marriages—included in the Bill
  1022
  following the Law Commission's Report earlier this year on family law. The Clause confers power on the Secretary of State to make regulations in this field in relation to social security benefits, and we have it in mind that in the regulations to be made we shall bring into benefit those cases where the marriage was once polygamous but is so no longer—for example, because the first wife has died or was divorced before the parties came to this country.
  I turn finally to the methods of financing the increases and improvements proposed. The total extra cost falling on the National Insurance and Industrial Injuries Funds as a result of the increases and improvements proposed in the Bill is £537 milion and £20 million respectively in the first full year 1972–73. Under Clauses 1 and 8 and Schedules 1 and 3 we propose that the fairest way of linking this cost is to increase the percentage rate of the graduated contributions paid on earnings over £18 a week and to extend the upper limit of payment of such contributions. There will on this occasion be no increase in flat rate contributions for the main body of employed persons, and this is the first time that this has happened. In this way we shall ensure that the lower-paid worker receives the higher cover provided by the Bill at little or no extra cost to himself. We shall also be moving towards the Government's objective of fully graduated contributions for employed persons—
  Mr. Stonley Orme: Before the Minister continues, may I ask him whether he is aware that this proposal of graduated contributions for flat-rate benefit is running contrary to the form in which it was originally understood the previous Government would bring it in? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that this will fall heaviest on the average wage-earner in our society and on those just above, and that in effect they will have to pay these increased contributions for the lower-paid worker instead of the money coming out of the Exchequer grant which at the most is 18 per cent. and which originally was proposed to be 33 per cent.? I know that the previous Government did not implement that proposal, but many of us on this side of the House feel that that is the way in which the money should be found.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is reaching steeply back into history when he quotes a figure of 33 per cent. Successive Governments have kept an Exchequer contribution of 18 per cent., and it remains at 18 per cent. under our proposals. As for the impact of the graduated contributions on the average industrial wage earner, I can only say that the man earning £30 a week will pay an increase of 15p, which is half the increase at that level proposed by the previous Government, for a benefit now double the size proposed by the previous Government. So the person earning £30 is four times better off in this respect under our proposals.
  We are proposing that the graduated contributions paid by employees and employers on earnings above £18 a week should be increased from 3·25 per cent. to 4·35 per cent. and that the upper limit of earnings for such contributions should be increased from £30 to £42 a week. The table on page 10 of the White Paper shows what these contribution changes will mean for a man at various earnings levels. The lowest wage earner will pay nothing more. A man earning £20 a week will pay 3p a week more. I have just referred to the extra 15p a week which the man earning £30 a week—now almost the current national average—will pay. The most a man will pay extra is 65p a week, that is, if his earnings are £42 a week or more. These increases are to be compared with what happened at the last uprating under the Labour Government, as I said, when everyone, even the lowest paid, had to pay more.
  I have seen some comments that the extra contributions proposed will in some cases more than offset the advantages gained from the recent changes in income tax proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have even seen tables purporting to show net losses and gains from the total impact of the Budget changes, the October mini-Budget changes, the social security changes, and the changes proposed by the present Bill. Even such tables have been able to identify very few people indeed in the main small ranges of incomes of single men and married men without children who are shown as being worse off. But the conclusions, it seems to me, are fallacious.
  1024
  The basic error is to include the national insurance costs, that is, the increases in graduated contributions, on the debit side, but to omit altogether on the credit side the better benefits provided. The extra contributions under this Bill will go entirely towards providing higher or new benefits. A large proportion of the people of this country, through retirement pensions in due course for themselves or retirement pensions immediately for their parents, through sickness benefits for themselves, or —alas, though a smaller group—in unemployment, widowhood or industrial injury benefits for themselves, will have, if not immediately then within a matter of months, either personally or for their parents a more than 100 per cent. return for the extra contributions which they are paying. In the first full years, there will be nearly £500 million of extra contributions collected, and well over £500 million will be paid out in extra benefits.
  I have not so far referred to the position of self-employed and non-employed persons. As they do not pay graduated contributions, it is proposed to increase their flat-rate contributions by 26p per week for a self-employed man or 21p per week for a non-employed man, so that they will pay their share of the cost of the improved benefits. The Bill proposes to increase the limit below which self-employed and non-employed people need not pay contributions at all from £312 a year—£6 a week—to £468 a year—£9 a week.
  In addition to the Exchequer supplement paid automatically as a fixed proportion of flat-rate contribution income, the Bill proposes an increase in the special Exchequer payments provided for in the 1969 Act so as to restore the total Exchequer support for the next two years to about 18 per cent. of contribution income.
  The higher benefits and contribution rates and the new benefits proposed in the Bill are due to start in the week commencing 20th September. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor described this in his Budget statement as the earliest practicable date, and so it is. It is six weeks earlier than the date of the uprating due in the normal course under the two-yearly cycle to which the Opposition were proposing to tie themselves statutorily under their plans for the future.

  1025
  In the special circumstances prevailing this year, we were anxious to advance the date as much as possible, but it is a mammoth operation and even 20th September will be hard to achieve. It involves some risks in view of the very heavy programme, quite apart from the uprating, facing the staff of my Department in the next few months, the result of the aftermath of the postal strike and the benefit changes and new benefits already approved. My staff will be hard pressed to achieve what we are asking them to do, but they have never yet failed to respond to such calls, and I am confident that they will do their utmost to see that these improvements are effected on time.
  I apologise for having taken so much time, but there has been a fair amount to explain. The Bill proposes substantial improvements in benefit for many millions of people, and additional selective help for well over 1 million especially deserving people. As such, it will, I hope, be welcomed by the whole House.
  4.17 p.m.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Bill makes considerable changes in what has always been the basic principle of national insurance. National insurance in this country has always been our main means of tiding people over years of need or periods in which, for one reason or another, they cannot sustain themselves and are dependent, to a lesser or greater extent, on the community or on their own contributions in the earlier years to help them to do so.
  Basically, we have always had a flat-rate system to which certain graduated elements have been attached. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) will remember that his graduated pension scheme did not greatly commend itself to the Opposition because we felt that it was minor in its effects and actuarily not entirely fair.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: What the hon. Lady says is true of the verbal reaction, but, on the basis that actions speak louder than words, she will remember that her Government maintained and, indeed, extended my scheme throughout their six years in office.
  Mrs. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise also that the Labour
  1026
  Government prepared carefully to abandon his scheme and to replace it with something quite different, and it was only the exigency of the election which prevented that being carried through. In addition, the Labour Government added two new elements, the graduated national employment and sickness benefit and then, for the first time, took these benefits up to a level rather close to that which people earned when in work or when in good health.
  Fundamentally, what the right hon. Gentleman has done in this Bill has been to depart considerably from the national insurance principle. He has related contributions much more closely to earnings—we shall in a few minutes see how far he has gone in that direction—but he has not related the main benefits, which are, of course, the retirment pension, to those earnings in any effective way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) pointed out a few minutes ago, we are presented with an extraordinary arrangement of earnings-related contributions for a flat-rate benefit. I believe that when the people of this country recognise the true nature of what they are being offered, they will regard it as a pretty poor deal.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) pointed out in questioning the right hon. Gentleman when he made his original statement on social security, the country is being presented, in effect, with a social security tax. When it comes to the payment of earnings-related contributions for the band between £30 and £42 a week, we are moving very close indeed to a social security tax which has no actuarial relationship to the benefits paid.
  Sir K. Joseph: Why is it any more a tax when we move the top of the bracket up to 1½ times average national industrial adult earnings than it was when the hon. Lady's Government did just the same and put it at £30?
  Mrs. Williams: Because the right hon. Gentleman knows that he is not proposing to move the benefits on to an earnings-related scale [Interruption.] We proposed to do so in the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill. That was exactly the proposal before the House, that benefits should be earnings-related. I do not understand why the

  1027
  right hon. Gentleman appears to disagree. I am not denying that it would have taken some years to build up to the full amount, but the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that over the whole period from the introduction of the Bill onwards there would have been a gradual movement toward something like 50–75 per cent. return on earnings-related pensions. That is quite different from anything he is planning to do.
  1 turn to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the increase in pensions he is making in money terms. He said that the increases, which are overall about 20 per cent., are the largest in money terms made at any time. I do not quarrel with him on that. He also said, perfectly fairly, that they were very large in money terms but that there was an inflationary situation which had not been reached before. I do not think he will disagree that the largest increase made in real terms, apart from that made when the national insurance system was first changed in 1948, was made in 1965. That was a relative change which brought pensioners in line with the increase in earnings, which has not happened since. The relative position of the retired as compared with the rest of society is worsening. The right hon. Gentleman will find the authority for that statement in the first edition of "Social Trends" for this year, which showed a real increase of 12 per cent. in 1965. This compares with a real increase of 3.8 per cent. in 1971. Since that is a Government document, I rather doubt whether he will disagree.
  Sir K. Joseph: But there was an increase in 1955 of 15·4 per cent. in real terms.
  Mrs. Williams: In that case, I defer to the right hon. Gentleman, but I stick to my point that the current increase does not compare in relative terms with the increase in 1965. The relative position of the old continues to worsen. We are still a society that accepts that to be old is to be poor. The great opportunity presented by the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill to deal with the problem of poverty among the old once and for all, in a radical way, has been abandoned by the
  1028
  Government, and there is no sign of its being reintroduced.
  In his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the Conservative election manifesto. He said:
  "… we promised to review retirement pensions every two years to ensure that they at least maintain their purchasing power,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 1374.]
  I take that phrase to mean that pensions increases would be in line with prices. I pointed out on 31st March that, on the basis of prices increasing at 8 per cent. a year, which was the forecast of the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, the pension would be worth about 18 pence more in real terms for a single pensioner at 1st September and 30 pence in real terms for a married couple at the same date compared with November, 1969. But since then the latest figures for the annual increase in prices show an increase of 81. per cent. If that is projected on the current basis, then five months after the increase introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the value of the pension will fall to the level of November, 1969, and only a month after that it will fall below it.
  The Government are giving themselves a great deal of credit for the increase in money terms, but the increase in real terms will have virtually disappeared by next winter. They must either tackle inflation with much greater zeal than they have yet shown or adopt the principle of an annual review. The right hon. Gentleman made the fair point that the last Government were dedicated to a two-year review, but he should admit that the level of price increases in 1969, when that proposal was made, was considerably below the level now. We are talking about 9 per cent., which is a near-50 per cent. increase. I am not using in this argument the figures for the pensioners' budget, which would show a higher relative increase than I am using.
  While the Government have gone some way to maintain the purchasing power of pensions—though they will not maintain it for long—they have done virtually nothing to maintain the relative position of the pensioner, which depends upon the level of incomes rises throughout society. Here the position is even worse

  1029
  than that which I have already stated. In 1970, earnings rose by 14 per cent. Over the two years to September 1971, again taking the National Institute figures, they should show an increase of 25 per cent. This means that the relative position of pensioners, with an increase of 20 per cent., is deteriorating. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government accept that there is such a thing as relative poverty. In accepting the Bill, we are straightforwardly admitting as a country that we are still prepared to see pensioners fall into a position of growing relative poverty. I believe very strongly that this position would have been altered, though I admit that it would have taken some time, by the last Government's Bill, and I am extremely sorry that it has been abandoned.
  An Hon. Member: The Crossman Bill?
  Mrs. Williams: Indeed.
  I shall later indicate the parts of what the Government are doing which should be accepted and welcomed by the whole country, but first I want to deal with one other serious gap in their proposals. They have done nothing about family allowances, although family allowances have lost value to the extent of 4s. in the £ pound since they were last increased by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). There is a very large number of hard-pressed families who fall between the family income supplement level introduced by the right hon. Gentleman and the level now affected by the increased social and other charges across the board. Even those who are so poor that they come within the 190,000 or 200,000 who will benefit from F.I.S. will pay their increased contributions but will receive no benefit from F.I.S. until August. That is a considerable delay.
  But the crucial point is that an increast in family allowances, which it was open to the Chancellor to make at the cost of his increasing child tax allowances would have benefited families which are not now paying tax but are above the F.I.S. level. There are many hundreds of thousands within that group.
  F.I.S. make-up levels are half the difference between incomes and supplemen-
  1030
  tary benefit levels, and tax levels for families with two or more children run at just above supplementary benefit level. In this space—between the F.I.S. makeup level and the level at which taxes are paid—there are, I am advised, several hundred thousand families who will not benefit either from F.I.S. or from the extra child allowance against tax. It is this group of hard-pressed families who would have benefited from an increase in family allowances. This remains the major broken pledge of the Government. They are not benefiting those families with which they claim to be concerned.
  Another important point is that family allowances do not present the disincentive to work that is presented by a special means-tested allowance of the kind the right hon. Gentleman is making. He is well aware of this factor. The reason is that the marginal tax rates are now so high.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: My hon. Friend will probably recall, as many of us on this side do, the statement of the late Mr. Iain Macleod about the need to increase family allowances. Although he felt that this would be politically unpopular for either party, he advocated this his party should increase them. This pledge has not been honoured.
  Mrs. Williams: That is true. I mentioned that this was, in my view, a major broken pledge by the Government.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) are ignoring the fact that the net cost of F.I.S., after allowing for the offset of increased family allowance against national insurance dependency allowances, is more than the Iain Macleod pledge would have provided, so that the poorest families are doing much better in real terms through F.I.S. than through any conceivably practical family allowance proposal.
  Mrs. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but he knows that he is talking of a minute section of the people, less than one family in 100, whereas we are talking of a much larger group—not the 200,000 within the F.I.S. scheme but a much larger group who would have benefited from family allowance adjustment.
  Sir K. Joseph: Because of the abominable way in which, under the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechtford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), the tax threshold was lowered in nominal and, even more, in real terms for families with children, there was, when we came to office no gap above the supplementary benefit level for the use of family allowance with claw back. By the Chancellor's improvement in child tax allowance, almost every family with children will benefit, either from lower tax or from F.I.S. The hon. Lady's mention of hundreds of thousands of families who will benefit from neither is a very large exaggeration.
  Mrs. Williams: It looks as if we are going to play ping-pong like the Chinese. I make two responses to the right hon. Gentleman. It is the case that an increase in family allowance across the board with no change in child allowances was open to the Chancellor, but this would not have had the consequences to which the right hon. Gentleman has just referred. We are talking about an across-the-board increase in family allowance, subject to the normal taxation procedures, and I am advised—I will argue this further with him in correspondence—that it would have been possible to do that. If the right hon. Gentleman says that it would not have been possible, then it would have been possible to have had a tax-free increase in family allowances which would have run into none of the difficulties to which he has referred. I am also advised that a substantial number of families would have benefited more—and this is the crucial point—from an increase in family allowances which would have come to the same amount as the Chancellor's child taxation reliefs.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Williams: We will have to pursue this through questions, because clearly we are not going to agree about it.
  Mr. Curran: Would not the hon. Lady agree that no increase in the family allowance will make a copper's worth of difference to the one-child family? Does not she agree that it is the one-child family, alas, where so much poverty is concentrated?
  Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman must look to the Secretary of State rather
  1032
  than to me, because the Secretary of State has had a chance to cover that point in the Bill and has not done so. It is a fair point and I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. As he has said, there is no family allowance for the first child and nothing has been done to change it. I agree that there is no family allowance for the first child. But it is his right hon. Friends who are now the Government, so he should address his remarks to them and not to me.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mrs. Williams: I have given way a number of times already. This has been a most useful argument, but I think I should now get on.
  I want to turn now to the starting point for earnings-related benefit, which is about to move up from £9 to £10 but which I cannot find that the Bill also relates to contributions. It looks as if people will be paying contributions between £9 and £10 which are earnings-related, but will not be getting earnings-related benefit. If I were a worker in this bracket—and there are many women workers in it—I would feel at least cheated in that I was paying a contribution on a graduated basis and getting nothing for it. It is also the case that, because of the increase for the £ at the bottom at every level there will be a reduction of 33p—or one-third—in earnings-related benefit all the way up the benefit scales. This point, quite understandably, has not been made by the Government, but we should be clear that the reduction will take place across the whole range. It will be a reduction of 33p per week for all earnings-related benefits. This is something which hon. Members opposite in all their glee should have noticed. It will affect the workers on fairly low earnings most. Such a worker will lose 33p. and if he is earning £9 or £10 a week that will have the serious effect of reducing the benefits he is getting. In all fairness, one should not ask people to pay additional contributions for no benefit at all.
  It is also equally true that, at the other end of the earnings range, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West has pointed out, the deal becomes a very bad one. Men who are earning between £30 and £42 a week—and this number will be increased by the effect

  1033
  of earnings inflation—will be paying an additional contribution of 4·35 per cent., which is a brand new contribution because they were outside the graduated contribution level before this Bill, but they will be getting benefits scaled down by half—a 15 per cent. graduated benefit instead of the 33⅓ per cent. which applies in the band below. So they are going to pay a 4·35 per cent. contribution, starting from nothing, for a benefit which is more than halved. The right hon. Gentleman took the example of a £30 a week man paying only 15p more. But in this band £30 to £42—they get 2 per cent. off tax but 4·35 per cent. on insurance contributions, so their so-called benefit will be, instead of 6p off, 8p on.
  The right hon. Gentleman will say in a moment, if I do not move on quickly, that this is reflected in additional benefits. But I have already made the point that additional benefit, although it exists, is very sharply scaled down on a basis that was not perhaps improperly described the other day by The Times as one which no decent private insurance company would look at.
  So the Government are introducing another swindle, a swindle on the upper grade contributor earning between £30 and £42 a week. Before the right hon. Gentleman says to me, as he no doubt will, "What about the last Government?", I say at once that in the Social Insurance and National Superannuation Bill which we introduced in the 1969–70 Session we offered a 25 per cent. earnings-related benefit for this range. The present Government, however, are providing little better than half of that, only 15 per cent. Granted the speed of inflation today, by the end of the next two-year period the average wage will be in this bracket, because it is already £28 a week. On the National Institute's projection, the average wage will be in that bracket with all the consequences the right hon. Gentleman appears so far to have refused to see.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Is the hon. Lady suggesting that under the national insurance scheme proposed by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) the contributors who made earnings-related contributions at the upper end of the wages range were to have had a benefit
  1034
  which was actuarially related to their contributions?
  Mrs. Williams: Yes. Taking the period as a whole, that is broadly speaking correct. The 25 per cent. is very close to an actuarial calculation over the period of the build-up of the scheme. The 15 per cent. here is very far from being that and is a very strange deal indeed.
  I come next to two other facts which are of extreme importance. The Secretary of State pointed out that no additional benefits would be paid—we are talking of the 15 per cent.—until May 1973. In fact, contributions will not even be earning benefit until a year before that. This means that from when benefit contributions go up in September until they first start earning benefit in spring 1972 there will be in effect a free gift of contributions to the National Insurance Fund of about £200 million, for which no benefit will be paid whatever. This is what we on this side mean by saying that this is actuarially a swindle. Nothing will be paid out for this money. It will just go to prop up the National Insurance Fund and will be earning no benefits whatever.
  I want now to say something about two other groups mentioned by the Secretary of State—the non-employed and the self-employed. The non-employed, for whom the increase is to be 21p a week, include a number of people whose position I very much hope the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider. I refer particularly to a group which gains a great deal of sympathy in the House—those single women with dependent relatives. They stay at home to look after those relatives, but they are in a very weak position to prepare for their old age unless they keep up the stamp. I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman in this instance and in the instance of the self-employed—who are sometimes on very low incomes, small shopkeepers, window cleaners and so on—to consider what under the present system is called the concession to poverty, that is to say, that they need not pay if they get less than £9 a week—although, as we all appreciate, they thereby lose any pension rights they may have—and some extension of the rating relief system for those at the very bottom of the national insurance pyramid.

  1035
  I do not expect a reply to that this afternoon. However, we are now reaching insurance contributions which, especially the non-employed and the self-employed who are very low paid, not everyone can bear, and it is up to those of us who are interested in this subject to do something for those who will otherwise be ground into poverty.
  Another subject with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt at length—and I do not blame him, because it is an important departure—was the invalidity allowance. We warmly welcome the fact that he has taken into legislation the increase in earnings for wives. We should like to congratulate him on the additional allowance for children, which, as he rightly said, is undoubtedly his own work. It is only fair to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) deserves some credit for the proposal about earnings for wives, because this proposal originally appeared in his Bill, was subsequently taken over by the Labour Government in their Superannuation Bill, and is now to be found in this. We welcome these changes so far as they go, and I think that they are imaginative and helpful.
  The right hon. Gentleman said with engaging frankness that the invalidity pension was a renaming of the long-term sickness benefit, and of course it is; we are witnessing a change of nomenclature. He went on to say that the invalidity allowance was completely new, which indeed it is. I do not want to crib about the invalidity allowance, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced it, but I should like to ask two questions which arise from it, because they concern issues which deserve reconsideration.
  The first is the extent to which the allowance is graduated to the age at which people become chronically sick. As the right hon. Gentleman said, his Department makes the assumption that those who are not chronically sick until later in life have had longer in which to build up savings. It is fair to say that there is no strong evidence on this point. The only evidence we have had does not bear out the Department's assumptions in this respect. I refer to the recent book, "Registered as Disabled", by Miss Sally Sainsbury, which covered a survey of
  1036
  disabled people in London and the Home Counties.
  Of those she interviewed, a considerable number of disabled people, two-thirds of those aged between 16 and 34 had savings of less than £50 and one-tenth savings of more than £200. In the older age group covered by the invalidity allowance, three-quarters of the men aged between 45 and 60 and three-quarters of the women aged between 45 and 55 had savings of less than £50—three-quarters instead of the two-thirds in the younger group—and one-tenth, the same as for the younger group, had savings of more than £200.
  In other words, there is no evidence to bear out the argument that those who become chronically sick later are more likely to have built up savings over a lifetime. Granted that the great bulk of those who are handicapped under the age of pensionable retirement fall within the low age groups—indeed, 8 per cent. only of those who were severely or seriously handicapped were under 49—I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that when he makes changes in the scheme he should look again at this sharp differentiation in graduation between the ages, which I suspect has as much to do with the Treasury's desire to save money as it has with the problems of the chronically sick and disabled.
  Sir K. Joseph: Miss Sally Sainsbury's book was useful on this as on many other subjects. The hon. Lady is failing to take into account that responsibilities tend to be larger at the younger ages, particularly family responsibilities.
  Mrs. Williams: I do not want to engage in a sort of ping pong with the right hon. Gentleman, but I should have thought that family responsibilities were greatest over the age of 35 and under 50, that is to say, when children are at the most expensive stages, rather than under the age of 35. After all, we are talking about a fairly large-scale difference in benefits, nearly a doubling.
  Much more serious than this and something which I hope my hon. Friends will agree with me needs to be pressed is the position to which the right hon. Gentleman admitted when he said that supplementary benefits would be reduced by the extent of the invalidity allowance.

  1037
  The great bulk of those who are not retired and who are disabled or chronically sick draw supplementary benefit. A survey undertaken last November by the Supplementary Benefits Commission shows that no less than 86 per cent. of those sick and disabled on the basis of more than three months' sickness and disablement were drawing supplementary benefit. They will not benefit from invalidity allowance.
  This means quite simply that 17 out of 20 of those who are chronically sick and disabled will not benefit from the Bill. I find it difficult to believe that those who have so few resources that they are on supplementary benefit have needs which are less than those who are not. Granted that the long-term supplement is not payable for two years, although admittedly it comes after that, I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to look very closely again at the position of the disabled and chronically sick drawing supplementary benefit between six months and two years, that is to say, over that 18 months.
  Because it is of crucial importance I repeat that supplementary benefit receivers will not gain from the invalidity allowance and we know that 17 out of 20 of the chronically sick are under the age which the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. I understand that of all those who are chronically sick and disabled, including those over retirement age, 29 per cent. are on supplementary benefit only. I get these figures from official sources which say that 164,182 people under the age of 55 and 60 respectively are getting National Insurance benefits and that of those 158,577 are getting supplementary benefits. These are people who are chronically sick and disabled and who have been drawing sickness benefit for more than three months. Of those drawing national insurance benefit, more than half were drawing some form of supplementary benefit in addition, bringing the total to 86·2 per cent. of those drawing sickness benefit alone, that is to say, those not in receipt of retirement pensions.
  Sir K. Joseph Sir K. Joseph indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Williams: If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees, two bits of his Ministry appear to be in disagreement with each other.
  1038
  I should like briefly to comment on the calculations by the Government Actuary. The White Paper is that on which the financial assumptions for national insurance are based, and they are likely to be found to be based on rapidly shifting sands. The Government Actuary assumed an earnings increase of 8 per cent. a year, which is the average for the last five years. I have already pointed out that earnings rose 25 per cent. in the last two years and for each 1 per cent. earnings increase over 8 per cent., so we are informed by the Government Actuary, an additional £23 million is paid into the National Insurance Fund. In the long run this is against benefit, but, to quote the Government Actuary, changes in earnings.
  "will have a significant effect on the yield of graduated contributions, but the effect on the outgo on benefits will be comparatively small."
  Unless the Government head up into the levels of unemployment which the Opposition sometimes fear, this means that there will be a considerable increase over the Government Actuary's figures in the amount flowing into the National Insurance Fund.
  Because the contribution made by the Exchequer is struck after any surplus has been used, in effect he might find that the 18 per cent. figure he has given in the debate is very much reduced. That might be offset if unemployment goes much higher because the Actuary took 660,000 as his figure and we know it is already considerably more than that. I simply strike a word of warning, that in discussing the National Insurance Bill the Government Actuary's White Paper is already so far out of date that it gives us very little guidance on the actual surpluses or losses to be made.
  Finally, I must warn the right hon. Gentleman that we on this side of the House are very disturbed in the way m which his policies are moving. I am not criticising or quarrelling with him about particular reforms made in the Bill. I am telling him that in principle we are in total opposition as to the way in which he sees, I take it from his Bill, the development of the national insurance scheme in this country. The whole basis of his argument is to create a position especially, as we have pointed out in the higher levels of earnings, where in practice the State scheme will offer what is

  1039
  in insurance terms such a poor deal that there will be a major incentive for the higher-paid worker to clear out of the scheme.
  This is fundamental to the philosophy of the right hon. Gentleman's party. It has two vast disadvantages, quite apart from matters of principle. The first is that it creates out of the State scheme an impoverished fall-back scheme which will be largely in existence for the low-paid worker, the occasional, casual, worker, which will therefore be a sector dedicated for ever to the relative poverty of those who have to depend on it through no fault of their own.
  My second point is that it leaves wide open the great drawbacks that exist today, and there is little sign of it changing, in occupational pension schemes—lack of transferability, lack of adequate cover for widows, lack of adequate protection for those who for one reason or another are actuarial bad risks. I give the right hon. Gentleman fair warning that we cannot go along this path, we totally disagree with it. We believe it is breaking down a national insurance scheme which could have gone on to be a real answer to poverty in old age. At the end of the day we feel that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government are bound to tinker with the problem of the poverty of the old, the greatest poverty that exists in the country, and that they have essentially abandoned the one way out that has so far been put before the people and that will be put before them once again.
  4.53 p.m.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: Although I will have one or two criticisms to offer on certain aspects of this Measure, I thought that the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) was uncharacteristically ungenerous in her description, particularly of the benefits aspect of the Bill, as a pretty poor deal. What is involved is a massive transfer of resources from the working generation to the old, to the sick, and to the widows on a very large scale indeed. Whatever view we may take as to the precise methods by which it is financed, we have to accept that this is a major effort to deal with some of the more serious social problems of our time.
  1040
  In view of one or two things the hon. Lady said, I am bound to say that I would have thought that this Measure gave the lie to those who charge this Government with a lack of compassion. Compassion is nonetheless compassion because it is employed with an intelligent selectivity. One of the good aspects of the provisions in this Bill, apart from the sheer size of the general improvements, is the way my right hon. Friend has set out to deal with the areas of hardship which most social thinkers believe to be the areas of most intense hardship in our society—the large families with low incomes, the long-term sick as they are called, the invalids as my right hon. Friend's phraseology will describe them, and the very old.
  It is one of the great merits of the benefits side of these proposals that in addition to the general increases, my right hon. Friend has been, in the view of many of us, so wisely selective in the areas he has chosen for special, increased provision. When the hon. Lady says, that the relative position of the old has dropped back we cannot altogether overlook the fact that the force of that argument is very much based on what has happened over the last seven years. We cannot wholly forget the figures given on another occasion by my right hon. Friend showing that whereas over the 13 years of Conservative rule from 1951 to 1964 there was an annual average increase in real terms in the value of the main benefits of 4 per cent., this fell to an average of 2½ per cent. for the six years of the last Administration. If there has been a relative falling back it is clear on those figures where the responsibility lies.
  To some extent on some aspects of this Bill I am in the position in which the Liberal Party got themselves a few years ago. It is notable, perhaps, that the concern of the Liberal Party on these matters is such that no member of the Liberal Party is present this afternoon. The House will recall that at one of the previous elections, I think 1959, the Liberal Party produced a magnificent brochure describing the benefits which the Liberal Party would confer on the old, the sick and the disabled. It was beautifully illustrated with a charming old lady on the cover. At the end, when we looked to see how this was to be financed, it said this would be dealt with

  1041
  by a subsequent pamphlet. It so happened that the onrush of the General Election prevented that second pamphlet from ever seeing the light of day.
  I am in the position of applauding with great enthusiasm the improvements in benefits made by my right hon. Friend but I have some doubts, to which I shall come later, about the methods which he has used to finance these improvements. Before proceeding to that I want particularly to welcome the invalidity changes. I had not appreciated, until I heard my right hon. Friend this afternoon, the particularly sensible and wise provision for increasing the allowance for invalids' children.
  When I had certain responsibilities in this matter I took the view that we should increase, disproportionately to other increases, the provision made for the children of a widow. I accept at once that my right hon. Friend is right in regarding as being in a special category also, for basically the same reasons, the children of the disabled or long-term sick. Although it is not more than a beginning, and although many of us will feel that the rates will have to rise sharply in future, this is very real progress in social reform.
  I am delighted, because I have urged it on my right hon. Friend and his predecessor, that he is increasing the increments earned by those who stay at work and stay in contribution after pensionable age. The State gets a good bargain out of those who do this, and socially for people who are fit to work and have a job to do, it is good and beneficial in many cases that they should remain at work. It is right that they should remain at work earning better pensions for when they retire.
  Perhaps I may be allowed to indulge my curiosity and ask my right hon. Friend what he proposes to do about polygamous marriages, dealt with in Clause 13. I hope the House will not misunderstand if I say that I have a personal interest—let me assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am not, as yet, a practitioner in polygamy, but when I was responsible for these matters, I had to deal administratively with the case of a Pakistani gentleman who departed this life in South Wales, bequeathing to the country of his adoption four widows and a number of children who would have made up a com-
  1042
  fortable platoon. There was a question of benefits. No guidance had been given by Parliament.
  The administrative decision which I took was to give a full widow's pension to the widow who was senior by appointment and a full provision for each child. I do not know what my right hon. Friend proposes to do. He is taking wide powers in Clause 13. But I think that it would he hard on other contributors if a contribution which, in respect of most of us, provides for a maximum of one widow should, in the case where there is a fuller establishment, perfectly lawfully, provide full pensions for four. I shall be interested to hear how my right hon. Friend proposes to tackle this tricky problem.
  Mr. Douglas Houghton: Did the right hon. Gentleman give supplementary benefit to the junior widows?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman has far too much knowledge of social security administration to ask me that. At the time, that was a matter for the wholly independent National Assistance Board.
  I come to the point that I wish to make about the contributions. My right hon. Friend has taken a clear-cut and bold decision to put the whole of the increase, except as regards the limited number of self-employed and non-employed, on to the graduated contribution. With respect, I think that that is unwise. My right hon. Friend may take the point that I am the last man to be in a position to say that to him. But sometimes a difference of degree is so great as to amount to a difference of principle. To put it another way, if my right hon. Friend takes a glass of dry sherry before dinner, it may add to the flow of his urbane conversation. If he drinks four double Martinis, he may become a little noisy and less articulate than usual. If matters are carried too far, something of a change is made.
  Here my right hon. Friend is doing some potential damage to the contributory principle. I know that there are people, in the Press outside and in this House, who say that the contributory principle has gone. I do not believe that for a moment. In fact, some £2,500 million is raised each year with the minimum of difficulty from people who feel

  1043
  that they are, and who are in fact, contributing for their pensions and other benefits. This is brought home to them because, if their contributions fall short, their benefits are cut or may become non-existent. It is in truth a contributory system. However, if it is carried so far that the contributions of one man are used to help to finance the benefits of another, to some extent the link between contribution and benefit is broken.
  Anticipating what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State may say, there is a profound difference between what was done in the 1959 Act and what is proposed now. Under the 1959 Act, none of the contributions of the better-off went to pay the benefits of the lower earners. What happened was that the better-off paid a very large proportion of the costs of their own benefits, and the Exchequer contribution was concentrated on those who, because of their lower earnings, could not contribute enough to finance their pensions. The selective application of Exchequer money to help those most in need is a good principle.
  From the figures in the present Bill, it seems clear that the £2,000 a year man will be contributing towards the flat-rate benefits of the man at the bottom of the scale. This is redistribution, and it seems to me that the proper place for redistribution is not in an insurance scheme but in taxation. The tax system is sometimes unduly redistributive but that is the proper machinery for it, and one damages the insurance concept if one takes redistribution so far as to make a clear transfer from one contributor to another.
  Let me ask my right hon. Friend to consider this point. A man's full entitlement to pension still will depend on his contribution record. Take a man on the £2,000 a year scale who is only 30 years in this country and, therefore, contributes for only 30 out of the maximum of 47 years. In those 30 years, he may contribute more than a man at the bottom of the scale for the whole 47 years. When my right hon. Friend awards flat-rate pensions, the man who has contributed more gets a smaller pension because his contribution record averaged over the years is less good. That risks damage to the contributory system, and I attach great
  1044
  importance to the system for this reason. Once one passes from contributions to a social security tax, one is undermining the whole basis of a contributory system and its merit that benefit is obtained as of right regardless of means. Once one taxes the citizen, rich and poor, to provide a benefit, the case for taking means into account begins to rear its head.
  It has been the merit of national insurance since Beveridge that all have contributed and all have drawn, in accordance with contribution, equal benefits subject to their compliance with the conditions of the scheme. In the words that the late Sir Winston Churchill applied to the original unemployment insurance,
  "It brings the magic of averages to the service of the millions."
  It enables the rich man, like the poor, to exercise his right and claim his benefit because he has contributed to it. That has been the strength of the scheme. One draws, as of right, without a means test qualification.
  It is wrong to break the link of the man who says, "I have paid for my pension", though he has on retiring paid nothing like the full amount, but has paid all that the State has asked him to pay.—[Interruption.] If the State has increased it to his benefit, that is not his fault. But a man can say, "I have paid all that the State has asked me to contribute to my pension, and I draw it as of right." There are real dangers in shifting to a wage-related pension contribution which is redistributive in effect, as this one must be.
  Sir B. Rhys Williams: I have been following my right hon. Friend's interesting argument with interest. Although I am sure that everyone who hears him must agree with the value of the contributory principle, when it is valid, when it is based on a sham—for instance, 18 per cent. Exchequer contribution and the fact that people retiring today have paid only a tiny fraction of the amount that they receive—is not there a danger in regarding that as the underlying principle?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No. It is not a sham. The State has decided to subsidise considerably, but it still remains the fact that a man's title to his pension follows on his contribution record. He has made

  1045
  the contributions laid down as being his qualification for pension. It is difficult to say at what point one breaks the link. I know that my right hon. Friend has major reforms in mind. But there are dangers in the course which he is following here.
  There is also the effect of this on the occupational schemes. Here, I must declare an interest as a director of an insurance company, although I have had interest in this subject for longer than I have had the interest which I disclose.
  If one takes up 4·35 per cent. up to over £2,000 a year by way of contribution from both sides, one gets into the zone in which occupational schemes may seem less attractive. They also seem less attractive administratively. Under the 1959 Act, a person who was contracted out paid no graduated or wage-related contributions. In fairness, he paid a slightly higher lump sum flat rate but no graduated contribution. Under my right hon. Friend's proposals, even if one contracts out, one will be paying a graduated contribution and a flat-rate contribution to the State, plus the contribution, however based, to the occupational scheme. I cannot help wondering whether the sheer administrative trouble involved may not be a deterrent to the development of private schemes.
  There is also the fact that the value of contracting out, though my right hon. Friend is retaining it in absolute terms, is proportionately diminished. Looking at the table, the advantage of lower State contribution, where someone is contracted out, is becoming a smaller proportion of the total contribution than it used to be. In both ways my right hon. Friend may be slowing down the development of those occupational schemes in whose success I know that he and my right hon. and hon. Friends are very much interested. So, here, I should like to give a warning.
  The only other point I wish to mention springs from what I said about the dangers of undermining the doctrine of payment as of right. This relates to Clause 7. I accept at once that there is a problem concerning people with occupational pensions retiring at 58 or 60 going off to seaside towns and registering for employment where there is obviously no suitable employment for them. On the other hand, whether it is a problem
  1046
  which is worth dealing with in the way proposed by my right hon. Friend, introducing a kind of means test into the receipt of national insurance benefits, I am inclined to doubt.
  I know that my right hon. Friend called in aid the National Insurance Advisory Committee. He did not mention that it wos a majority decision in favour of something of this kind, the dissenting member of that committee being the noble Lord, Lord Collison, now the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I used to deal with Lord Collison when he was chairman of the Social Services Committee of the T.U.C. I found him immensely knowledgeable and wise in these matters. With respect to the other distinguished members of the Committee, I rate Lord Collison's dissent as a very substantial factor. It certainly fortifies my doubt whether my right hon. Friend is right to say that in respect of one form of income, the occupational pension, there shall be diminution of the right that a man would otherwise have to draw unemployment benefit. My right hon. Friend is leaving the multimillionaire with an investment income free to draw any unemployment benefit for which he can qualify.
  Sir K. Joseph: If he registers.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Indeed, if he registers. If he does not register, of course not. My right hon. Friend is saying that if a man has an occupational pension it must be diminished or phased out or have separate conditions added. This is carried to the point where, instead of an occupational pension or in addition, the person who wishes to claim benefit has a lump sum payment from his former employer. We are here in the curious situation where getting a lump sum from an employer may prevent a man getting unemployment benefit. If a man wins it on the pools he is all right. This indicates the dangers of what, with the highest of intentions, my right hon. Friend is doing.
  This is an enormous Clause—I know that it will be discussed fully in Committee—of great complexity. I think that it will be very difficult to work administratively, and I express doubt whether it is necessary at all.
  I believe that the problem could be perfectly well tackled if the Department

  1047
  of Employment were prepared to take a little more trouble and show in certain cases a little more courage. If the Department were prepared to say to someone who comes in to register—a retired bank manager, for instance—"There are no bank managers' jobs, but there is a good job looking after the deckchairs on the front which you can have", the Clause would be unnecessary. If that Department were prepared to take a more robust step to test whether a demand for employment was genuine, all this elaborate apparatus in Clause 7 would be wholly unnecessary.
  I dislike it very much because it seems to be the very small end of a very small wedge, but it is a hole in the doctrine which I mentioned, which was accepted for a good many years until the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) laid a Statutory Instrument altering it, that no means, whatever form they may take, should inhibit a man from drawing national insurance benefit. I do not think that the comparatively small abuse to which my right hon. Friend has referred is worth endangering that principle or worth the administrative trouble which he is giving to himself and to his hard-worked and admirable officials.
  I say again that, on the benefits side, this is a remarkable reform. It does immense credit to my right hon. Friend and his advisers, and, reading between the lines, to his dealings with the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and to the ingenuity with which a number of the more difficult areas of our society are to receive substantial help.
  Obviously the House will not wish to delay the Bill. We shall wish to see it in effect as soon as possible so that my right hon. Friend's officers may set forth on the very heavy task of putting 7½ million retirement pension increases and heaven knows how many million other improvements into effect. We wish them well. I hope that they will be able to start on the work as soon as possible.
  5.17 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Ashley: The House is always delighted to listen to the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) not only because of the felicity of his language but because of the
  1048
  way in which he presents his case on any issue. No matter how much some of us on this side of the House may disagree,—and we do—we really enjoy listening to the right hon. Gentleman.
  I propose to confine my remarks to two points concerning the disabled. The recognition by the Secretary of State of the chronically sick as a special category is to be warmly welcomed, because it is a step forward. It is rather like, though less ambitious than, the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris).
  Although this Bill is inadequate and by no means satisfactory to hon. Members on this side of the House, it is nevertheless welcome because it shows that the Government now see the chronically sick as a category requiring action. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall begin to press and push forward and use that concession as a springboard. And although, as I say, it is by no means as ambitious as the Act initiated by my hon. Friend, I hope that in time it may become so.
  The first plea that I make is that the next priority should be some provision for disabled housewives. There is a great gap at the moment. I suggest that this category of disabled persons should become the Government's priority. I was delighted when the Prime Minister last week promised to consult the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues about provision being made for disabled housewives.
  The case for the disabled housewife has been advocated most articulately by the Disablement Incomes Group for many years, but as yet no provision has been made. It is a curious anomaly that, although a disabled housewife can receive State medical aid, she cannot receive State social security. I hope that this curious anomaly will be rectified.
  The effect of a severely disabled housewife on a household can be catastrophic. In the last few days I have been reading through a large number of case histories of chronically disabled housewives. Their effects on families are heartbreaking and really sad. I think that we make a mistake if we under-estimate the tremendous

  1049
  effects of this disability. I am aware of the economic problems, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take into account the economic and the social problems involved and do what he can to mitigate the major problem which the chronically disabled housewife poses.
  There is one other way in which these people can be helped, and that is by changing the qualifications of constant attendance allowance. People can receive this allowance only if they are needing constant attendance day and night. I know that the right hon. Gentleman cannot widen this provision indefinitely, but he should at least widen it to include the chronically disabled housewife who needs attention during the day. If that were done it would represent a considerable step forward and would mitigate a great deal of hardship, without any undue increase in the financial outlay involved.
  The disabled who returns to work ought to get some kind of disability benefit. At the moment they get nothing. The recent D.I.G. European Study showed that in all the six countries considered there was some kind of provision for disabled people who returned to work—not only to disabled housewives, but disabled people generally. That is an important provision which could be adopted here, because it would be an incentive to disabled people to return to work.
  Work is not only theraputic, although the theraputic effects are important. Work is crucial to the self-respect of severely disabled people, and it is ludicrous that they should have to pay to work if they are severely disabled, because that is literally what it means at the moment. They lose money if they go to work. If that factor could be taken into account and the problem dealt with as I have suggested, this greater help would be greatly appreciated by thousands of severely disabled people.
  I conclude by urging the right hon. Gentleman to give sympathetic consideration to those two, I hope, constructive suggestions. He will alleviate a great deal of human misery if he accepts them.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Luce: On 1st April, of all dates, I was elected the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Arundel and Shoreham. The by-election was caused by the
  1050
  sad death of my predecessor, Captain Kerby. Although I never knew him, by all accounts he was a great servant of his constituency. He was a great champion of individual rights, and quite clearly was a man of outspoken and strong views, which he expressed most forcefully in the constituency. Whether one agrees with his views or not, one should respect any Member who is prepared to speak up for those things on which he feels strongly.
  I am pleased to take part in the debate shortly after hearing the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) whom I opposed for four years in the Hitchin constituency. I enjoyed my dialogue with her then, and I look forward to a further dialogue with her in the House of Commons.
  My constituency has a great history. In particular, Kings came and went. King John arrived to succeeed Richard I, and Charles II left hastily after the battle of Worcester, to escape to Normandy. Today in Shoreham there is a growing port and it has become the largest wine-importing port in the country.
  Arundel is the seat of the premier peer of England and has the distinction of opening the cricket season. The constituency has the largest village in England—or reputedly so—in Lancing, and it is made up of some light industry, it has a strong tourist attraction, there is plenty of farming, and there is a good deal of horticulture, particularly mushroom, flower and apple-growing.
  The constituency is a great residential area. Like many other constituencies, it has a wide range of environmental problems. I believe William Blake said in 1800 when he came to the constituency that the people of this area were
  "genuine Saxons, handsomer than the people of London."
  I think that perhaps rather hastily, I ought to move on to the problem of pensions because clearly a significant feature of my constituency is that so many people come to Sussex when they retire. Whilst in the country about 15 per cent. of the population are retired, in my constituency the figure is well over 30 per cent. It is these people who are suffering from the effects of inflation. The great rise in prices and in rates over the last few years causes lack of security for them, and this was

  1051
  impressed on me most forcefully during the by-election.
  In an age of pressure groups when people with bargaining power can demonstrate and exercise their right to strike, it is the old people who deserve the greatest possible support and help from the Government and Parliament. There are many demonstrations with which I do not have a great deal of sympathy, but I should have considerable sympathy with them if 7½ million pensioners were to walk down Whitehall demanding the rights which they so richly deserve.
  The argument is always one of priorities, and I welcome the fact that the Government are giving less emphasis in terms of State aid to agriculture and industry, and more to those who really deserve help. Therefore one must welcome, and can only but welcome, the fact that the Government are giving pensions as of right to the old people; that they are introducing a constant attendance allowance; that they are introducing an invalidity allowance; that they are giving the biggest increase ever in the basic disablement pension and war widows' pensions which will benefit no fewer than half a million people; that they are easing the earnings rule; that they are giving the biggest ever increase in pensions to retired people; and that they are for the first time introducing an automatic biennial uprating of pensions, a system which operates in most of the countries of Western Europe.
  All that represents an encouraging start, and to those who have accused this Administration of a lack of compassion, I must say that it is wonderful to come to the House this afternoon and be able to support an Administration which really is showing compassion for those in need. I regret that more Members are not present this afternoon, and particularly those on the other side of the House who have criticised this Administration for a lack of compassion. I regret that they have not attended the Chamber this afternoon to give their welcome to the Bill.
  Having said that, there are four points that I should like to make briefly. My first point concerns adjustments to pensions. Although I understand that, administratively, it is very difficult to
  1052
  bring forward the date upon which increases are payable, I regret that the increase could not have been made payable this spring. I am glad that we are introducing a statutory two-year review, but I should like the Government to consider the system which operates in Belgium, whereby the pension is automatically uprated whenever there is an increase in prices over a certain percentage.
  My second point is this: there is a constant argument over the relationship between cash and community services in relation to the problem of the aged. This must surely be regarded as a combined operation. Of course one wants pensioners to have adequate cash so that one does not constantly have to consider whether they should have exemptions or half-fares on public transport. But there are certain services in which cash is not enough. I should like to see a steady improvement in the community services for the aged to enable more people to live at home and enjoy their lives, to improve the meals-on-wheels service, and to alleviate loneliness.
  Thirdly, if we enter the Common Market, the people on fixed incomes, the retired people, those who have a shorter time to live than most of us, will benefit least. We must surely recognise that the retired people would not have the chance to enjoy any long-term benefits. Therefore, if we do go in, I suggest that the Government should give a top priority pledge of special help to the retired in our community.
  Surely our ideal in the last part of this century is not just to provide a basic pension which will give a subsistence income in retirement, but to try to produce a society in which everyone has, in the long term, a supplementary scheme which will give him more than enough to live on. I believe that the Government must develop, as they are doing, the strongest possible incentives for people to enter private occupational schemes, by fiscal means or preservation of pension rights, or various other measures.
  In the meantime, because there are still many people who do not have the benefit of occupational schemes, it is essential to provide and develop a scheme to supplement the basic pension. This is why I welcome the proposals published last week of the Metropolitan Pensioners

  1053
  Association, which argued in favour of a State reserve scheme. I hope that the Government will seriously consider that.
  The mark of a civilised nation is its generosity of spirit to the deserving and the needy. I believe that the conscience of the nation demands that those who have contributed to so much to the country in the past should be able to enjoy their retirement in peace and security.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that the hon. Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce) has just delivered a speech which was witty, well-informed, confident and very interesting. Having myself recently paid a visit to his constituency—not for electoral purposes, I hasten to add—I entirely endorse his remarks about the magnificent beauty of his constituency. The hon. Member made a speech which showed enormous good sense on a wide variety of points. However, since my own maiden speech is not yet exactly hoary, it would be presumptuous of me to make further comments, and I will leave any further felicitations to some of my more veteran colleagues.
  I would take issue with the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) who spoke about the massive transfer of resources represented by the Bill. I should have thought that that was a peculiar description of a series of benefits, which are, in most cases, little more than the provision of a cost-of-living increase.
  But my main point of issue with him is on the wider significance of the Bill. It is remarkable that, despite sizeable increases in costs to workers and a substantial shift to an earnings-related contributions system, the Bill is limited to essentially tactical and short-term objectives. Despite superficial resemblances to the national superannuation plan introduced by the last Government, it has none of the latter's strategic sweep, and with only one or two exceptions that I have been able to find, it bears all the marks of the Secretary of State's commitment to the marginalities of tokenism—[HON. MEMBERS: "What does that mean?"] It means very simply that there are small improvements to uprate benefits in accordance with the standard of living,
  1054
  but there is no attempt to introduce a new structure of social security which would give benefits as of right. It is merely a comparatively small improvement in the existing situation relative to what it was two years ago.
  It is not simply that the increase in the retirement pension and virtually all the other benefits has been pitched at a level of some 20 per cent. above that reached in November, 1969, when price rises during exactly the same period had done away with about 16 per cent. of the increased value of the benefit, so that the real improvement in the position of the pensioners' purchasing power is about 4 per cent., which at current rates of inflation will certainly be whittled away in about six months. It is not simply that the same relationship with national average earnings will be achieved at the start of this current two-year review period as was maintained throughout the whole of the similar period at the time of the 1965 increase.
  What is of vastly greater and longer-term significance is the structural question whether retirement poverty is to be indefinitely perpetuated, with the pension level never finally catching up with the supplementary benefit entitlement, or whether a policy will be pursued of achieving a Beveridge-type ideal of a pension as of right above the poverty line.
  It is clear that there remains a major ideological difference here between the parties. The National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill of the last Government would have provided a pension by the year 2000 high enough to need no means-tested supplementation for all but 13 per cent. of the elderly, compared with about 88 per cent. at present. In the case of this Bill, however, the real meaning of the changes was most starkly revealed by the Secretary of State when replying to the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) on 31st March following a statement on social security benefits and contributions:
  "… the numbers who will be taken off supplementary benefit altogether will, I fear, be only scores of thousands."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 1507.]
  Turning to the contributions side of the matter, there is an important difference of philosophy between the parties about who should bear the burden of the cost. The Conservative National Insurance

  1055
  Act 1959, for which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames was responsible, imposed a graduated contribution charged on the £9 to £15 earnings range, which was later increased from £9 to £18. Exactly the same basic principle is now being applied with the £18 to £42 per week earnings band, being the relevant earnings range for contributions. In other words, it encompasses the broad mass of manual workers. It is more or less exclusively the working class who will bear the burden of this uprating in social security benefits. This is an enforced restriction by occupational level, which I believe is unjustified on any ground of equity.
  Labour's scheme contained a considerably higher ceiling on contribution at £80 a week, so that almost the whole community, rightly and properly, was included in that inter-generational transfer of income. Indeed, a ceiling was imposed at all only to maintain a relationship between contributions and earnings and to cement the partnership with occupational pensions schemes.
  Now that this Bill has effectively renounced this relationship with an earnings-related levy matching flat-rate benefit increases, there is no need to impose such a ceiling. In insurance logic, the only necessity is one of deliberate choice. The deliberate limitation at manual worker ceiling has to be seen as part of the Government's wider and more general policy and, at the same time, enhances the possibilities of increasing inequalities in our society. It is difficult otherwise to see any sufficient argument as to why this ceiling has been imposed at this level.
  Another criterion for assessing social security systems is the effect in regard to women, inasmuch as it is the prevention of poverty among women which is the most important single change in the social security system. How far is this problem recognised by this Bill, and how far is their status reinforced by the advancement of new rights? There is singularly little evidence of any new departures, though the relaxation of the earnings rule for working wives whose husbands are chronically sick certainly must be welcomed. However, there is absolutely no sign of any acceptance of women as equal partners in social
  1056
  security, which made the Labour Government's national superannuation plan such a break-through and a charter for women, whatever their civil status.
  A woman, divorced before the age of 60, obtained a legal right to her ex-husband's dynamised contribution and credits record, both for the period for as well as for the period during the marriage. Widows aged 50 or more obtained the right to their husbands' full personal rate and of the earnings-related pension. Provisions of this kind are unmatched in any social security system in the world, and there is no flicker of recognition of such a break-through in this Bill.
  Perhaps the most significant part of the Bill is the dog that did not bark. There is absolutely no mention of any increase in family allowances or of any excuse for this omission on this occasion. On previous occasions such an omission has been justified on the ground that there is a distinction between insurance benefits earned by contributions and family allowances which are not. But the elimination by this earnings-related Bill of any relationship between graduated contributions and the benefits which are bought by them entirely eradicates this excuse. If non-contributory pensions can be paid for out of the National Insurance Fund to improve the position of the over-80's, why cannot family allowances on the same age principle also be raised at the same time? After all, unlike the other benefits in this package, family allowances have not been increased since 1968 and hence the effect of the cost-of-living erosion at some 20 per cent. has been all the greater.
  Mr. A. E. Cooper: Surely there is a great difference between the two things. If family allowances are increased, that becomes part of the income of the family and is taxed, but the deductions—or reductions—made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget of £40 per child is a positive improvement to help families with young children. There is all the difference in the world between the two. The hon. Gentleman is asking for an increase in the tax payable by a family. We are proposing a reduction in the tax payable by a family.
  Mr. Meacher: It is a remarkable conclusion to say of the family allowances

  1057
  that, because they are a cash benefit and have to be paid for by the general body of taxpayers, they are not of assistance to the poorest families, whereas an increase in the child tax allowances, which is necessarily and selectively geared to those on higher earnings, will give more benefit to the higher earners, which therefore gives no assistance to those at the bottom. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that that is a better alternative? There can be no argument in logic to support such an idea.
  Mr. Cooper: That is absolute rubbish. The great majority of people pay some tax and if there is one child in a family then, under the Budget proposals, that family will receive a direct benefit in tax of £40 a year. One cannot argue against that.
  Mr. Meacher: I can argue against it, and I would insist on the simple fact that there are many of the poorest families who do not pay tax, or who pay very little. For them, an increase in child tax allowance is of no value at all. Since income tax now starts below the poverty line, the scope for claw-back if family allowance is increased is severely limited, unless the family allowance is extended to the first child, or made tax-free, which I feel would be preferable. But if family allowances had been increased across the board without any continuation of child tax allowances, the poorest families would have gained—and would have gained far more than any other families in the country—while the benefit to the better-off would have been selectively taxed back.
  All this could have been achieved without any of the inevitable and undesirable concommitants of the family incomes supplement, which has now had added to it the Secretary of State's "passport system", the advantages being a substantial reinforcement of the stigma upon such people. This could be aptly entitled "a passport to poverty" and will involve the erection of a massive barrier of disincentives. What we have been given as a result of the Bill is both these major disadvantages—no increase in family allowances but a substantial rise in child tax allowances, which, from the point of view of the poor, is by far the worst of all possible worlds.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Boscawen: With regard to the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), about the poorer family not getting any benefit, I would suggest that, if the hon. Gentleman had suggested an increase in family allowances, he would have put back into the tax bracket a large number of families who do not pay income tax at all, only to have it grabbed back again from them. This is a nonsense, and it is one of the non-senses which have caused a great deal of worry and concern on earlier occasions.
  Mr. Meacher: I made it clear that this anomaly can easily be remedied by making child tax allowances either tax free or in the form of an extended payment to the first child. By this means, there would be considerable scope left for clawback.
  Mr. Boscawen: When I was a Parliamentary candidate I hoped that pensions would not be made a political shuttlecock or, in more modern language, part of the game of Chinese ping-pong. Not only pensioners but the vast majority of people want to see this whole subject kept out of politics. A few months here taught me that that was quite impossible.
  There is a wide degree of agreement between the two sides of the House about the improvements that are necessary and about the importance of the improvements that have been made. The pensioners and disabled in particular do not want to see us adopt a holier-than-thou attitude towards this issue. In any event, neither party has reason to feel holier than thou, and I am dead against us adopting that stance now.
  There are honest differences of view between the two sides of the House about how to help those individuals who are particularly in need, and we can certainly argue along those lines, but let us keep our arguments honest and sensible. I believe there is an underlying philosophy which has resulted in our getting right away from the flat-rate approach to this subject. The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) suggested that widows of the non-employed and self-employed perhaps

  1059
  needed more help. There are other individual cases where need is great. We are now adopting a philosophy of helping those most in need instead of helping all on a flat-rate basis.
  I applaud what my right hon. Friend has done in the various areas of need which he has identified. He described the invalidity allowance as a modest step forward for the long-term sick. I hope that as soon as this allowance has been in operation for some time, my right hon. Friend will be less modest and timid and will give greater benefits. I agree with the hon. Member for Hitchin about the gap that will exist for women over 60 and men over 65 in respect of the invalidity allowance. As she said, it has not been proved that the people have saved sufficient to meet their needs compared with the long-term sick. I hope that before long my right hon. Friend will find it possible to fill what must be a small gap in this provision.
  A great deal of the trouble with national health insurance is that over the years there have been too many sacred cows. We are still finding it hard to get rid of some of them. As every good farmer knows, if one is to build up a healthy flock, there must be deaths from time to time. The sacred cow of the contributory system has been dealt a severe blow by my right hon. Friend's proposals regarding earnings-related contributions at the higher levels, and I do not believe that it will be possible any longer to persuade people of the fiction of calling it a contributory scheme when there is such an element of redistribution, particularly at the higher echelons of earnings-related contributions.
  In Clause 5 the Bill deals with the elderly and particularly with elderly widows. They have had small recognition up to now. I welcome the change which give a 25p increase to single persons and a 50p increase to married couples over the age of 80. This seems to be paralleled by the position of those who are in receipt of supplementary benefit. Although my right hon. Friend has not taken this to the point of the invalidity allowance—and where supplementary benefit is paid the recipients lose the benefit of the invalidity allowance—I trust that further thought will be given to this aspect, and I should like to know whether it would be costly
  1060
  to extend it to include the invalidity allowance.
  Some people believe that those aged 75 to 80 are not in greater need of cash than the somewhat younger elderly, but require better services like meals-on-wheels, home helps and other voluntary assistance. Nevertheless, they still require cash, and there may be something to be said for them having a little more, in the sense that it might help them to get about more readily, especially in the summer, when they may be taken for bus rides and so on. I appreciate, however, that selective benefits are bound to be rough and ready, especially in the imperfect world in which we live, and I thoroughly support the advances my right hon. Friend is making.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the widows of men who had been in receipt of the highest constant attendance allowance and had been war pensioners. These widows will now get the full rate of war widows' pension, which represents an excellent advance, however critical some hon. Members may be of it. Only a relatively few, about 1,500 widows—women whose husbands died either normally or as a result of war wounds; nobody can be sure—will benefit from this change, and I greatly welcome it.
  A comrade-in-arms of mine was wounded by the same shell that destroyed my tank. He appeared to recover fully. Recently, however, he fell seriously ill and for a considerable time it was thought that he would die. Fortunately it was discovered that there remained in his body a small shell splinter. This was removed and he has survived. Indeed, he is now back at work. He might have been in the category of people whose widows my right hon. Friend is anxious to help. In fact, had he died, his widow would not have received the benefit.
  Compliments are given so rarely in the House that when given they are much more valuable. Having been on the books of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance for almost the whole of my adult life, I welcome the opportunity to pay a compliment. Throughout all this period, whatever Government have been in power, whether Tory or Labour, war pensions have been administered efficiently, with great consideration and with promptness. On only one occasion was a benefit late. I have received a

  1061
  tremendous amount of good advice from the Ministry about treatment. The boards which carry out the difficult task of assessing percentages have carried out their task well and with consideration. We should all pay tribute to the way in which Governments have attended to the needs of the pensioners of both world wars.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Edwards: I apologise for not being present during the earlier part of the debate. Other Parliamentary business kept me away.
  All the Common Market countries have an earnings-related pension which works out at 60 per cent. of earnings. In Britain the pension works out at about 30 per cent. of average earnings. I hope that if we enter the Common Market we shall at least harmonise retirement pensions, to the great advantage of our seven million pensioners.
  It is scandalous that the increase of £1 is not to become operative until September, by which time the £6 for a single pensioner will be worth about £4. Every week the prices of 200 to 30C household commodities are increased. Electricity and gas charges are increased. The price of paraffin oil, on which many old people rely, has been increased. It takes about one-fifth of a week's pension for an old person to have his shoes repaired.
  Few working-class people over 70 eat much meat. For them meat and butter are luxuries. There is a great tendency to forget that millions of people who are now over 70 and who went through the depression of the 1930s, and who consequently lacked job security, to say nothing of their having gone through two world wars, had little or no opportunity to put anything by. Their lives were a constant struggle from the cradle. I know that this is true, because I come from the working class and spend all my time among working-class people. There is great poverty among old people.
  When hundreds of thousands of old people retire they do not lose their dignity. They refuse to ask for supplementary benefit because they think that they would be asking for charity, something that they have not paid for. Despite massive publicity to make them aware of the availability of extra facilities,
  1062
  hundreds of thousands of old people, because they were brought up in the tradition of paying for things, are not taking advantage of the facilities.
  The reports by welfare officers make tragic reading. A welfare officer who covers the Blackburn area has said that he visited an old lady of 84 who was living on her own. When he went to her house at one o'clock—this was in January—she was still in bed. She said that she would not get up because she could not afford to have the gas on. She had not even had a cup of tea for breakfast because she could not afford it on her little pension. She was the type who would not ask for extra. I am not exaggerating when I say that meat and butter are becoming real luxuries to millions of old people.
  Every hon. Member will agree that this pension increase is not adequate to meet the present situation. The hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen), who made a speech which was acceptable to everyone, mentioned the amenities which can be enjoyed by old folk. It is true that many local authorities have developed amenities such as concessionary fares, meals on wheels, chiropodist services and low-rent bungalows for old people. However, the provision of these facilities is unequal—they are not available under all local authorities. The best service for the old should become the average service. This can be achieved only by legislation.
  Old people as of right should have concessionary faces and a chiropodist service, because old age brings illnesses. Illnesses such as arthritis and rheumatism often arise because the sufferers worked in damp atmospheres or lived in damp houses. We do not know enough about the illnesses of old age and we do not do enough about them.
  If a home medical service were to be established, hundreds of thousands of old people could be taken out of hospitals, where at present they remain until they die, and allowed to live at home happily among their own people.
  We should be ashamed that we are accepting a position where £5 a week for a single retired person and £8·50 a week for a married retired couple is considered adequate. The number of retired people is added to at the rate of 1,000 a day.

  1063
  Our provision far the old is becoming one of the most serious gaps in the whole of our welfare State. The main problem is not poverty but loneliness and ill-health. There should be no reason why old people should go short of the good things of life in this age of scientific development and relative affluence.
  I am sorry that more hon. Members are not present, but I suppose that there are good reasons for it. I plead with the Government to think again and to try to make this a retrospective increase of £2 a week—double what they propose.
  6.10 p.m.
  Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: We have enjoyed a number of extremely interesting contributions this afternoon and I am delighted to congratulate our new colleague, the hon. Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce) on his very thoughtful and well-informed speech.
  Although we have a small attendance, those who read the Report of our debate will say that in this Parliament there are a number of serious, generous and well-informed Members on both sides of the House who are anxious to contribute on questions of social security. For this we must be particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who gives us such splendid leadership in this matter and has inspired so many Members to appreciate the enormous importance and scope of this subject.
  Even in a Bill of this complexity there are only two main subjects: one is benefits and the other is contributions. Where benefits are concerned it would be difficult to better the way in which my right hon. Friend is distributing the funds which he has been able to procure.
  I listened with great interest to the hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) and to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on the subject of family allowances. I agree fully with the gist of their remarks, although I do not always follow them in detail; but it has always been understood that family allowances are outside the scope of national insurance, and we can enjoy further debates on the subject of family allowances on other occasions.
  Granted that this is a Bill primarily about national insurance benefits, I feel
  1064
  bound to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and to say that I think his sense of priorities could hardly be improved upon. We have a significant increase in basic benefits. Of course, we must regret that for one reason or another we seem to be lumbered with an administrative system which, try as the public officials may—and I know how dedicated they are—does not seem to be quite as responsive to changes in the cost of living or to the intention of this House as the systems in use on the Continent. I hope that study is being given to the introduction of electronic data processing so that on future occasions changes in national insurance benefits can be introduced immediately they are decided upon.
  In the Bill we have especially favourable treatment for the chronic sick. We have a significant change for the better in the operation of the earnings rule. Increments for deferred retirement are made better—and quite right, too. We have an age addition for the very old, which indicates the comprehension and the compassion of my right hon. Friend; and—something for which I have campaigned and which I am delighted to see—the possibility of voluntary withdrawal from contributions to national insurance for men at the age of sixty. It has always seemed to me to be an anomaly that since 1940 the retirement age for women has been 60 and for men 65 or later. This is a bed of Procrustes. Everybody must realise that people's life spans are bound to differ, and national insurance ought to take note of this fact and to make it permissible for people to retire at the time which is suitable to them and not at the time which is suitable for the system.
  Coming to the question of contributions. It is in the area of contributions this this Bill is momentous and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said, it introduces significant new considerations. The objections that have been raised this afternoon to the idea of the earnings-related contribution were basically two. One is that it hits the average man in particular. Of course, if one is trying to introduce a Bill which gives special benefit to minority groups, inevitably it is the average man who will be relatively less favourably treated. I have often argued the case for minorities

  1065
  which are tending to be forgotten in our society with the electoral pressures which have resulted from universal suffrage. In this House we must never forget the minority groups who are not able to reach us by electoral pressure but who nevertheless have a command on our attention.
  Much the most significant objection, I think, to the idea of the earnings-related contribution for a flat-rate benefit is that it represents a new departure, and its unfamiliarity makes it questionable. I am surprised to hear it questioned by the Labour Party. I cannot resist giving a welcome to a system which will take from each according to his capacity and give to each according to his need. If hon. Members opposite will recall some of the basic tenets of their faith, they will realise that what my right hon. Friend is doing in this Bill is precisely in accordance with what they have always clamoured for. But it is a change which I feel needs to be welcomed from these benches, too, because it is a significant advance in the direction of what I call the social contract.
  Of course, an earnings-related contribution to finance a basic benefit is a social security tax. But what is wrong with that? The Welfare State is financed by social security taxes at the moment. One does not need simply to allude to the 18 per cent. subsidy for national insurance. One has only to think of the way in which we pay for education—the enormous subsidy to education from the Exchequer; the way that we pay for the health services; and, since the Exchequer itself is largely dependent upon taxes of an earnings-related character, we may say that we have had earnings-related contributions for basic benefits for many years. This Bill tacitly admits the fact, and that is a step in the right direction.
  Let us ask ourselves: what is a contribution to national insurance? Is it money which goes into a personal fund of a capital nature and which builds up a particular personal entitlement? Or is it in effect part of the general revenue of the Government? Much of the misunderstanding and the disputes which arose out of the introduction of the earnings-related scheme by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames were due to the fact that no clear answer seemed to be obtainable to this question, whether the earnings-related
  1066
  contributions were a build-up of personal entitlements or were simply a way of boosting the ailing finances of the national insurance scheme. Possibly the right answer was that they were both.
  I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend make the point this afternoon that the money-transfer element in the earnings-related scheme hinged entirely on the Exchequer contribution, and that the personal contributions that were paid into the earnings-related section of the national insurance pension scheme were strictly related to the benefits which were eventually to be drawn out. Nevertheless the income from the earnings-related contributions was very welcome, no doubt, to the Government of the time in keeping national insurance in some sort of balance. I do not think the Secretary of State is neglecting the income that accrues from increasing current contributions as a way of financing the increased benefits which are set out in this Bill. In fact, he said it quite clearly this afternoon.
  We must recognise and not cavil at the fact that the earnings-related national insurance contribution is a social security tax. It is money which goes straight into a system of money transfer or redistribution of income—or repartition, as it is called in France—and a perfectly respectable and straightforward system it is.
  Nevertheless, that is not to say that there does not remain room for the buildup of premiums or the build-up of personal contributions of a capital nature. I look forward, therefore—I hope it will come in a few weeks—to the White Paper which we have been promised by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is giving particular study to the future of earnings-related pension benefits, whether by a State-sponsored scheme or by approved private schemes.
  I hope that, when we eventually have these two systems running side by side, it will be clear to the public that part of the earnings-related contribution is of a revenue character and goes straight, in effect, to the Inland Revenue in order to meet the Government's outgoings on current commitments in the Welfare State; and that the other part of the earnings-related contribution is not so much a contribution as a premium, and is purely of a personal character, without any significant money transfer element. We have perhaps a job of education to do here,

  1067
  to show that in effect we are splitting national insurance into two parts, the capital account and the revenue account. We must show plainly how the money contributed will in future be dealt with in entirely separate ways.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin—I am glad to see her now in her place—used the rather strong word "swindle". I appeal to her not to use that word again, not because I think that it is particularly damaging electorally but because I feel that in using it she does, perhaps, betray a certain lack of penetrating understanding of what is happening to the contributions of the public in the Welfare State. The hon. Lady is someone to whom we on these benches listen with a great deal of enjoyment. I assure her that, when her party breaks up—as is inevitable in due course now it has finished its work—she will be very welcome on these benches.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: I shall have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, in spite of his attractively phrased invitation.
  Sir B. Rhys-Williams: I assure her that she will find the atmosphere extremely congenial. Her approach, which is humane and well informed, is exactly what we admire, and, what is more, she will find here a particular admirer of her views on the subject of increases in family allowances.
  I know that, when my right hon. Friend turns his head in my direction, he fears that he may at any moment find himself looking down the barrel of a gun. There are some subjects, for instance, the preservation of pension rights, on which he knows that I might even be so mad as to fire it. I hasten to assure him, therefore, that there are no severe dangers ahead for him even in the minor provisions of the Bill, except, perhaps, in one or two respects which I shall now mention.
  It is a pity that we are, once again, treating the self-employed as though they were undesirable extras who had drifted on to the scene, gypsies, as it were, whom we do not quite know how to tackle. I realise that they present a serious administrative problem. I should rather call it a challenge. I hope that our public officials will find themselves equal to
  1068
  this challenge and that they will be able to reintegrate the self-employed with the general body of the population. Putting them into a separate category, putting them on a flat-rate contribution basis because there is no other way of coping with them, is deeply unsatisfactory. I think that my right hon. Friend knows my views about that.
  I regret also the inclusion of Clause 7, which singles out the occupational pensioner for unfavourable treatment in regard to unemployment. I recognise that there is a certain misuse of funds and that there are some black sheep among occupational pensioners, who apply for unemployment benefit when they have no serious interest in ever again securing employment. But I think that the number will be sharply reduced now that it is made possible for them to withdraw from contributing to national insurance at the age of 60.
  None the less, it seems to me a pity that the occupational pensioner should be singled out for this type of treatment, when somebody else, perhaps an annuitant, a person living on life savings by running down his capital, or someone who is, in one way or another independent, is apparently to escape the provisions of the Clause.
  I realise that it could be said that, since we have moved forward to the recognition of the view that an occupational pension is a form of deferred pay, a man who is living on deferred pay from his previous employment cannot be said to be unemployed. That is a type of argument which I might advance, but I think it dangerous for my right hon. Friend to do so until we have had a much longer look at the implications.
  All I say at this stage, not wishing to prolong our proceedings, is that I hope that my right hon. Friend, having reconsidered what he has set down in Clause 7, the unfairness of it and, in particular, the administrative difficulties, will withdraw it when the Bill goes into Committee.
  The right way to tackle this question is to tighten up the procedure for ascertaining whether these people are genuinely seeking employment. It is not good enough simply to say, "We cannot solve the problem whether you are really

  1069
  looking for work. Therefore, we shall hit you whether you deserve it or not and, of course, you can afford it". That is not the way to approach the subject of occupational pensions of national insurance benefits. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said, it introduces in another unexpected quarter the means test practice from which we hope ultimately to be able to escape altogether.
  This long Bill abandons the old basis of national insurance—and good riddance. We are moving forward to a basis for the relationship between the individual and the State which will enable the State to do what the conscience of the British people requires. It will no longer be necessary—because it was impossible to raise the flat-rate contribution any more—to hold down benefits below what the public wishes them to be or to be forced to resort to unfortunate dodges of every kind to get the money from here, there and everywhere. In future, what is needed on revenue account will be raised on the basis of capacity to pay, and I hope that what is needed on capital account will be raised through the stimulus which this Government will give to genuine savings.
  I do not consider that the contributory principle will be lost by the introduction of a social security tax. The whole conception of our relationship to the community as expressed in terms of cash should grow up, and we should get away from strictly arithmetical considerations. A tax is a contribution to society. This Bill recognises that fact, and I welcome it because it takes us a significant step towards the achievement of a genuine and satisfactory social contract.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I join my right hon. and hon. Friends in extending a general welcome to the Bill, and I shall restrict my remarks to three broad points, one applying to a part of the Bill in the immediate term, the other two applying to a more futuristic approach to, so to speak, the road along which the Bill begins to lead us.
  I confess to being in something of a dilemma over Clause 7. I must declare an interest here in occupational pensions. My dilemma arises from the fact that, on the one hand, I can very well see the
  1070
  equity and justice of what is proposed in the Bill and I recognise that it is right to restrict unemployment benefit to occupational pensioners, since this has been anomaly in the system which has developed over the years, but, on the other hand, with my devotion to the extension of occupational pensions schemes, I am a little afraid that they will be seen as being singled out in what is proposed under Clause 7.
  Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to think just once more about whether it is possible, by administrative methods within his Department, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams), to eliminate the necessity for the Clause. If I am told that it is not possible to do what I have suggested, I must reluctantly come to the conclusion that there could be misuse of public funds, and shall be obliged to go along with the Clause. But I believe that there is possibly an area of opportunity still remaining for my right hon. Friend, and I hope that he will pursue it very thoroughly.
  My other two points are points for the future. The flexibility of the age at which a person retires under an occupational scheme has always seemed to be one of the advantages of such a scheme. I use this factor to turn my attention to the whole question of the age of retirement. Must the age of 65 for payment of the national insurance pension go on being a sacred cow for all time? Is it right that a woman should continue to have the differential age of 60 applied to her?
  There are broadly two schools of thought on this question. One says that now that we are all much fitter and are living much longer it would be a good idea if we did not retire until 70. There is an equally appealing school of thought that says that as we grow much richer as a nation it should be normal to retire at 60 and enjoy the benefits of retirement five years earlier. It is probably true that 65 as a normal retirement age is with us for a long time, but it appears from the latest statistics that I can gather that the average retirement age under an occupational pension scheme is now about 63.
  I know that any move by the Government to reduce the general age at which national pensions are paid would be

  1071
  costly. If there is any recasting of the difference between national insurance provision and provision by occupational schemes, and if the Government retain 65 as the normal date of retirement, should not occupational schemes progressively reduce the retirement age? This would give the opportunity for earlier retirement, and then perhaps three, four or five years after retirement there would be a supplement to an occupational scheme pension in the shape of the national insurance pension.
  There continues to be a considerable delay between the announcement of the intention to raise pensions and actually paying the increased pension. I have heard successive Governments over a long period explain why it is impossible to shorten that period. Does my right hon. Friend have evidence that we are using that modern device, the computer, to the maximum? I am no great believer in computers as such. But I understand that there are European countries which manage to pay their pensions rather more quickly after announcing them than we do. Governments are suspect in the eyes of many people on this subject. The people do not understand why there should be such a lengthy delay, and I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider this question and make quite certain that there is no way of shortening the period.
  We are now committing ourselves to a biennial review of pensions. Is not there an argument for an annual review? Well within the period of two years considerable pressures build up from a variety of organisations. On this occasion we are paying the increase one month before we were due to pay. I believe that the pressures will continue, but with an annual review they would not have the same opportunity to occur as they do with a biennial review, and with an annual review there would be less fear among the elderly of the value of the pension being eroded by inflation.
  Those are my general observations on the Bill, which I broadly very much welcome.
  6.36 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services on the creative ideas in the Bill. While he and the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs.
  1072
  Shirley Williams) were talking so fluently I came to the conclusion that the longer I live the less I seem to know. I always felt that I knew quite a lot about the problems of social insurance and the people who live in this country, subscribe to it, and very often are supported by it. But I have come to the conclusion that with so many new things I know hardly anything.
  Therefore, I shall take refuge in saying that I congratulate my right hon. Friend, adding that if some of the provisions do not work out as he hopes and believes they may I am certain that he will be strong enough, with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, to alter things where they do not go in the direction in which he hopes they will. When we introduce a new type of system it is very difficult to see very far into the future how the new ideas will work out. It is magnificent that my right hon. Friend has been so creative. If things do not all work out satisfactorily, we must have another go. It is tremendously important in legislation that we should not be rigid. We have tended in Parliament in the past to be so rigid that many injustices have continued unnecessarily.
  I should like to know a little more about the people who opt out of contributions because their incomes are too low to pay them. There is a large number of people in this category, and they are just mentioned in the House from time to time. Is a survey being made to see whether it is possible to help people who are employed at too low a salary or wage, so that we can discover whether they could be covered by the schemes?
  It is very distracting to people to know that they cannot afford the contributions which would enable them to draw retirement pensions at the appropriate time and, when such people finally retire, the supplementary benefits which will have to be paid will increase the burden on the Treasury. In some way, the House has not taken sufficient notice of the problems of these people, so I would like to know whether this side of the subject is being examined. Perhaps, with his creative ideas, my right hon. Friend may find some solution. I hope so, because this is a tremendously important matter.
  The problem of increasing family allowances seems to be all mixed up

  1073
  with the Treasury, and taxation, and the rest. I have always thought—though I do not seem ever to have achieved anything about it—that when we get reductions in taxation which are very welcome and which take a large number out of the category of taxpayers, it is rather depressing for those taken out later to see those remaining in getting very necessary and welcome reductions. Public memory is very short, and these people do not remember for long that they were taken out of the tax-paying category. Then they feel that they are being rather neglected by Governments.
  Could we not, when giving taxation relief, give something in the way of family allowance to make those people feel that though they are no longer having to pay taxes they are still regarded as a valuable section of the community in their contribution to the national wealth? As my right hon. Friend seems to have got on very well with the Treasury, perhaps he could discuss this subject with that Department.
  I am devoted also to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am always willing to take part in putting a little extra pressure on him. I have had a considerable exchange of letters with him, and some of the correspondence is very nice. Secretaries of State cannot say, "I have lost the battle with the Treasury," but many of us in the House know when these battles have been lost. We could do a lot to bring about greater co-ordination in order to get done some of the things we want done. Chancellors of the Exchequer take a lot of notice of their financial advisers: I should like to get at the financial advisers.
  I am very sorry to have heard only a small part of what I understand was throughout a very interesting speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce). He commented on what will happen to people on small fixed incomes if we go into the Common Market, and it is important that that matter should be on the record before we take final decisions. It is equally important that when we legislate to alter the method of support grant to farmers we remember also that the position of those living on small fixed incomes can equally be affected. If we alter the support grant we may find
  1074
  ourselves with the need for an annual review rather than a biennial review.
  This is not only a practical problem but an anxiety problem. People living on small fixed incomes, who have done so much for the country in the past, find that the life that has to be led today is very difficult. I do not think that my last letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer was at all private so I will just put part of it on record, because my right hon. Friend is a very approachable and very humane individual. In writing me a very nice letter about something quite different, he put at the end:
  "You can be assured that I will not forget those in whom you have such an interest."
  That seems to give an opening to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  During all the years I have been in the House of Commons I do not remember our having such a very good Social Security team. I feel that very genuinely, and I want to say it. But the team's position in relation to overall policy may be not at the top of the priority list. It is up to us to support our Social Security team, so that those engaged on the wider issues, which we all recognise, are not allowed to lose sight of the plight of those on small fixed incomes. We are attempting to give them a better and a happier life. It is no good our thinking just of increased economic advantage, if that be the case, in going into the Common Market. These people, too, must be remembered. We must remember, too, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham said, that most of those on small fixed incomes will not live long enough to see the whole developing future if we enter the Community.
  Therefore, if the members of our Social Security team want any help I am sure that the House will be delighted to give it to them. I ask my right hon. Friend to make quite certain that the Minister of Agriculture and the Chancellor of the Exchequer know that the whole House will be equally interested, when the negotiations are being discussed, in what is to happen to these people for whom we have to take a very heavy responsibility.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: This has been a stimulating and suitably controversial debate. It has also been notable for the much less combative, not to say quiescent, mood of

  1075
  the Secretary of State. In the recent past he has been at times very excitable. Today he kept his cool remarkably well. This may be because the criticisms of the Bill have come not only from this side of the House. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd Carpenter) and the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) were kindly to the Secretary of State but also somewhat critical of his Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will take seriously the criticisms expressed on both sides. I thought that he was in danger at one stage, so fierce was some of the criticism on his side, of suffering the fate of Oscar Wilde who after the first night of one of his plays said:
  "The play was a great success, but the audience was a failure!"
  The debate has been characterised also by the engaging and effective maiden speech of the hon. Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce). The House will look forward to hearing him again. He has what appears to be a reasonably safe seat. It may well be, therefore, that we shall hear him on many occasions in the future. My prejudice was aroused in that one of his shrewdest points related to the European Economic Community. I hope that he will make that point again not only in the House but also in the country as frequently as his commitments allow.
  We also had a most eloquent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley). He recognised that there are important new propositions in the Bill which make it an extremely important Measure from the point of view of all who are chronically sick and disabled. All of us marvel at the way in which he is conquering—not to say has conquered—his own severe disablement.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Morris: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was, as always, thoughtful and constructive, as well as deeply informed. We have come to expect from him important interventions when discussing these subjects. I know that he is listened to with great attention on both sides of the House.
  1076
  The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have a very personal interest in one of the propositions in the Bill. As he said, in cases where a man is longterm sick the wife often becomes the main breadwinner. His proposal is to apply to her earnings the tapered retirement pension earnings rule, eased to £9·50 in place of the all or nothing rule which at present exceeds the increase paid to her if her earnings exceed £3·10.
  My hon. Friend was kind enough to recall that this proposition was originally made by me in the original draft of my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill. I transferred the proposition to my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) so that it could be included in the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill in the last Parliament. It seemed then that my right hon. Friend's was a far stronger vessel than the one I was hoping to steer through parliamentray waters. Nevertheless, the cargo I gave to my right hon. Friend went to the bottom of the sea and it is with great pleasure that I welcome its reappearance.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It has been salvaged.
  Mr. Morris: Indeed. But as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames knows, this is a profoundly important proposition for the wives of men who become long-term sick.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter Mr. Boyd-Carpenter indicated assent.
  Mr. Morris: The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the proposal for an attendance allowance was also a feature of my right hon. Friend's Bill; I note also that my proposal for an Attendance Allowance Board, which again I transferred from my Bill to his National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, has been happily revived by the Secretary of State. I am glad also that Miss Mary Grieves, Honorary Director of the Disablement Income Group, has been appointed to membership of the Attendance Allowance Board by the right hon. Gentleman.
  I welcome the increase in the attendance allowance, but it cannot be considered as a comprehensive reimbursement of the likely costs incurred. It can only be a limited contribution in a case

  1077
  of, for example, respiratory aided polio, since £4·80 will not pay for very much more than two to three hours of attendance per day and will not enable the husband who has given up his job to look after his wife to return to work. Nevertheless, it is a very important beginning and, with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, I confirm that we shall be using this as a lever to improve the living standards of those who are very severely disabled.
  The House as a whole has welcomed the important new departure in introducing the invalidity allowances. I notice that the allowance will be £1 if the incapacity begins before the age of 35; 60p if it begins before the age of 45; and 30p if it begins before the age of 55 for women and 60 for men. Perhaps we can be told how many claimants the Secretary of State expects there to be in each of these categories. I am convinced that the onset of severe disablement is heaviest in the third category, that is, among those who will qualify for a weekly invalidity allowance of only 30p.
  It has been unkindly said that this is the equivalent only of a box of chocolates for the severely disabled or what someone unhappily called a donation. If it is true that the largest group of beneficiaries is to receive the smallest of the three allowances, it would seem as though the Treasury has had a much bigger victory over the right hon. Gentleman than has so far been suggested in the debate. Nevertheless, we welcome this very modest beginning to the recognition of the special problems of the long-term sick and disabled. The House must, however, appreciate that most of the chronically sick and disabled will not receive the invalidity allowances. They are allowances only for contributors. But the contributors are the few and the non-contributors are the many among the chronically sick and disabled. I am impressed by what has been put to every hon. Member by the Disablement Income Group. D.I.G. rightly argues that the socially just basis of provision is need.
  The Group says that the Bill does not end present discriminations and will still leave four categories of disabled people: those whose needs are well recognised by war pensions and industrial disablement pensions and their various supplements; those who qualify for the invalidity pension, which is so variable in
  1078
  its relationship to past earnings, and, where appropriate, the attendance allowance; those who qualify only for the attendance allowance and in some cases also have supplementary benefit; and those for whom the Bill makes no provision, probably more than a million, of whom perhaps half are of working age or less. In the absence of provisions in the Bill, what does the Secretary of State propose to do for these people? I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary, who takes a deep personal interest in these matters, will comment on the submissions of the Disablement Income Group when he comes to reply.
  Disablement is almost always another word for poverty in Britain today. If one wishes to find a deprived child, one should first find a disabled father. We must ask ourselves what the Bill will do to help the deprived children of disabled fathers. It is extremely melancholy for disabled people that unemployment is rising so rapidly. As the House knows, there are now 814,000 able-bodied people seeking work, but unemployment among employable disabled people is well upwards of 12 per cent. The House should be reminded that disabled people much prefer to be taxpayers than to continue, as most of them have to do, as supplementary pensioners. When things are difficult for the able-bodied, they become even more difficult for the disabled. It is deeply tragic that we are likely to see a substantial increase in the numbers expected to qualify for the invalidity allowance because of rising unemployment.
  Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman speaks with such authority on this subject that I ought to intervene here, because rising unemployment, even if it occurs, will not bring into benefit larger numbers of invalidity pensioners. The invalidity allowance is payable to those who are sick for more than six months and does not reach over into unemployment.
  Mr. Morris: I am saying that many beneficiaries of the invalidity allowance will cherish the hope of returning to paid employment, but there will be many who will have to continue on the invalidity allowance because there are now fewer jobs available for the able-bodied let alone those who are disabled. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman now accepts this very real and sombre possibility.

  1079
  There have been frequent references to the fact that contributions are to be substantially increased, and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) expressed deep concern about this. We have had another campaign in the war of statistics in the House. As usual, it was not fully established who won. However, I ask the Under-Secretary of State why the maximum increase in contribution, an increase of 65p, should apply in exactly the same way to the man earning £42 a week, £50, £60, £70 and even £80 a week. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames endorsed the arguments recently advanced by the General Secretary of the T.U.C., Mr. Vic Feather, who said that it seems wrong that exactly the same new imposte should fall on a man whose weekly earnings are £42 a week and the man whose earnings are £80 a week. I hope that the Under-Secretary will find it possible to comment on that.
  The result of the Budget and the social service charges combined is that a man earning £40 a week and with two children will make a net loss of £14 a year, while the man earning £20,000 a year will make a net gain of a staggering £2,063. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is present, and no doubt he will consult his right hon. Friends about the morality of this contrast in treatment.
  As I have said, the right hon. Gentleman was extremely equable in his introduction to the debate. But recently he has used some extremely exciteable language when commenting on the trade union movement. He has even accused the trade union movement of stabbing the old-age pensioner in the back. In that speech he gave gratuitous offence to the trade union movement. Of course, the movement is now comprehensively offended by the Government and the offence given by the right hon. Gentleman was merely a drop in the ocean. Those manning Labour's committee rooms in localities throughout the country know how offended trade uunionists have become. They are being helped by trade unionists who previously did not recognise the importance of political as well as industrial activity.
  I congratulate the Transport and General Workers' Union and other unions and co-operative organisations for cam-
  1080
  paigning, from their own resources, to improve the standard of living of retirement pensioners. Many trade unionists help elderly members of their families. This is one of the realities of life for working people. If they are working, they help those who are not. For they know well that it is impossible for a retirement pensioner to live decently on the present pension. Moreover, it is the average trade unionist, who sees himself as belonging to the next generation of elderly people in need.
  The right hon. Gentleman tiled to imply that the trade unions were responsible for rising prices. That is not so. Nor is it fair. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is not a trade unionist. But it is the right hon. Gentleman who is now needlessly increasing food prices. What is more, food forms a large part of the pensioner's cost of living and the right hon. Gentleman is not only introducing levies on food imports but increasing living costs in other ways. It is the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) who is increasing the cost of housing. What kind of trade unionist is he? When the Labour Party were in Government it was always Ministers who were to blame if the cost of electricity, gas and other fuels went up. What kind of trade unionist is the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. John Davies)? He has spent most of his life as a professional anti-trade unionist. And again, what kind of trade unionists are the hon. Members for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)?
  They regard even Tory trade unionists as subversive. The right hon. Gentleman must also appreciate that the Tory trade unionist is just as prepared to accept the increases in pay negotiated by his trade union as are other trade unionists. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not return to the extreme language he has used in attacking trade unionists over their attitude to retirement pensioners.
  Dame Irene Ward: As a non-trade unionist, and since everyone else seems to have settled quietly, may I say that I am devoted to many trade unionists, but they could help the country a great deal more if they advocated a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we are getting a little wide of the subject. The hon. Gentleman did rather bring it upon himself. Perhaps we can get back to the Bill.
  Mr. Morris: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I have no doubt whatever that the trade union movement will take note of all that has been said in this debate.
  Dame Irene Ward: And my point.
  Mr. Morris: Of everything that has been said. I naturally hope that it will give special attention to the points I raised on its behalf. The main point of our attitude to the elderly is that we let people survive, but on the whole this is all that we do. The proposed increase in the retirement pension will just about have been wiped out before it is paid. The retirement pensioners, who suffered badly during last winter, look with no joy to next winter. A high proportion of our 7 million pensioners just cannot share fully in the life of the community.
  Mr. Victor Feather, General Secretary of the T.U.C., has said that the purpose of graduated contributions should be to earn graduated pensions. He said that the level of graduated contribution bears no relation to the totally indequate pension provided by the graduated scheme. He goes on:
  "Yet the Government are now proposing to increase the graduated contribution still further, in order to increase flat rate benefits."
  Mrs. Marion Green, acting General Secretary of the National Federation of Old-age Pensions Associations, has said that the association is concerned that by September inflation will have entirely eroded the increase. She has pointed out also that many pensioners will not receive the full value because the new rate of supplementary benefits will not rise by the same amount. This is a point of great importance for very large numbers of elderly people. Nor do criticisms come only from such organisations. Here is another comment:
  "I believe that the Chancellor has not done nearly enough for those at the lower end of the income scale. But what is really tragic is the lack of any sort of regional element…"
  That comes from Mr. Keith Rassan, National Chairman of the Pressure Group for Economic and Social Toryism, or
  1082
  P.E.S.T., as hon. Gentlemen opposite may like to call it.
  I hope the Under-Secretary will comment on the proposition that there should be more frequent reviews of pension and welfare benefits and also on the proposal that has been made, especially strongly by The Guardian, that we should compile a special cost of living index for pensioners and invalids.
  The main difference between the two sides of the House is that this side has made proposals, and has a policy, for improving the relative standard of living of all retirement pensioners and others in special need. The party opposite did not know whether to support that policy or to oppose it. The country wants to know the Government's long-term policy for improving the standard of living of elderly people in relative terms. I am reminded of what Sir William Oastler called: "…the serene satisfaction with the status quo." Some of the right hon. Gentlemen's colleagues in the present Government, much more than he, seem to suffer from that serene satisfaction. We shall subject this Bill to deep scrutiny in Committee and shall seek to improve it. We shall seek the review of many other provisions than those I have mentioned. Above all we shall seek to improve the Bill not only for the benefit of elderly people but of so many other groups who are in special need.
  7.0 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): The House has listened with pleasure to the first contribution to our debates by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce). We all echo his tribute to his predecessor, the late Captain Henry Kerby. My hon. Friend spoke on this subject with obvious knowledge, assurance and compassion, and we look forward to hearing further contributions from him on this and other subjects.
  It has been an interesting, thoughtful debate in which we have listened to six contributions from this side of the House and to three from the back benches opposite, and I shall deal as quickly as I can with some of the questions which have been put to me.
  The selective increases which my right hon. Friend described at length are

  1083
  among the key hall-marks of the Bill, and they have been referred to in every speech. Incidentally, I am sure that my right hon. Friend and I, together with our Treasury colleague, were grateful for the warm tribute which came from my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). We all hope to continue in her good books.
  The significance of the selective increases is that they allocate priority so as to bring more help where the need is greatest, especially to the chronic sick and the over-80s. They do this by categories within the national insurance scheme, and they follow the precedent set by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in the preferential treatment within national insurance for the children of widows.
  The Bill brings in the existing chronic sick and the existing over-80s. It is not just a plan for the future. It deals with those who, had these provisions been in operation, would have benefited from them in the past. It also carries through into the war pensions scheme and the industrial injuries scheme these new selective increases. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) said, it maintains the preferential arrangements which we have in our war pensions and industrial injuries schemes.
  The Bill also reflects in the supplementary benefits scheme. Here, perhaps, I might deal with the age addition point made by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams). There will be a 25p addition where there is a person over the age of 80 in the household. As for the chronic sick package, in many cases the supplementary benefits scheme, which is tailored to people's individual needs, reflects the additional needs and requirements of the chronic sick. In addition to that, the figures for which the hon. Lady asked are broadly that, in the case of the invalidity allowance, only about one-third of those now getting sickness benefit and will be getting the invalidity allowance are also getting supplementary benefit. In other words, about two-thirds will benefit from the proposals in the Bill.
  Then I come to the figures for which the hon. Member for Manchester,
  1084
  Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) has asked—the number of people likely to qualify for the invalidity allowance in the three categories. The estimate is that, at the £1 rate for those who become chronically sick or disabled earlier in life, there are 60,000; for the 60p rate, 70,000; and for the 30p rate, 220,000.
  I turn next to the points made by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe, whom we gladly acknowledge as a fellow architect in our arrangements for the chronic sick and the disabled. As my right hon. Friend said, this Bill and the earlier 1970 National Insurance Act represent a four-pronged assault on the cash problems of the chronically sick. There was the attendance allowance in the Act last year which starts in December and there are the three aspects of cash allowances in this Bill, namely, the age of onset allowance, the improved arrangements for the working wife of the disabled man, and those for their children.
  To give one example of the increases which are possible and which some families will get under the Bill, I take a man who became chronically sick at the age of 30. who has two children, and whose wife earns up to £9·50. At present, including family allowance, this family receives £11·20. After September, under the proposals in the Bill, the family will receive £16·60, an increase of nearly 50 per cent.
  I come next to the short-term benefits, especially the earnings-related supplement. I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for Hitchin again talking about a swindle. Some time ago, I remember how the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) admonished us and criticised us very severely. He said that in a debate on social security it was damaging to talk about swindles. I am surprised that the hon. Lady has not learned this very wise lesson from her right hon. Friend. I have learned it, and I am determined not to use the word again.
  All the money being raised is going to pay benefits, and, by "all", I mean every single penny. There will be no reduction for people on earnings-related supplement when the change is made in May, 1973. We intend to preserve their entitlement. In the vast majority of cases,

  1085
  the growth in earnings which will take place meantime will more than compensate for the fact that, on the higher bracket of earnings, the earnings-related supplement will be at the rate of only 15 per cent.
  What it comes to basically is the allocation of priorities within the scheme. I admit freely that this means a modest re-allocation of priorities as between short and long-term benefits. The welcome that the House has given to the chronic sick package and the provision for the over-80s suggests that we are on the right lines.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), who also paid a tribute to the package and equally can claim some of the authorship, asked about the gaps still existing. My right hon. Friend acknowledged freely that this is but a start and that there is much more to be done. One of the categories mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, the disabled housewife, who will be helped to some degree by the attendance allowance, is a category of individuals we have very much in mind in considering what our next steps should be.
  The other package is the selective increase for the over-80s. The numbers involved are about 1·1 million, of which no fewer than 70 per cent. are women. The right hon. Member for Sowerby has often told us that poverty in this country is basically amongst women. This has been one of the criteria which influenced the Government to propose this addition for people over 80.
  My right hon. Friend mentioned two particular aspects in the Bill. First, those who are at present either getting no pension or getting a pension which is lower than the old persons' pension who will be brought in at the age of 80; second, the age addition of 25p which will be available not only for the full retirement pensioner but for the over-80 pensioner.
  I should like to give the House one example of an increase which will take place. A married couple on full pension, bothof whom are over 80, now get £8·10. Under the proposals in the Bill, they will receive £10·20; in other words, an increase of 26 per cent.
  Other examples—there are many examples of the selective increase—are the earnings rule and the increments, both of
  1086
  which will provide additional encouragement for those who work after retirement age. I am glad that those proposals have been welcomed on both sides of the House.
  I turn to what this package will cost and how it will be met. This point has been mentioned by most right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames expressed some reservations, he said that, however it is arranged and whatever it is called, it involves a transfer of resources from the working to the retired population. It is, always has been and will continue under the Bill to be, a pay-as-you-go scheme in which we pay the pensions of our grandfathers and fathers, or, more likely, our grandmothers and mothers—because women live longer—in the hope and expectation that eventually when we retire the then working generation will pay our pension. In this sense, it is a contributory scheme rather than an insurance scheme in the way we normally understand the word "insurance". However, it is a scheme in which the contribution creates a title to benefit. That will continue under the Bill. We are trying fairly and squarely to meet the fair distribution of this cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) particularly mentioned that point. In other words, it is based on the ability to pay.
  We are criticised for this by hon. Gentlemen opposite, so let us look at the comparison of the contribution increases in the Bill and in 1969. The actual increase in the basic level of pension and other benefits in the Bill is twice as great as in 1969. A pound under this bill compares with 50p in the 1969 Act.
  Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the only fair comparison is in real terms? If we start talking purely in money terms we have no real basis of comparison at all.
  Mr. Dean: I accept that. I am dealing with the other argument which has been put from the Opposition. Although the Bill provides twice has big an increase in money terms—I fully concede this—as the 1969 Act, I want to remind the House what the increases in contributions will be this time compared with 1969.
  In 1969 the lower paid contributed an increase of 5p, whereas on this occasion

  1087
  they will pay no increase whatsoever. In 1969 the £20-a-week man paid an increase of 12½p. On this occasion he will pay an increase of only 3p. In 1969 the £30-a-week man paid an increase of 38p. He will now pay an increase of only 15p.
  Mr. Orme: Why stop there?
  Mr. Dean: I am going on. The £42-ormore-a-week man in 1969 paid an increase of 38p, which was the ceiling. Under this Bill he will pay 65p. So only about a quarter of the working population will be paying a bigger increase than in 1969 for twice the money increase in the benefit being offered. That means that three-quarters of the working population will be paying less than the increase in 1969. In the face of those contribution figures, it comes ill from hon. Gentlemen opposite to make the criticisms which have been made.
  There is also an increase in the Exchequer contribution which, broadly, is being restored to a position from which it had slipped under the last Administration-18 per cent. These are substantial figures. It means that the Exchequer contribution—the contribution from the taxpayer—will go up from £491 million in 1971–72 to £537 million in 1973–74.
  Another significant point is the comparison between the percentage contribution in this Bill and the previous Administration's Bill which the hon. Member for Hitchin mentioned. The contribution in this Bill is 4·35 per cent., whereas the previous Administration in their Bill envisaged a contribution of 6¾ per cent.—substantially more.
  The hon. Member for Hitchin said that only a scheme of that kind held out hope of dealing with poverty most effectively in future. I fear that the hon. Lady forgot that that Bill would exclude existing pensions entirely. The significant point about my right hon. Friend's proposals is that they will bring immediate help—this is not a plan for the future—to those who are most in need.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not entirely left the question of contributions. Will he explain why the £42-a-week man should pay exactly the same increase of 65p as the £80-a-week man?
  Mr. Dean: For the same reason as that used by his right hon. Friends. They also had a ceiling on the contributions, because they felt that it was not reasonable to expect employees to pay over a certain level. The reason which held good for his right hon. Friends holds good for this Bill, too. If the hon. Gentleman wants confirmation, I am sure that he can get it from his right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby.
  Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dean: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps it would be more convenient if I continued. I think that I know the point which he has in mind.
  I turn now to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) about the unemployment benefit for occupational pensioners. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay said that he, albeit reluctantly, would agree with the proposal in the Bill if he were assured that it was not possible to deal with the misuse of public funds, as he described it, by the availability-for-work test. I assure the House we have looked with the greatest care to see whether it would be possible to deal with this misuse of benefit by redefining that test. The National Insurance Advisory Committee has looked at this matter with extreme care but has reached the conclusion that it would not be possible to deal with the situation in that way.
  There are strong reasons against dealing with the matter in that way. First, there is the tendency for men at the age of 60 retiring with an occupational pension to move to another part of the country where there are limited opportunities for sedentary work of the type to which they have been accustomed. But even if work were available, and they were anxious to pass the test, in many cases an employer would naturally prefer a younger man, if one is available. Equally, I think that it would be right and proper for the employment exchange if it is asked to advise, to suggest the younger man, rather than the older. Those are the main reasons why the

  1089
  availability-for-work test will not provide the solution that we have teen seeking to this problem.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South welcomed the voluntary contribution which we propose for the non-employed person from the age of 60.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before my hon. Friend leaves that, will he deal with the point, which is formally made by Lord Collison in his minority report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, that this provision is a departure from the principle that national insurance benefits should not be subject to a means test?
  Mr. Dean: I was going to answer that. I wanted to deal first with the voluntary contribution point. Many of the criticisms made when the proposal first saw the light of day related not so much to the receipt of unemployment benefit as to the fact that the person concerned had to continue to pay a compulsory contribution whether he wanted to or not. It is to meet that criticism that the Bill proposes that a person who is non-employed at the age of 60 or over shall not have to pay a contribution. The choice will be his, and I think that this provision goes a long way to deal with the criticism levelled at the proposal previously.
  The final point is that mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. I put it to the House in this way. In the circumstances, what was the choice before the Government? Having satisfied ourselves that the availability-for-work test was not a runner, we had the choice of doing nothing, or of proposing to the House the course set out in the Bill, albeit with its disadvantages, and the criticisms that have been made against it.
  My right hon. Friend has before the House a Bill by which he is shifting some expenditure from non-priority areas to greater priority areas. I am referring to provisions on the striker's disregard and waiting days in the Social Security Bill. Surely my right hon. Friend would have been subject to great crticism had he decided to do nothing about the people to whom I have referred. It is the balance of the argument which has
  1090
  resulted in the Clause, and I hope that on reflection my hon. Friends will feel that the balance has been struck the right way.
  Now I turn to the question of polygamous marriages, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames asked. He instanced the case with which he had had to deal when there were four potential widows.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Actual widows.
  Mr. Dean: I stand corrected—four true widows. This is a highly complex matter, as I think the House has gathered. The intention is that in the regulations which will eventually be submitted to the House the test will be whether a marriage which was once polygamous ceased to be polygamous when the woman concerned became a widow. [Laughter.]
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that my hon. Friend has got it quite right. Was not my hon. Friend trying to say that if a man had serveral wives and he died and left one, one is all right? Is not that what my hon. Friend is wishing to say? Will he answer the point that I raised? Can any man, by his death, involve the payment of widow's pension to more than one widow?
  Mr. Dean: I think that that shows how wise the Bill is to suggest that this problem should be dealt with by regulations. What we hope to achieve when we have sorted this out and presented the regulations to the House is that if a person, on coming to this country has a wife who is a normal wife under the rules and regulations of this country, she will qualify for widow's benefit in the same way as anybody else. They will be within the rules. That is what we are hoping to achieve. I hope that I have got this right. If not, perhaps I can clear up the confusion at a later stage.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend said that "they would be within the rules", which suggests that there might be a multiplicity of widows for these pensions.
  Mr. Dean: Instead of "they" I should have said "she".
  I now propose to deal with the questions asked by the hon. Lady the

  1091
  Member for Hitchin and the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) about the family income supplement and the family allowance. The complaint is that there is a gap in the Bill. In his intervention my right hon. Friend made it clear yet again that the only course open to the Government at the time to bring effective help was through the family income supplement arrangements, and there is no doubt that these, plus the tax relief on the child's allowance which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has introduced, will provide substantial help.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay asked about the period between the announcement of an increase and the paying of it. He wondered whether it would be possible to speed things up with the introduction of the computer. The answer is that that will be possible in due course, but this is the first uprating on which the computer will be in full operation. We may have teething troubles, but it is not possible to expect a computer, doing this job fully for the first time, to be able to do it more speedily than it is done now. Added to that there is the substantial load on the staff in my right hon. Friend's Department as a result of the other new benefits that are being introduced.
  I think I can answer my hon. Friend's question by saying that, in the long term, if we are to have—as we are committed to have—a regular review of pensions every two years, then what will matter will be calculating the period that is needed for the administration, and, as it were, working backwards from that.
  Not a great deal has been said about the industrial injuries scheme, but I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed considerable interest in it, and particularly about possible developments that might be made in it. My right hon. Friend described the improvements in the scheme, which are broadly similar to those being introduced in the national insurance scheme, but some concern has been expressed about industrial diseases, and I should like to tell the House that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council is engaged in a major review of pneumoconiosis and associated respiratory diseases.
  1092
  The questions referred to the council raise fundamental issues, and the council has been hearing evidence from many eminent medical witnesses and research workers. Simultaneously, the council has been heavily engaged in trying to find a way round the difficult problems involved in the prescription of occupational deafness under the Act. This is an increasing hazard of present-day industry, with which we are all concerned, and here again the council is examining a considerable weight of evidence from interested persons and organisations, Needless to say, as soon as we receive the advice of the council, we shall consider it in the hope that it will be possible to make advances on these two important fronts.
  The Bill fulfils a number of important pledges which the Government gave at the last election. I do not say that in any spirit of complacency or self-satisfaction. After all, we are contributing the money of contributors and taxpayers in this Bill. But it shows that, when we talk about compassion and care for the needy, we mean what we say. We match words with deeds. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the provisions of the National Insurance Acts 1965 to 1970, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts 1965 to 1970 and the Industrial Injuries and Diseases (Old Cases) Acts 1967 and 1969 as to contributions and benefits and to make provision for invalidity benefit for the chronic sick and for a retirement pension and age addition for certain persons over the age of 80, it is expedient to authorise the undermentioned payments out of money provided by Parliament—

  (1) in connection with the increase of contributions under section 3 (flat rate contributions) of the National Insurance Act 1965 or under section 2(1)(a) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965, the payment of any resulting increase in

  1093
  the sums so payable by way of Exchequer supplement under section 7 or, as the case may be, section 2(1)(b) of that Act;

  (2) the payment to the National Insurance Fund, in addition to the Exchequer supplements under the National Insurance Act 1965, of the sum of £135 million in respect of each of the financial years 1971–72 and 1972–73 and the £185 million in respect of each subsequent financial year;

  (3) the payment of any sums required to be paid out of money so provided in consequence of provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

  (a) increasing the weekly rate of attendance allowance to £4.80;

  (b) increasing the weekly rate of retirement pension payable by virtue of paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of section 1(1) of the National Insurance (Old persons' and widows' pensions and attendance allowance) Act 1970 to £2.20 where the pension is payable to a married woman who has not, at any time since she first became entitled to the pension, ceased to be a married woman and to £3.60 in any other case;

  (c) providing for a retirement pension for certain persons over the age of 80 at a weekly rate of £2.20 where the pension is payable to a married woman who has not, at any time since she first became entitled to the pension, ceased to be a married woman and of £3.60 in any other case;

  (d) providing for a new benefit, known as age addition, at a weekly rate of £0.25 for persons over the age of 80 who are in receipt of any such retirement pension as is mentioned in paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) above; and

  (e) providing for increases in any such retirement pension as is mentioned in paragraph (b) above in respect of children and adult dependants;

  (4) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment in respect of the expenses of the Secretary of State or any other government department.—[Mr. Patrick Jenkin.]

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
7.51 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I think the House will agree that this is a Measure which it would be appropriate for me to deal with briefly, but I shall be happy to answer any questions at the end of the debate.
1094
This Bill is much the same as one which fell at the election, when it had already completed its proceedings in another place and had had an unopposed Second Reading in this House. The Bill was reintroduced by the present Administration in another place and the only significant change from that which the previous Government introduced is the addition of Clauses 5, 6 and 7, as they now are, which confer new powers on the Registrar to inspect friendly societies and, if necessary, stop them from taking new business and to give him power to petition a court to wind them up.
The background to the Bill lies in the growing difficulty of many of the smaller societies, due to declining membership and rising management costs. The answer, as in other fields, lies in their merging into larger and more viable units. However, the existing procedures for mergers and amalgamations and for undertaking the liabilities of existing societies are so cumbersome, expensive and time-consuming as to make the process extremely difficult. The primary purpose of the Bill is to provide new, simpler and cheaper procedures both for mergers and amalgamations and for dissolutions. At the same time, new safeguards for members, particularly for minorities, are ensured.
In the case of mergers, instead of having to have the positive assent of at least five-sixth of all the members by value and of everyone, member or not, entitled to benefits from a society's funds, the Bill provides that in future all that will be necessary is that the merger should be approved by three-quarters of the members who actually vote. Of course, everyone concerned must be told what is proposed, and there are rights of appeal to the Chief Registrar if the proper procedure has not been followed. In the case of dissolution, instead of, as at present, five-sixth of all members, the Bill provides that three-quarters of all members must approve.
The new Clauses, Clauses 5, 6 and 7, confer power on the Registrar to inspect societies and to petition the court for their winding up. They also give him power to require the production of documents for this purpose. I must emphasise that these powers are intended as reserve powers only, to be used in those, fortunately rare, cases where friendly societies get into financial or administrative

1095
difficulties and where the interests of the members or of the public may call for some action by the Registrar.
The Bill is the result of consultations with the friendly societies movement and has their full support. Indeed, they have been urging this reform on successive Governments for about seven years. The Government are firmly of the view that the friendly societies perform a valuable service in the community. One of my first actions when I went to the Treasury was to set on foot a study to see whether we could lift the limits on certain types of business done by friendly societies so as to give them greater scope to serve the community and encourage savings. This was done last October, and was warmly welcomed by the part of the movement affected. This Bill is another measure to remove obstacles to the societies continuing to operate successfully for the benefit of their members and the whole country, and as such I commend it to the House.
7.56 p.m.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: I too will deal with this matter shortly, although this is a valuable Measure, which was first introduced by the last Government. I would, more as a jest than anything else, compare my own length of speaking with the speech which the Financial Secretary made in the Second Reading Committee, when he spoke for 26 minutes and perhaps did not cover ground much more relevant than that which he went over tonight.
This is a useful Bill, giving opportunities to those friendly societies which have become rather smaller than they used to be to merge and wind up, and as such we have produced a Measure which will be of benefit and might possibly give them opportunities to enter fields where they are not quite so prominent as they might be.
It is right on Second Reading that something should be said from this side about the useful work of the friendly societies—
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman will perhaps agree that 20 of the 26 minutes I spoke in Second Reading Committee were devoted to the useful work of these societies.
Mr. Sheldon: I was not complaining about the content of the hon. Member's speech. I was only drawing the contrast between his claim to brevity on this occasion and the notable absence of brevity on the last occasion.
The friendly societies have done some useful work and continue to do this work. The purposes of the 1896 Act show some of the ways in which these societies could help the newly industrialised communities in which they were so involved. Those purposes included the relief and maintenance of their members in sickness, paying money on the birth of the child of a member or the death of a member, the relief or maintenance of a member travelling for employment, and the endowment of members' insurances of various kinds. This summary of some of the valuable work of the friendly societies shows how much a part of the local fabric they were, working as they did on behalf of local people.
The reason for the present decline in the position of the societies is that so much of the foundation which they laid so well has been embodied into the subsequent Welfare State.
We see from the report of the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies the nature of their work and the way in which it has changed. One of the sad things to be noted is the decline in membership. At the end of 1968 we see that for the first time the number of members under the heading of "Orders and Branches" fell below under a million, but the sums involved were very substantial at over £75 million, which works out at an average of £76 a head.
The names mentioned in the Registrar's report, such as the Independent Order of Oddfellows Manchester Unity, the Ancient Order of Foresters, the Independent Order of Rechabites Salford Unity and the Order of Sheffield Unity are great names in the part of the world which I represent. Although they have an aura of the nineteenth century about them, they are still very active in the area which I represent, carrying out valuable work although, perhaps, not enjoying the prominence they once did.
We see that the branches have declined by over 5 per cent. and that membership declined by over 4 per cent. in one year. We realise the difficulties which face these branches when there is such a multiplicity

1097
of other organisations, not least the State itself, which have taken over and benefited from work done by the friendly societies themselves.
The great tribute to the friendly societies is that they led the way and showed the need which existed and provided the means of assessing that need in the local democracy under which they work. They were among the first to provide pensions and national insurance, methods of saving and of meeting the difficulties that arose during the formative period of the Industrial Revolution. We see today that they still control very large sums of money since the orders and branches, for example, have over £70 million, the centralised societies have over £250 million and the collecting societies nearly £500 million. These are very large sums indeed. Therefore, we need to concern ourselves very closely with the way in which these organisations, with rather high levels of charges for management expenses and so on, are brought into line with the smaller needs which at present have been shown possible for them.
In assessing the different needs, we see that death benefits have declined by 7 per cent, and that the other changes in regard to annuities and pensions have increased by 7½ per cent., and that accident benefits have increased also by 4½ per cent. The kind of benefits which it is still possible for them to engage in is a matter upon which they should be given every encouragement. Their great strength is that they are strongly rooted in the locality where they operate. Democracy comes in because they are involved with people in and around the area where the work is done and their work is obviously important; only part of that work could be done by the State.
I notice that the societies hold a large number of Government guaranteed securities and local authority stocks. I wonder what they feel about the situation of the Mersey Docks and Harbours Board and the trustee status of this security which was put in doubt. I hope that that was an exception and that their investments will be to the benefit of the country as well as to the benefit of themselves.
I also see that the method by which they were enabled to merge and were
1098
able to change their position required five-sixths support in value, and this was thought to put too much of an obligation on the societies in present circumstances. The situation in regard to the various localities is now changed, and the change in regard to three-quarters of those who vote is to be welcomed.
I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman one question in regard to Clause 9, which is the provision relating to fees. The hon. Gentleman put this question during the Second Reading debate in the Labour Government's term of office, and did not receive a very satisfactory answer from an hon. Friend of mine. However, having had a year in which to digest the situation, he is no doubt now fully equipped to deal with the point. I was interested in the reason for the charging of these fees. I know that this is meant, to come into line with similar kinds of fees, but I do not think that this fully gives the position as we would want to understand it.
Do the Government intend to charge the full cost of registry? This was not the case previously, and it would be interesting to know what is the situation. Has the hon. Gentleman any idea whether the scale of fees has been discussed? What are the principles of charging fees and what proportion of the total costs will be covered by the fees? I mention this matter because the present Government are much dedicated to reducing support where it is not shown to be absolutely necessary. Bearing in mind the recent hard-hearted way in which the Government have been hitting "lame ducks", it may well be thought that the friendly societies are not-too-healthy ducks, and they may be suitable for rather less beneficial treatment than we on this side of the House would wish to see.
One final point about the different dates on which the Act comes into operation. In fact, no dates are given. The answer which was given on this matter by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) on the last occasion when this legislation was discussed in the House was not wholly satisfactory. I should like to ask why the dates need to be different and if I can be given any information on this matter.
I commend this valuable Measure to the House.
8.9 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am grateful for the welcome given to the Bill by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I very much enjoyed hearing the hon. Gentleman with his own local knowledge of a part of the country where the friendly societies have flourished in the past. I was pleased to hear his assertion of the continuing importance of these societies, which I believe is absolutely right. Although, as he said, the Welfare State has now taken over the liabilities which the friendly societies were orginally formed to provide, the fact is that they still play an extremely important part in the lives of millions of people. The total value of their assets at present is about £800 million and, by any standards, they represent an important facet of our national life.
The hon. Gentleman asked two questions, one about the fees to be charged and the other as to why the different parts of the Bill have to come in at different times. On the matter of fees, it has never been the policy of the Registry to seek to recover the whole of the costs involved in this part of its work. Indeed, the percentage in past years has been about 7 per cent. of the total cost of the registry met by fees. However, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, what has happened in the past is not necessarily any clear indication of what ought to happen in future.
The purpose of Clause 9 is to extend the power to charge fees to all friendly societies—a power which hitherto has existed only in respect of the specially authorised societies like the National Deposit Friendly Society, the Hearts of Oak Friendly Society, and so on.
They have always paid fees, but none of the other friendly societies has done so. This is now rather ridiculous, remembering that one category of friendly society, which is perhaps not always recognised as such, is comprised of working men's clubs, with which hon. Members who represent constituencies in the North may be more familiar than those who represent constituencies in the South-East.
Many of these clubs are now immensely profitable and successful undertakings and spend large sums hiring topflight entertainers. It seems ridiculous
1100
that they should not be expected to pay reasonable fees for the services which they get from the Registrar by way of registration and so on.
It is the intention of the Registrar to consult the various bodies in the friendly societies movement with a view to determining a level of fees appropriate for that particular kind of society for which fees should be charged. We believe it right that the fees should keep pace not only with the movement of inflation but with, as it were, the market being able to bear a fee which bears a closer relationship with the costs that are actually incurred.
It is certainly not the intention to go anywhere near paying for the whole of the cost of the registry. That would be both unreasonable and impossible. However, that a larger proportion of the costs should be borne by fees from the societies which benefit from the services is something which we can and should pursue, and, as I said, it is the intention of the Registrar to consult with those concerned.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question about the Measure coming into force in part on different dates is that this is designed to give the greatest measure of flexibility and opportunity for consultation with the different interests involved. These interests are quite extraordinarily diverse, as even this short debate has indicated. It is because we want greater opportunity to make sure that the Measure is applied to the different categories of friendly society at a time and in a manner most appropriate for them that it is appropriate for different parts of the Bill to come into force on different dates.
It would, I suppose, be possible to make it all come into force at the same time, but the advice I have received and accepted is that this would not allow for sufficient flexibility. It is clear that the Bill, as it stands, is likely to be more appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LEVIES)
Motion made and Question proposed,
That the Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th April, be approved.—[Mr. Ridley.]
8.13 p.m.
Mr. Ben Ford: While I hope the House will endorse this Order, which is viewed with considerable importance by all sections of the wool textile industry, I feel that I must comment on it before it leaves our hands.
This industry, along with the wool textile industries of most other countries, is undergoing somewhat of a depression. I had the good fortune to be in Hong Kong recently, where I saw the products of the West Riding wool cloth industry being prominently displayed with great pride by the retailers concerned. Because the promotion of our wool cloth products deserve every encouragement, I hope the House will endorse the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th April, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 7th April, be approved.—[Mr. Ridley.]

NORTHERN REGION (EMPLOYMENT)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Speed.]
8.15 p.m.
Mr. T. W. Urwin: Hon. Members will appreciate the extent of my pleasure at being called at this early hour to raise the subject which I have chosen for this Adjournment debate, which is the unemployment situation in the Northern Region, when hon. Members must frequently sit waiting patiently well into the night before being able to raise the subject of their choice.
1102
Last Thursday the House of Commons dealt at length and objectively with the serious question of unemployment. It did so on a national basis. I may he forgiven for suggesting that the voice of the development areas was not heard to the extent that it might otherwise have been heard in the debate. I appreciate, in raising this issue from the point of view of the Northern Region, that the regional picture must inevitably be seen against a national background.
The Northern Region, in common with Wales and Scotland, is always worse hit in times of economic depression. Not unusually, therefore, when we look at the April unemployment figures we find that 72,300 people in the Northern Region are currently without jobs, including 4,906 aged 18, many of them tragically still looking for their first employment. The figures at present are 7·2 per cent. unemployed males and 2·3 per cent. unemployed females, giving an average for the region of 5·5 per cent., almost traditionally only marginally exceeded by Scotland, with a rate of 7·5 per cent.
If we look further into the figures we find that between January and April of this year there was an increase, seasonally adjusted, of about 6,000 people. This increase occurred at a time of the year when one normally expects to see an improvement. In other words, there has been a reversal of the normal trend.
If it had not been for the extremely mild winter through which we have just come, these figures would have been considerably swollen by the inclusion of 2,000 to 3,000 construction workers. Also in the Government's favour is the fact that they are not contending with the dramatic job losses in the coal-mining industry, losses which particularly bedevilled the distribution of industry policies pursued by the Labour Government.
I think of how, between 1964 and 1970, 50,000 jobs were lost in the Northern Region as a result of the recession in the coal-mining industry. When these figures are borne in mind, one begins to get a measure of the difficult problem with which the Labour Government were confronted.
I recall the promise which was made during the last election campaign by the Conservative Party to create a united nation in Britain. It is not for me in this

1103
debate to talk at length about the sordid policies which have resulted in the payment of increased school meals and the action that has been taken over school milk—all to finance tax concessions for the rich.
However, I recall their promises in the context of the creation of what we have now, which is an even greater army of unemployed than we had when the Conservatives took office. The worst effects of this are clearly felt in the North and in the other development areas. This developing situation is due largely to the Government's failure to reflate the economy and to provide greater stimulus to industrial investment, which, is woefully lacking.
It is not surprising that there is a great deal of pessimism in the Northern Region, not only about the present but also about the future. This pessimism is felt not only by Labour politicians, but also by many Conservative representatives, especially those in local government. The pessimism is shared by many leading newspaper commentators and industrialists in the region.
I draw attention to the ever-increasing and alarming number of jobs being lost in the region. There is almost daily evidence of another closure or further redundancies as a result of reorganisation. I quote from the Sunday Sun of 25th April:
"Unions count roll of despair."
The paper speaks of one of the
"blackest weeks ever in North's employment history"
with 4,000 more workers facing the prospect of joining dole queues. The same newspaper, in its leader column, says this:
"There can be no doubt that neither the Government's incomes policy nor its regional policy is working. Unless something is done very quickly we shall be in the heart of an economic blizzard by the end of the year."
The last sentence heavily understates the position. More than 72,000 people in the Northern Region are already in the icy grip of unemployment, and there is the prospect that many more people will join them.
The assertion that regional policy is not working will not be opposed by many in the Northern Region. To a large extent the Government's unwilling-
1104
ness to continue operating the policies which were in train when they came to power is a major contributory factor to the decline in industrial activity in the North. Moreover, sporadic decisions made in advance of the completion of the review of regional policy cause not only confusion but also a diminution of confidence in the future of incentives related to industrial promotion, especially following the abolition of investment grants and the abandonment of regional employment premium by 1974.
I can call in aid no less a person than Mr. Campbell Adamson, Director-General of the C.B.I., a report of whose speech appears in the Newcastle Journal of 17th March of this year under the banner headline—
"The North-East: the point about a policy is to stick to it."
Campbell Adamson rather succinctly made these points:
"Without certainty, business will have very little confidence in measures of regional policy. Without confidence, business will tend to disregard regional incentives when formulating long-range plans The frequent changes in the designation of development areas are bewildering. Areas are included, then excluded, then added again. The basic trouble now is that uncertainty has caused industrialists largely to discount the value of regional incentives. It has proved highly dangerous to rely upon the continuance of any particular incentive"
Those words of wisdom are fully borne out by the attitude of prospective industrial developers and especially measured in terms of the number of industrial development certificates and approvals since the end of June, 1970. This is the Government's only real yardstick to measure the extent of development and the only real weapon at the Government's disposal to control industrial development and to ensure that the development areas get their fair share of it.
I refer briefly to the comparison with the first half of 1970, when 13,900 new jobs were expected to arise as a result of I.D.C.s. Had this level of progress been maintained throughout the whole of 1970, we should have ended with a record year in the generation of new employment opportunities in the Northern Region. However, such was the uncertainty that only a meagre 4,400 new jobs were estimated to accrue in the second half of 1970.

1105
The trend continues in 1971. The tempo of new job provision has not quickened appreciably. In the first quarter ending in March of this year only 2,720 new jobs are expected to arise. This is the lowest figure since 1964 when the Labour Government first began to give additional impetus to the problems of the development areas. This number represents a 24·8 per cent. decline over the same period of last year and is a staggering 50 per cent. less than the figure achieved in the same period in 1969.
Under the present policies, in totality 38,000 jobs are expected to accrue from I.D.C.s, compared with 42,700 jobs from I.D.C.s to the end of April, 1970. This represents an 11 per cent. reduction in gross and a 12·9 per cent. reduction in male jobs. Contrasted with the rapid erosion of existing jobs the present situation does not augur well for the future of the Northern Region.
What is clearly needed now in the Northern Region is a strengthening of the diversified industrial base bequeathed to the Tories by the Labour Government in June of last year. A great deal of progress has been made and the region ought not to be placed in jeopardy now as a result of the uncertainty which has been created.
I concede that the bestowal of special development area status to Tyneside and Wearside must be helpful, but S.D.A. incentives in themselves do not and cannot assist indigenous industry. It has been estimated that 83 per cent. of new jobs accruing in the region are now due to the extension of existing industry, the remaining 17 per cent. arising from incoming firms.
Even in an expanding economy the development areas must continue to rely heavily on financial incentives. Inevitably, unless the same economic plateau already attained by the more prosperous regions is reached by the Northern Region, it must benefit last from any such reflation. In these circumstances, and as the struggle to capture a decreasing amount of mobile industry intensifies between the development areas—now the intermediate areas—increasing emphasis must be placed upon the expansion of existing industries.
It is, therefore, in this context that I ask the Minister and the Government
1106
urgently to re-examine the regional policy. We have been told that no further changes are to be made following the sporadic announcements that we have had in the House, but I would remind the Under-Secretary of State that the Government ought not to continue to be inflexible in their approach to this matter. In a rapidly changing and possibly worsening situation there is an outstanding requirement to be continually looking at regional policy for refinements and improvements.
I would also remind the hon. Gentleman that in the last full year of the Labour Government the direct Government investment in the Northern Region was well in excess of £300 million. I urge him to consult his colleagues to ensure that the full amount of money continues to be invested on an annual basis in the Northern Region as occurred under the Labour Government, and, with a determined effort, to treat it on the most urgent basis; and to devise new methods of assistance to established industry on which we clearly have to rely so much in the future.
8.30 p.m.
Dame Irene Ward: Mr. Deputy Speaker, am I right in assuming that this Adjournment debate can continue until 10 o'clock?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Yes, I think the hon. Lady is quite right.
Dame Irene Ward: That is all right. That gives me an opportunity to say something. I should not like to intervene in a debate, important though it is, which has been initiated by the Opposition, if we were restricted to half an hour. I congratulate the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) on having chosen this subject because we in the North feel that the situation requires very serious examination.
Before I raise one or two matters in which I am particularly interested and on which I have been fighting a battle for some time—I must say unsuccessfully—I wish to place on record the fact that I gladly support what was said by the hon. Member about money going into the area during the time of the Labour Administration, although, of course, a great deal of the work in the establishment of a regional policy originated with the

1107
Conservative Party. It is as well to have that on the record.
If essential money continues to be put into our region, we must have value for that money. What is so disturbing—and this is no fault of either Administration—is that the money that has been put into the region does not seem to have developed the region in providing full-time employment as we would all have wished. It should also be stated that unless we can get profitability from what is being done in the region, before long we shall not be able to have money which the Government can tax for the provision of development in our regions.
I missed the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, but it should be pointed out that a great deal of unemployment has been created in our region through numerous dismissals. I am not arguing for or against the one-man bus service because I do not know how efficient that service is, but we must take into account the fact that the introduction of the one-man bus service—with one man driving the bus, taking the fares and carrying the whole responsibility for running the bus—means that a large number of conductor and conductresses have been put out of work.
That is an example of the problems which must be faced. There is a great desire to have the highest possible standard of living, not only in my part of the country but generally, but the result of what has been done by the transport undertaking which is running our services has certainly not been to run the buses as well as they were run in the old days before the Transport Commission, or whatever it was on Tyneside, was taken over. In fact, the service is bad, and, as for making improvements in productivity, what has been done has made productivity less likely to improve, for the regularity of the services has been much impeded. Nevertheless, the fact remains, as I say, that the introduction of one-man buses has resulted in many men and women being put out of employment.
There are other decisions taken in the North-East which have had an impact on employment. A good many porters have been deliberately sacked by British Rail. I am very close to the men and women who work on the railways and I know what happens. I have lived there
1108
all my life, and I have been a Member of Parliament for 34 years, so I know a great deal about our railways and the men who work on them, many of them absolutely first-class individuals.
The Railways Board conducts its affairs on the basis that they must be run at a profit. We cannot go on running everything in this country at a loss because in that way our economy would collapse. It is a fact, nevertheless, that, in pursuit of that end, British Rail has sacked a good many men, with resulting inconvenience to passengers. Porters are now doing duties which they never had to do before, and hundreds of men in the Northern Region have been sacked
Mr. Urwin: I am most interested in the argument which the hon. Lady is developing. She has claimed credit for the Conservative Government for instituting a regional policy. That will be strongly refuted by us on this side, and, what is more, no Conservative Government did anything like as much for the Northern Region as Labour did both before 1964 and since. However, will the hon. Lady, having taken that credit for the Conservative Government, also lay the blame for the massive redundancies on the railways at the door of the Conservative Government who appointed Lord Beeching to do exactly that and denude the Northern Region of thousands and thousands of jobs?
Dame Irene Ward: I am taking up what the hon. Gentleman said, and I hope that he will be fair. I have been in the House for very much longer than he has, and I know—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member does not like it, but, fortunately, people in the North do. It is untrue to say that the regional policy was not developed by the Conservative Party. The instigator of it was Mr. Stanley Baldwin. In the time of high unemployment arising from the economic crisis after the Labour Government of 1929–31, Mr. Baldwin instituted his inquiries and, before the outbreak of the last war, our regional policy was started by the Conservative Government of the day.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of what is said on the plaque at the Team Valley Trading Estate and the Treforest Trading Estate in South Wales, the first two trading estates, and both started under

1109
Mr. Baldwin's aegis. Also, at the West Chirton Trading Estate in my constituency, there is a plaque which shows that International Formica, a very important industry in our part of the country, was begun before the outbreak of the Second World War. Therefore, it is completely untrue to say that it was not the Conservative Party's idea, and I resent it.
The present Lord Chancellor, my noble Friend, Lord Hailsham, went north at the time of the then Conservative Government and set in motion a much improved system of regional development. We are both realistic and intelligent people in the North of England, and we follow what happens. It is ludicrous for the Opposition to refute what the Conservative Party did, and it is not right to say what has been said.
Having got that off my chest, I return to British Rail. The sacking of porters was a decision not of Lord Beeching but of the present British Railways Board. I take great exception to this. We have a very good south-north and north-south service, but the only people in whom the Board is interested are the business community. It has no thought for the elderly, those who have had operations, or women travelling with children. One cannot get a porter for love or money unless one is very lucky. Some very nice police officers at Newcastle Central found me a porter the other day, but there are not enough porters to do the job. Talking to them, one finds that porters have been sacked or taken off to do jobs that they never had to do in the past. This creates more and more unemployment.
There is a similar situation in the service industry. Hotels have reduced their staff to an absolute minimum, partly because of S.E.T. There is very good and dedicated service in many hotels, but the employees are run off their feet. It is very difficult for hotels which hope to attract the tourist trade, because they have had to sack so many workers as they cannot make ends meet. Exactly the same thing is found in shops, where the staff have to work—and by Jove they do!—twice as hard as they ever did. The shops cannot afford to keep the same number of staff as they had in the past. Therefore, when we are discussing
1110
these matters we must remember that other factors arising out of Labour Party policy have had their effect on employment.
I have kept on saying, and I repeat, that my idea is to have a fair day's work for a fair day's pay, and then if there is a profit in the big industries that we have on the North-East Coast, it is equally fair that those who are part of the labour force should share in that profitability. But that is not the Opposition's approach. They never say anything like that. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has any news about what has happened on the Tyne, where there was a strike of fitters.
Mr. Urwin: They go back to work tomorrow.
Dame Irene Ward: They may be going back tomorrow. I certainly hope so. Swan Hunter is a very good firm which have been losing on the ships it has been building. Certainly its balance sheet did not give much cause for comfort. In my division they closed down the ship-repairing yard, with consequent loss of employment for men from both sides of the river. I am glad to say that the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and I fought very hard, and managed to get the old ferry restarted, and a new ferry is being built.
The workers' representatives who have been arguing with the directors of Swan Hunter's said that they would not go back even if it meant 11,000 men being out of work. It is about time we had a Measure such as the Industrial Relations Bill. I am in very good contact with people—not necessarily voters of mine, but people who talk to me. I know what they think about 600 men saying they would prefer to close the yard, thus throwing 11,000 men out of work than compromise.
I only wish that hon. Members opposite, as well as some of my own hon. Friends, would argue the realities. For instance, I believe that it is regrettable that when firms make good profits they do not at once give bonuses to the workers who have helped to make those profits. I could say a great deal about industrial relations and what I think is good management for good workers. But nothing like that is ever said by the Opposition.

1111
All hon. Members opposite do is take credit for things they have never done, and deprive us of the credit for anything that the Conservative Party does.
Again, voluntary absenteeism loses money, not only for the firm concerned but for the country; that might not interest hon. Members opposite, but it should interest those who work. To ensure a good return for wages, so keeping us alive in a competitive world, would be very much better, not only for the country's economy but for the men's standard of living, but nothing like that ever emerges from the Opposition.
Hon. Members opposite speak of all the jobs they claim to have created, but I can only say that unemployment on Tyneside and in Sunderland is higher than it ever was in the previous Conservative era. We had begun to make some progress, and the trading estates had been built up magnificently. I was only too delighted when the Labour Government went on helping in the regions, but the fact is that, at the end of their time, with all the money that they spent, unemployment had doubled. I do not understand how that can be very well received on either side.
It is very much better for the regions for us to talk realistically, and to try to explain in no uncertain terms that there would be a great deal of support for increased wages if we were to get a fair day's work for those wages, and a reduction in voluntary absenteeism.
That is all I have to say on that subject. I have given a lecture, but I have been longing to get this off my chest because I get tired of hearing about what the Labour Government did when, in fact, when they left office, the situation was worse than when they took office, despite all the money spent on trying to develop our region.
I want to ask about the Local Employment Act. I do a lot of unpleasant writing behind the scenes. I wrote many unpleasant letters to Labour Ministers and I often write unpleasant letters to Conservative Ministers. I must say that Ministers of both Governments have been very good in the way in which they have replied—although action has not necessarily followed. But I have been in this House for a long time, and I have come
1112
to realise that it takes about ten years to win a battle. It gets won in the end, however.
The Government are now using the Local Employment Act for the purpose of tourism. But the Act is couched in perfectly ridiculous terms for such application. This has nothing to do with the large grant which was given towards the building of new hotels and which came to an end on 31st March. The Act says that a grant can be given for service industries and the building up of tourism, provided the project carries an undertaking that a certain number of jobs will be found. That is a ridiculous provision in relation to tourism. The Act was not designed to help the tourist industry. The tourist industry is one of our best financial earners for the country. Indeed, it has saved us from going on the rocks.
We have beautiful scenery in our North-East countryside. It is absurd not to have proper hotel accommodation. I do not mean necessarily those ghastly cement blocks which I loathe. I would not stay on the ninth floor of some of them for all the tea in China. What we want in some of the lovely parts of Northumberland and Durham is a little more accommodation for tourists. We have so much to offer. No part of this country has more to offer in scenery and history.
But it is very difficult for tourists who want to visit our part of the country to find accommodation. Yet, the more we can offer, the better it is for the country's economy, for tourism helps enormously to stabilise the economy and to protect the balance of payments. There are delightful little inns and pubs all over Northumberland and Durham. What many of them want is just a couple of extra bedrooms. I have stayed in dozens of these places in my lifetime. The people running them do not want to have to engage additional staff, for they are perfectly prepared to do the work themselves and to see that tourists are properly looked after. They are very pleasant to tourists. Northumbrians and the people of Durham and Cumberland are delightful and co-operative. All they want is a few extra bedrooms to put up people motoring through or tourists who apply through advertisements urging them to come and see the beauties of the area. It is ridiculous that the small inns and hotels should not be assisted by the Local Employment Act.

1113
I resent the Department's attitude, because it is trying to interfere with the commercial judgment of those who apply for grants in order to make additional accommodation available. The Department knows nothing about the little inns of Northumberland and Durham, or the delightful pubs of the kind which can be run by a man and his wife. If a man and his wife who are running a pub want to add a couple of new bedrooms to it, there may not be the people in the local village for them to employ. The Government constantly asks for greater productivity and yet will not provide the tools for it. This approach is so silly that it nearly drives me mad.
The Under-Secretary is having a private conversation with the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring. I should like him to listen to what I am saying and I shall wait until he does so.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am addressing my remarks to my own Minister and it would be a jolly good thing for the Opposition to listen to what I have to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall sit down when I am ready. If I want, I can go on until half-past nine.
Mr. David Watkins: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to attempt to intimidate other hon. Members by threatening to filibuster in order to prevent them from speaking in the debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant. Ferris): The—
Dame Irene Ward: I am not filibustering.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am quite capable of dealing with the point of order myself.
The hon. Lady is entitled to be heard by the Under-Secretary and hon. Members should not stop the Under-Secretary from hearing what has to be said. I do not consider the hon. Lady to be attempting to filibuster. The hon. Lady is entitled to put the point of view of her side of the House. I am sure that she sees the clock and knows at what time the debate has to end, and I know that she would not wish to take more time than she would like to give to any hon. Member opposite.
Dame Irene Ward: I am coming to the end of this argument.
I had a letter from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to say that the Department was considering this point. Within days I had a letter from the Under-Secretary to say that it had been decided that no alteration would be made. That is not the kind of thing I expect from a responsible Department.
We have a tourist board in the North-East which is doing its best to attract tourists, and it is getting little or no help from the Government. Although the official concerned has no idea about it, I know that a letter went from Welbar House—I have not seen it, but I have a good grapevine—making exactly this point. Yet no attention has been paid to it. This is intolerable. I did not know how I could raise the matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring for giving me the opportunity.
In the North-East we must have new industry, more employment, more expansion. There is a feeling that most industrial development comes from firms already in the area. It gives me great pleasure to hear from people who have taken jobs on the North-East Coast, and from their wives, too. The North-East Development Council has said that people who want to expand in the North-East do not have the same advantage as new industry entering the area. Is this matter being considered? I am not at all satisfied with the two Ministries, the one dealing with Trade and Industry and the other with the Environment. They each have different responsibilities and I would rather there was one Ministry so that we could get at it. I do not like the present position. I have written to the Prime Minister and I believe that I have a Question down tomorrow.
I want to make it perfectly plain to my Government that I am not at all satisfied that everything that could be done is being done. I hope that I shall be given a sensible answer to my question about the Local Employment Acts and about the point of view put forward from the North-East Development Council. I recently attended a meeting of the council with a large number of my Labour colleagues. I do not know whether this

1115
is or is not a possibility—the alteration of the whole scheme. Now that we have a Conservative Government reasonably concerned with these problems, they must carry on the great tradition established by Mr. Baldwin. Are they examining this alteration in the system? I do not know whether it is right or wrong, I am not a technocrat, I only try to use what brains God has given me and what experience I have gained through having had the honour of representing my area for so long in this House.
I hope that I will get a sensible answer, otherwise I shall continue to harry the Government until I get someone in the Department interested, someone who will examine the proposal without giving ridiculous answers. If anyone cares to come up on a tour with me and look at some of the things that need doing, he is welcome. We spend enough money on keeping a tourist board there, we ought to be able to do something to help the inns which need more beds. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate and glad that such a lot of time has been spent on the subject. Something must happen, and soon.
9.4 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I promise the Minister that I will certainly not make such a long speech as his hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) on initiating the debate. I want to put one or two considerations to the Minister, which are not cheap political points but deal with very serious human problems in the Northern Region. This is a continuing and difficult problem to which there are no slick answers. This problem has existed throughout my lifetime. I want to present the situation and say what I think ought to be done in future.
In the Northern Region, among industrialists, representatives of local authorities, whatever their political colour, trade unionists and industrialists who have come to the region in the past decade to whom most of us have had an opportunity of talking, there is a growing lack of confidence and considerable apprehension about the future.
1116
At the outset, I want to deal with a couple of myths which have been repeated tonight and which always come from the Treasury Bench. The first is that my right hon. and hon. Friends did not get value for money when they injected massive resources into the region. That is said over and over again. No one can deny that, during the time of the Labour Government, there was a massive injection of resources into the Northern Region. But we are told that the changes in regional policy have come about because we were not getting value for money.
I dare say that all hon. Members, including the hon. Lady, have had dealings with the old Board of Trade over the past 10 years. When an industrialist made an inquiry in our region, the local authority became aware of the inquiry. Unfortunately, the beginning of the new project was held up because the Board of Trade was awaiting a judgment from B.O.T.A.C. on the firm's viability. Sometimes, I felt that it was being over-careful in making sure that the firm did not receive public money and, after a short time, move out of the region because the project had failed. My experience in West Durham is that the Department has been completely scrupulous and very cautious before paying public money to a new firm coming to the region. But I have had some painful experiences of the natural irritability and impatience of people in the locality because it took the Government so long to ensure that the money that they were spending was well spent.
No firm which has been encouraged to come north has come there with the idea of continuing for long without making a profit. One of our complaints about the new structure is that not enough time is given to firms to establish themselves in order to take advantage of the changed incentives which are now offered.
The other myth is that the resources that we poured in did not have the effect in the region that they should have had. No one can deny that in the past five years we have so transformed our communications that we now have one of the best road systems in the whole country. That has been made possible by the injection of Government money and resources. It was money very well spent.

1117
No region in the country had suffered more from the rapid rundown of basic industries. Durham, especially, has suffered greatly from colliery closures. To achieve a standstill, there had to be a massive injection of Government resources and the creation of new jobs. In the past five years, 86,000 new jobs have been created. The difficulty has been that, due to the rapid closure of pits, that has not meant a substantial increase in job opportunities. What has happened is that there has been a radical transformation in the basic structure of industry in the region.
When my predecessor came to this House in 1955 there were 26 coal mines. Today there is only one. The number of miners employed in West Durham aver the past seven years has been reduced from 15,000 to 2,000. Looking at the overall structure of the Northern Region, it will be found that the majority of men—indeed two-thirds—are employed in the new developing modern industries. This represents a great transformation.
The trouble with Government policy today is that it is based on saving money. I do not object to the slogan which is so often repeated about value for money, but I should like a commitment from the Government that they are prepared to inject into the region the same percentages that we were injecting during our six years in Government. If they would give that commitment, they would have all the assistance they required from both sides of the House, from industry, and from the trade unions to see that we were getting value for money. But the Government's objective—announced during the election campaign—was to cut public expenditure, and one sector where public expenditure was to be cut was in aid to the development regions.
We are now suffering because of the Government's obsession with the market forces—that Government intervention is always the dead hand of intervention and that we should leave it to the market forces. This discussion is taking place tonight because the situation in the Northern Region was created by the operation of the market forces. Most of us have seen direction of labour from the north with people moving south to earn their living. We on this side of the House believe in a Government com-
1118
mitment and then in Government intervention.
I should like to mention the development of the new regional policy, on which I should like an answer from the Minister. It was widely reported that on 2nd November last year the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave an assurance to a North-East Development Council deputation that the Government would be announcing a second stage to their plans for the development areas. All that we have heard since has been the extension of special development area status. Certainly nobody on that deputation and nobody who knew what was, going on thought that this detailed review which was taking place would end by merely extending special development area status to other parts of the region.
In the Northern Echo and The Sunday Times we had one of the familiar leaks from the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall not read the whole report. On 26th January this year the headline in the Northern Echo was,
"Secret report shocks Heath's plan for the regions."
On 24th January The Sunday Times carried the headline:
"Whitehall slates Tory regional plan".
Both articles declared that the Government's major proposals had been condemned in a secret report by the civil servants who had been asked, when the Tories took office, to conduct a review.
My great complaint is that the Government decided their policy before they had a look at the Northern Region. They changed from investment grants to allowances before they had time to examine the situation, and that has had disastrous effects.
The North-East Development Council estimates that the change in incentives means a net loss to the Northern Region of £36 million annually. I should like the Minister's comment on that assessment by a specialist body which is not party political in any way.
Mr. Urwin: That is for the North-East only.
Mr. Armstrong: That is for the North-East only. I thank my hon. Friend for that interjection.

1119
Let us look at the present situation. In a reply last week from the Department, we were informed that in February there were 1,250 redundancies, and that in March there were 2,850. These men were not all railway porters, hotel servants, or people in those categories. They were in the industry which means a good deal to the North and, indeed, to the nation.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Pentland), on Thursday or Friday of last week, we were told that this summer 24,000 youngsters would leave school. We know what a tremendous human problem arises when a youngster leaves school. The mark of becoming an adult is to get a job, and if a young man cannot get a job when he leaves school he often drifts into a pattern of life which makes it difficult for him to start work when the opportunity to do so presents itself.
The other day I received some figures from the Department of Employment relating to West Durham. Unemployment among males in the Bishop Auckland area is running at 9 per cent. I was shocked to learn that in the whole of West Durham, and that includes the constituencies of Consett and Durham—as the Minister knows, it is not possible to get separate figures for one's own constituency because an employment area often extends over two or three constituencies—46·8 per cent. of the men unemployed are 55 years old or more. We all agree that these people present a tremendous human problem which it is difficult to solve. Most of them have worked for 30, 35, 40 or 45 years in the mining industry, and when a man has worked underground for so long, undergoing retraining, or doing any other regular work, presents a tremendous difficulty.
The only hope is for this area to be given special consideration. When we talk about extending special development area status to other areas, we are not contributing to solving the kind of problem that I have outlined. The decision to extend S.D.A. status to the whole of the Tyne and Wear area was a panic decision, and I challenge the Minister to justify it. Including Washington New Town, Peterlee New Town, the whole of Tyneside, down to Tynemouth, North
1120
Shields, and so on, in the S.D.A. area, and to leave out Aycliffe and other parts of the region cannot be justified on economic, human or social grounds. There is no argument for it. It was a panic decision.
We know that S.D.A. status was conferred on areas like mine because of the particular problems caused by the closure of pits. The extension of the idea has made nonsense of the original concept. Other incentives are now necessary, because the result of the Government's policy is that industry, which in any case is not footloose, and which is not inclined to move because of the changes in incentives, is merely presented with more places from which to choose. Because of what the Government have done, our area is not getting any extra industry.
I want a firm commitment to regional policy, with the guarantee that aid will not be diminished. I want some consistent policy, not the chopping and changing which we have had under the hon. Gentleman's Department, and an understanding of the real problems. Unemployment in the Northern Region has caused tremendous concern and I can find no one with any confidence that the present Government's policies will help at all.
9.21 p.m.
Mr. Edward Milne: My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) mentioned the 20,000 additional school leavers who will be seeking employment where prospects are bleak. This situation has faced school leavers in the Northern Region for a long period, but it is greater at the moment because, in the traditional areas of high employment, the Government's policy has resulted in one of the highest unemployment rates which the country has faced for some time. The prospect for school leavers is of leaving their own area to other parts of the country, where employment has become increasingly difficult. I am not arguing against people seeking employment elsewhere, but what we object to is that they are forced to do so by the prevailing economic forces.
This debate has shambled and wandered into many fields, one of which was the pre-war situation. I want to confine myself to post-war developments. The unemployment figures of the region, until the mid-fifties, were much the same as

1121
the national figures. It was only in the closing stages of the fifties that they accelerated. We were told that the policies then set in train would be useful, but the experience of the last six or eight years shows that even the existing policies are inadequate to deal with the mounting unemployment.
I should like to give two examples from my own area. In 1959 Northumberland County Council, then Labour-controlled, decided to create two new towns in south-east Northumberland. Those two new towns were denied any form of Government grant but with tremendous courage the county council went ahead and laid the foundations of Cramlington and Killingworth. This work was not carried out under the New Towns Act but on the initiative of the county council itself. It was not until 1962–62 that the now development areas of the North-East began to be created. The creation of development districts was given great impetus by the return of the Labour Government in October, 1964.
Let us examine the present situation and the means of securing new jobs. At present by far the greatest number of new jobs is created by the inflow of new firms. Bearing in mind the new firms which have developed in south-east Northumberland in the 1960s, I am certain that if the Government were now to make a close examination of the possibilities of expansion and were to set in train financial incentives to deal with the firms already established in the area, a considerable number of new jobs could be obtained within the existing firms. That is one way of dealing with the situation.
There has been a fairly comprehensive diversification of industry and a number of industries unknown to the area have moved in during the period we have been discussing. However, even greater diversification is needed; the pattern of industry in the modern world does not stand still and new industries are appearing. It is true that we have seen the introduction of aluminium smelters, the chemical industry and factors of that kind, but more diversification is still to be desired.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman in his reply will give some indication that in the forthcoming expansion of the motorcar industry in Britain, some attention
1122
will be paid to the question of siting a major car plant in the North-East, with its ancillary industries. This would give us a real stake in one of Britain's growth industries. It is to be remember that the aluminium smelter at Lynemouth will be moving into production very shortly and, in view of the increasing amount of aluminium being used in the production of motor cars, the question of siting a car plant in close proximity to the aluminium industry is a reasonable step to take for the future.
Mention has been made by some hon. Members of the contribution of tourism to the prosperity of various areas. I yield to nobody in my admiration for what has been done in developing the tourist potential of Northumberland and Durham. Northumberland has great potential, but at the moment it lacks a shop window in which to place that potential before the nation. I suggest that the Government should consider the possibility of siting a major conference hall in Northumberland, somewhere between Blyth and Whitley Bay. This would not only afford an opportunity in the area to cater for major conferences which are held in Britain every year, but would also provide a shop window to attract tourists and visitors to that area.
We should do our best to bring the beauties and facilities of Northumberland to the attention of tourists. There are many inaccessible tracts of land which could be opened up for the benefit of tourists and others seeking recreation. Indeed, the whole question of the ownership of land should be examined. For example, I have never felt sure that the resources of the Kilda Forest have been properly identified in terms of ownership and potential, and considering the high unemployment levels, not only in the industrial areas but in towns like Amble and Berwick, something should be done to make sure that these places enjoy the benefits of the areas in which they are situated.
We have talked a lot about the reorganisation of local government and development areas. I now want the Minister to consider the constructive suggestions that have been made and take action to reduce the number of unemployed in this part of the country. He can certainly consider immediately the siting of a major motor car plant in the

1123
North-East, where we have all the necessary transport facilities, with the harbours and ports of the North-East Coast. A good case could be made out for linking the industrial potential of South-East Scotland with that of North-East England to make a large industrial complex based on attracting modern industries.
We do not need more plans, surveys and schemes for the North-East. We have been littered with them for the past three or four decades. Indeed, surveys have been undertaken since the dawning of the industrial revolution. No Government need be told about the wants of the Northern Region and no Minister needs reminding that the workers of the region are the most adaptable to be found anywhere.
The people of this area have proved their adaptability in both world wars, apart from the way in which they have adapted to the decline of the coal mining industry and other major industries associated with it, like the ports and the railways. The workers have transferred to the new towns about which we have spoken. If ever there were an opportunity for providing full employment in this part of the country, that opportunity is now. The manpower is there to take up the demand and I trust that we will now see action.
9.33 p.m.
Mr. David Watkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) has performed a public service in initiating this debate on the unemployment problems of the Northern Region. It is both his and our good fortune that the business of the House terminated rather earlier than might have been expected. This has resulted in this valuable debate taking place.
The high level of unemployment in the Northern Region is not new. For a number of years, irrespective of the political complexion of the Government in power, its unemployment rate has consistently been double that of the national average. Despite the greatest drive in regional policies ever to be inaugurated by a Government, the obstinate unemployment problems of this area pertained even when the Labour Government were in power. Even with that tremendous
1124
national drive unemployment level obstinately remained at double the national average.
It is not new for the House to debate the high level of unemployment in the Northern Region. What is new is that we now have a Government who have a specific policy of rising unemployment. Amongst the policies of the Government which have contributed to that end has been the policy of replacing investment grants by investment allowances. Investment allowances do not provide the incentive which is necessary to persuade companies to establish themselves in an area of special difficulty. This measure above all amongst the measures introduced by this Government is bound to worsen the situation.
My hon. Friends have said that those of us who represent constituencies in the Northern Region know only too well that all the drive which used to exist in the development of new industry and in the increasing of employment in the Northern Region has virtually disappeared. In large measure this dates back to the measures introduced last October by the Chancellor.
On 19th February the House debated the Northern Region on a Private Member's Motion which had been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for White-haven (Dr. John A. Cunningham). I sat all through that debate without having the opportunity of catching Mr. Speaker's eye.
The debate was notable, first, for the filibustering engaged in by hon. Members opposite, who made a calculated attempt to prevent hon. Members on this side, who represent the overwhelming majority of the people in the Northern Region, from contributing to the debate. The debate was notable, second, for the announcement by the Secretary of State for the Environment of the extension of the special development areas. This was a panic measure announced on the eve of that debate. Having announced the measures, the Secretary of State disappeared from the Chamber.
The announcement boiled down to nothing less than a desperate attempt to retrieve something from the wreckage of the Government's policies as a result of the measures introduced the previous October and did not merit the lavish praise showered upon it by hon. Members opposite. The Tories had consistently

1125
claimed that the criterion was to be whether we were getting value for money. It was said in October that we would get better value for money as a result of the measures then introduced.
Although in October the Chancellor had announced measures to reduce expenditure in the development areas, the Secretary of State for the Environment in the debate on 19th October spoke about measures to extend the special development areas, but that did nothing more in terms of Government expenditure than to restore the position to the pre-October position.
The extension of the special development areas in the North-East has done nothing in terms of firms which had gone there and provided employment and in terms of jobs created. It has disadvantaged certain areas which had formerly enjoyed special development area status and which because of their special problems of communication and geography need to be advantaged as compared with Tyneside. All the advantage which was formerly enjoyed by such areas was wiped out by the extension of special development area status.
Having said that, I now want to refer to the situation in my own constituency which is in the area of North-West County Durham. I was interested, incidentally, to hear the statement made at an earlier period of the debate that it was the Conservative Party who originated regional policy. I shall not delve into the days of Stanley Baldwin, or even Neville Chamberlain who said he thought that the problems of mass unemployment could never be solved. But, with specific reference to my own constituency, I would refer to the Cmnd Paper which is popularly known as the Hailsham Plan, produced by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which has been cited again and again in this House as having been the starting point for modern regional policy—
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant)The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant) indicated dissent.
Mr. Watkins: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but we have listened to this so many times.
Mr. Grant: The hon. Gentleman means the Lord Chancellor, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Watkins: I beg pardon. Of course, I meant the Lord Chancellor. It is rather confusing when one looks at the grey mass on the opposite side of the House and in the other place. I accept the correction. I meant the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is now the Lord Chancellor, who produced a plan which has been repeatedly cited in this House as having been the starting place for modern regional policies. That plan wrote off my constituency completely. It wrote off the whole of North-West and West Durham. There are specific proposals in it that these would become nothing more than dormitory areas and that the people employed in them would have to travel down to Tyneside to find employment. I hope we can once and for all get rid of the idea that that was the start of regional policy.
In the Consett, Stanley and Lanchester travel-to-work area which covers my constituency and part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West, on 8th June, 1970, which is the date nearest to that at which the present Government took office, and for which the figures are available, there was an unemployment rate of 5 per cent. It is now substantially over 6 per cent. and it is increasing month by month. There has been an increase of substantially more than 20 per cent. in the period since the present Government took office.
In the General Election which put the party opposite into power, the Tory Party made a great issue of unemployment in the North-East of England. I well remember that the Conservative candidate in my constituency, in his election address, referred to the record unemployment which existed in the constituency, and he achieved a great deal of publicity being photographed speaking to those who were unemployed at the exchanges and clearly implying that the election of a Tory Government would provide more employment in the area.
I invite the Under-Secretary to explain to the House what has happened, and furthermore I invite him to come to my constituency—I will accompany him if he wishes—and go to those same employment exchanges and explain why there

1127
are hundreds more people seeking unemployment benefit than there were at the time when his party made its specious promises to reduce unemployment.
If I may digress briefly, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will at the same time explain the extraordinary statement recently made at the annual general meeting of Consett Conservative Association, as reported on the front page of that powerful organ of public opinion, the Consett Guardian-Chronicle dated 8th April, 1971, as follows:
"Consett workers hear of new jobs for old in Germany."
Perhaps he will also say why it was that a gentleman who was invited to address that organisation and received great publicity for so doing said that when we joined the European Economic Community the people who were unemployed in this country would be able to go to Germany and look for work. Is this the sum total of the policy of the Government?
All the drive has now gone out of regional policy as it affects the North-East. There is in the region a situation of stagnation and growing hopelessness. I hope, though without great expectation, that the Under-Secretary of State will have something constructive to say.
9.45 p.m.
Mr. Ted Fletcher: I echo the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins). There is in the North-East a feeling of stagnation and hopelessness. I have lived in the region for 25 years and I say without hesitation that there is a general feeling of depression and hopelessness there such as has not been experienced since the end of the war. Hardly a week passes without one reading in the Press of redundancies at this firm or that, and we know that there is the possibility of more redundancies, particularly in the steel industry on Tees-side.
We have to press the Government to find out what their regional policies are, if they have any at all. The Labour Government pumped financial assistance into the region against a background in which thousands of jobs were being lost in the coal industry, the railways were contracting, and we faced a time of possibly mounting unemployment. But we
1128
did at least hope during that period that, by 1973, we should have climbed over the hump and be able to say that we had unemployment at a level equal with that in the rest of the country. Now, however, because the present Government are intent on saving £100 million at the expense of the region, it seems that unemployment is bound to rise.
It is not too early to warn the Government that we want a winter programme in the North-East. As things are going, it seems likely that there will be one million unemployed before the end of the year, and 100,000 of those in the North-East. We want the Minister to tell us specifically what measures he has in mind to bring employment to the North-East.
Now that the special inducements provided by the Labour Government have been withdrawn, employers in the Midlands and the South are understandably reluctant to transfer their industries to the North. There is no special inducement for them to do so, and they know that they can now expand in their present territory because of the Government's I.D.C. policy. In these circumstances, the Government have a duty to tell us what steps they intend to take to reduce the high level of unemployment in the North-East.
Let me suggest some specific ways in which that could be done. It was announced in the Budget that the Government intend to introduce a value-added tax. I shall not open a discussion on whether I find that acceptable or not—in fact, I disagree—but it is estimated that, if such a tax is instituted, another 10,000 civil servants will have to be employed at a central office to administer it. I put the question directly to the Minister, and I hope that he will answer: could this office be sited in the North-East?
I could put in a special plea for my own constituency of Darlington, which is geographically centred on the Al, is near an airport, and has all the facilities for such a centre, but I do not intend to do so. If that centre could be sited anywhere in the North-East, it would bring additional jobs to our area. Although I disagree with the imposition of the tax and shall do my best to fight it, I hope that the Minister will make representations to his right hon. and hon. Friends to see whether the office can be sited in the North-East.

1129
Second, what about a programme for public works in the North-East? For example, there is a great need for a road between the A1 and Peterlee, which is an expanding town. Have we any programme of winter relief to build the road? What is the projection of Government expenditure in the North-East during the winter, when we shall face even more formidable problems of unemployment than we do now?
Third, what is the Minister doing to induce more Government Departments to release their office allocation in London and to site their offices in the North-East? The cost of office space in the North-East is one-sixth of that in the London area. Anyone concerned with providing jobs in the North-East should be concerned with transferring highly-priced Government offices from their present location in London to development areas such as the North-East.
Those are three practical proposals that the Government could implement in an endeavour to bring employment into the North-East. We are facing a particularly serious problem—not only the continuing problem of the close-down of mines and the contraction of employment in the railway industry but also the possibility of wide-scale redundancies in the steel industry. This will be a problem, particularly on Teesside.
We need answers to our problem, which is to provide employment for our people in the North-East. For too long we have had to rely on the general prosperity of the country. In spite of this, over the past decade unemployment in the North-East has been twice the national average. The feeling of depression because we are being left out of consideration is not confined to working people. Industrialists to whom I have spoken are also not very optimistic about the future.
We have condemned the Government's parsimonious attitude to the grants, to the withdrawal of the assistance given to the area by the Labour Government. This withdrawal has made a big impact on the number of applications from employers to site their factories in the North-East. These are real, human problems for our people, and particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Armstrong) said, for school-leavers, many of whom are condemned
1130
in their teenage years to face not months but years of unemployment. These problems will be accentuated if the country enters the Common Market, because the region that is remote from Europe stands little chance of attracting new industries.
These are formidable problems. I have cited certain avenues that the Minister could explore to bring new jobs into the region immediately. I hope that the Minister will give some indication that he intends to get on with the job of bringing employment to an area which has suffered for so long from the fact that it is a region where older industries have been established which are passing from existence. The immediate task is to bring in new industry. We want to know what the Government are doing to bring new jobs to our region.
9.55 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) thought that the voice of the North was not heard, but this cannot be the fault of the procedure of the House because I can recall four debates on the subject, and certainly two of them have been unexpectedly early Adjournment debates. There has, therefore, been a very full opportunity. Nevertheless, I welcome this present debate, and I am very glad to be able to reply to it.
The hon. Member raised the specific point of the V.A.T. centre, if it were to come about, or other Government offices being sited in the North-East, and we are actively pursuing the dispersal of offices. I know that my right hon. Friends will have carefully noted what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the attractions of the North-East as a site for offices. Moreover, in the White Paper on machinery of Government we announced a searching review into this matter.
But if the hon. Gentleman wishes to attract private industry to the North he must not say that there is no incentive to go there. Such a statement must be corrected. There are very substantial incentives to go there, and incentives on which we spend much time and money advertising in order to encourage industry to go there. To say that there is no incentive to go to that area is quite wrong. I know that later in the month I shall be meeting a deputation which the hon.

1131
Gentleman is bringing from his constituency, when no doubt we can continue that debate.
As a result of our completing Government business rather earlier this evening, a number of hon. Members have had an opportunity to speak, and I am very glad of it. I have listened carefully to what they have had to say. However, as I was expecting to reply only to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) I know that they will not expect detailed answers to any specific points. Without necessarily agreeing with what they said, we shall study most carefully their comments.
I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) should, with her vast experience, have brought such a sense of historical perspective to the debate. We all know what a tremendous fighter she has been for the Northern Region during her time in the House. She referred to a matter which I do not believe constitutes a disagreement between herself and my Department. There has, perhaps, been a misunderstanding as to what the Local Employment Acts are about. They are designed, and have been continued under successive Governments, for the specific purpose of providing employment. They are not designed specifically to aid tourism.
That is where I think the confusion has arisen. I have written to my hon. Friend as clearly as I can in response to her latest complaint and, if she is dissatisfied with that reply, or feels that the position is confused, I shall be only too delighted to see her, and perhaps some of my colleagues would wish to see her as well.
It is right not only that we should debate the Northern Region but also that we should try to conduct the debate as objectively as we can. I am sure that that did not happen tonight, for hon. Members opposite made their points fiercely but not necessarily fairly. But at least I do not think that they imputed any lack of sincerity in those who may not be in political agreement with them. No party has a monopoly of concern about the need of the people in every region to have open to them a range of job opportunities.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Speed.]
Mr. Grant: I was referring to a range of job opportunities, since the subject of the debate is employment and not simply unemployment. I want to dwell on this for a few minutes. I am sure hon. Members agree that it is all too easy when quoting job figures to slip into the habit of thinking only in numerical and not in qualitative terms. It is all too easy to forget what a changing employment structure, such as we have in the Northern Region, means in human terms. For the man who has been used to strenuous open-air work or to work calling for physical strength—and often considerable physical courage—the change to the routine of modern factory life may not always be easy. Nor do I think we can forget that our overall job statistics frequently disguise the extent to which not all new employment generated is suitable for men who have been in recent years those most affected by structural change.
I do not wish in any way to diminish the importance of providing more jobs for women in areas such as the Northern Region. After all, a lower activity rate represents a feature of unemployment, or, rather, under-employment. But my point can be illustrated by the fact that of the 18,700 jobs estimated to have been created in the Northern Region last year 6,000 were for women.
Nor in discussing employment can we overlook the need to create a proper spread of jobs. Without doubt there is an urgent need for new jobs in manufacturing industry, but it is also important in the Northern Region, as in other development areas, that there should be an adequate supply of jobs in the service sector. The service sector is the one which in modern economies holds out most prospects of growth. The last Government took the view that it was right to discriminate against the service sector. When selective employment tax was introduced the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), then the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

1133
referred to making labour available from the service sector to the manufacturing sector.
In the Northern Region, where there were not enough jobs in the service industries or in manufacturing industries, such a policy was thought to be nonsensical. The present Government also believe that this and other measures introduced by their predecessors to discriminate against the service industries were nonsense, and we are doing something about it.
The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring and others uttered harsh words about the Government's regional policy. But they know as well as anyone that there is no recipe for instant success. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when the Labour Government came to power in October, 1964, unemployment in the Northern Region was 40,000; five years later, it was 62,000; and during the following months when the hon. Gentleman was Minister with special responsibility for the North it rose to 69,000 in April, 1970. In relation to the situation in Great Britain as a whole, the Northern Region has suffered an increase in unemployment which is less severe than national trends would lead one to expect.
Mr. Urwin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to be unfair, or even to seem to be unfair. I said that the job of the Labour Government in terms of the generation of new employment and the redistribution of industry was bedevilled largely by the heavy job losses in coal mining, which amounted to 50,000 between 1964 and 1970. In addition, there was the heavy decline in agriculture and in British Railways because of the economic policy in respect of the latter. Those were far greater problems than anything which has yet confronted the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Grant: Of course I appreciate that, but unemployment is unemployment if one is on the dole, whether it arises from the decline in coal mining or ship building, or the steel industry, or any other industry which is changing over a period.
As Labour Members are not slow in drawing attention to the figures for unemployment under the present Government, I am entitled to quote the figures when they were in office.
Mr. Ted Fletcher: Will the hon. Gentleman quote the figures of unemployment for 1963, when the Tories were in power and which were an all-time record until recent months?
Mr. Grant: I am not going back that far, but I shall go back a long way.
I was saying that the Northern Region had suffered an increase in unemployment which was less severe than the national trends would lead one to expect and when compared with the rest of Great Britain, and I am concerned with the whole of Great Britain. I draw no comfort from statistical comparisons of this kind, but they demonstrate the falseness of the assertion that the Government are neglecting regions such as the North.
The hon. Member for Darlington referred to the steel industry. He knows that the British Steel Corporation announced plans which have been gestating for a considerable time. It was announced by the Corporation as early as January, 1969, that it aimed to reduce its labour force by 50,000 in the period up to 1975. It is not only the coal industry job losses which have an impact when an industry is rationalised.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) took a much more sensible view than that taken by hon. Members recently when he was Minister. He shadows me in the House and I have a considerable respect for him. On the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill he said:
"As a trade unionist myself, I hope that the unions will respond to the need for rationalisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 683.]
That is a sensible point of view and that is precisely what is going on, and I commend the right hon. Gentleman's words on that occasion to hon. Members opposite. It is important to see this matter in perspective.
Certain figures relate to job losses amounting to more than 2,000 in the Tees-side area, but actual redundancies are likely to be fewer and spread over a period. There will be a natural wastage and the Corporation will redeploy wherever possible. Some of those affected will no doubt secure other employment without registering. It would be wrong to suggest that these losses will have an immediate and

1135
marked effect on unemployment on Tees-side. Naturally, I regret the need for some of the decisions of the B.S.C. as much as do hon. Members opposite, but they know as well as I do how important it is to secure a firm foundation for a modern and effective steel industry.
Of course the Government are concerned about redundancy, but some of the indignation which I heard this evening from hon. Members opposite almost gave the impression that redundancies did not occur when they were in power. I remind them that in the Northern Region between 1967 and 1969 some 46,900 redundancies were notified, figures which do not include notified redundancies in the shipbuilding and construction industries.
What is important is that policies should be implemented which are relevant to the needs of the Northern Region. I was asked to be specific about the Government's plans. First, it is evident that the pattern of area coverage which we inherited in taking office in June last year did not reflect the realities of the situation, realities which have been evident for some time had hon. Members opposite cared to look. In 1966 when male unemployment in the region was 2·4 per cent., the rate on Tyneside, Wear-side, Peterlee and Hartlepools was 2·7 per cent. In 1967 the gap widened. Unemployment in the region jumped to 4·6 per cent. but in the older industrial areas of the North-East, which contain almost half the working population, it rose to 5·3 per cent.
By June, 1970, the gap was even wider—5·8 per cent. in the region but 7 per cent. in the older industrial areas. This situation developed during the time when hon. Members opposite were in Government and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring was Minister with special regional responsibilities in the D.E.A. and later a Minister for the North. Was he aware of what was happening? I find it hard to believe that he was not, when Tyneside and Wearside Members persistently in the last Parliament drew attention to the problems of that area. If the Government knew about it then, why did they not do something about it? Hon. Gentlemen opposite must admit that this deteriorating position of the older urban areas was unsatisfactory.
Mr. Urwin: The hon. Gentleman surely recognises that special development area status has recently been bestowed on Sunderland, Wearside and Newcastle, but that of itself does not make any contribution to the economic problems of that part of the region. It downgrades the rest, it spreads thin resources over a wider area. It is simply not "on" to suggest that it is an improvement to do that.
Mr. Grant: It is implicit in any regional policy that there must be discrepancies and differences—if one likes, unfairness—between one area and another. That is what regional policy is about. I am surprised if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is to do away with regional incentives, which is the implication of what he says.
Mr. Urwin: No.
Mr. Grant: Then the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Faced with the situation, about which the previous Government did nothing, faced with this widening gap in the older areas and the unemployment situation, the steps which the Government took, which caused irritation to hon. Gentlemen opposite—because I was present at the last debate and it rather took the wind out of their sails—gave considerable satisfaction to those who have to deal with the problems in the North-East as opposed to merely debating party political points in the House. It is extraordinary that it was left to a Conservative Government to take action to try to reverse the deteriorating situation in these areas.
Mr. Eric G. Varley: Part of our case has been that there has been a rapid and marked deterioration since last June, and loss of confidence began when the Government announced that they would change incentives. If the hon. Gentleman will direct his attention to the answer given to me by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry he will see that, based on any comparison for any quarter over the last 15 months, the position has deteriorated.
Mr. Grant: I will study that answer carefully. What I am not prepared to accept for one moment is that the change from investment grant to investment allowances has caused a lack of confidence among that section of industry we most want to encourage—namely, the profitable section. The Government have

1137
greatly strengthened the package of measures of preferential assistance to industry to give greater weight to the provision of employment and to stimulating enduring and profitable investment. That is the point I am making.
The new pattern of special development areas which we have created to deal with the problem and the worsening position of the older urban areas of the North will benefit from our decision to increase operational grants from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent., those grants being linked to the salary and wages bill of incoming projects to help them in the critical early years of operation.
The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring referred to the problems of the indigenous industry and said that the special development incentives in some way worked against industry which is already there. This is the purpose. The purpose is to attract and bring in new industry. That is why special incentives are necessary. New industry coming in has additional costs to bear which do not have to be borne by industry which is already there. It has also a free choice of where to go. That is the reason for the special incentives.
Dame Irene Ward: But my hon. Friend should not ignore the North-East Development Council, which is asking for an examination. Policies cannot remain static. They have to alter to meet changing situations. I hope that my hon. Friend will not just say that this is the position and not look at it again.
Mr. Grant: Certainly we shall not be inflexible. We shall look at the situation carefully and study the report of the Development Council. The last thing that I want is for regional policy to be rigid. This applies to the areas themselves, although there must be a period of stability. Hon Gentlemen opposite have criticised us for chopping and changing. But we have done it only once. Industry must have a period of stability and certainty. I can assure my hon. Friend that her point will be looked at carefully. Development area status is not holy writ, and areas will be kept under constant review.
As for investment grants and free depreciation and their merits or de-
1138
merits, hon. Gentlemen opposite and I will just have to differ. We on this side of the House are convinced that investment grants were wasteful and indiscriminate. They subsidised investment for its own sake and gave an especially heavy inducement to firms in development areas to substitute machinery for men. Whether we have grants or allowances, plant and machinery are only part of a firm's investment. I cannot believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite seriously question that the substantial improvements that we have introduced under the Local Employment Acts or the extension of the S.D.A.s themselves are right, or doubt whether the steps that we have taken will be of real help to regions such as the Northern Region. They are very substantial.
A former Member of this House and a one-time Labour Minister for whom I have considerable respect observed on a number of occasions that these indiscriminate grants could have the effect of actually reducing employment since they were given to capital-intensive firms which did not need them and whose location decisions were not influenced by them. It would be an absurd situation if the taxpayers' money which was poured into the regions under the last Government had the effect in many cases of reducing employment. However, it is clear from the figures that that has been the precise effect.
I return to my earlier point about the service industries and employment. The previous Administration thought it right to discriminate against service employment. We believe that it was a mistaken policy to try to damp down the growth of service employment, and we have taken steps which will benefit the growth of service industries in the Northern Region. We have widened the scope of free depreciation to include plant and machinery used for industrial purposes in the service sector, and we have halved and will abolish the selective employment tax which has borne so heavily on service employment, not least in hotels and tourism generally.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have sought to show that these policies have not worked. They must know that incentives do not create jobs instantly. If we have as long a period in office as the last Administration and our record is as bad,

1139
then it will be thoroughly disgraceful and deplorable. But my forecast is that the effect of our new measures and incentives will achieve what was manifestly a failure under the previous Administration—namely, to provide the right sort of investment and employment in the regions and development areas.
We inherited a situation in which unemployment in the Northern Region had risen relentlessly since 1966. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring referred to I.D.C. figures published last month for the first quarter of 1971. I do not read too much into figures for one region for one quarter. However, I point out that the January/March, 1971, figure was the same for the comparable period in 1970. I also point out that since July, 1970, the development areas have substantially increased their share of the total for Great Britain as a whole. In that period July, 1970, to March, 1971, the Northern Region had 7·1 per cent. of the Great Britain total, whereas in the period July, 1969, to March, 1970, it had only 6·9 per cent. of the total.
Mr. Urwin Mr. Urwin rose—
Mr. Grant: I think that I must get on. I need hardly say that I.D.C.s are an important and valuable weapon. They gladden the heart of the Treasury because they are inexpensive for the Government to operate for regional policies. I.D.C.s will be operated with a view to encouraging industry to go to the assisted areas where they will be freely available.
Mr. Urwin: Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is nonsense to talk about the numbers of I.D.Cs allocated when the important factor is the numbers of jobs accruing from them. The hon. Gentleman's figures, given to me on Friday, show seven I.D.Cs for the Northern Region in March with a total of 510 jobs. The total for the whole of the quarter is 3,620 jobs for only 37 I.D.Cs. It is the number of jobs which we finally get from I.D.C.s which is important.
Mr. Grant: Numbers of jobs generally stem from the square footage involved. If the hon. Gentleman studies the matter closely, as we have—I have not time to engage in an arithmetical computation—he will find that in square footage,
1140
which is the usual test, the development areas' share of I.D.Cs has increased. In what I accept is a bad situation, they have done very well. There has been a lack of mobile transport, but the development areas' share of I.D.Cs has been extremely good.
We shall administer the I.D.C. policy firmly with a view to assisting the development and other assisted areas. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know the constraints under which any Government operate in selecting the priorities for assistance to areas of need. Too many priority areas simply means spreading the effort and reducing its effectiveness. I know of the disappointment on Tees-side that we have not made it an S.D.A., and we are watching the position very closely. But despite the setbacks, it cannot be said that Tees-side's problems are as severe in scale as the hard-core areas on Tyneside, on Wearside or in Central Scotland.
I have tried to show that the Government are aware of the problems of the Northern Region and are taking energetic steps to deal with them. Hon. Members opposite and I have our differences, but we both want to see progress towards the substantial reduction of regional disparities. The hon. Member for Darlington would like to see a big car plant in the region. So would we. No doubt the Scots and the Welsh might have something to say about it but, if that were available, no one would be more pleased than I.
But I wonder whether hon. Members opposite, in uttering pessimism or denigrating our measures and in the general gloom which they spread, are helping to further our common objectives. They have to make constituency and party political speeches, but I hope that they will hesitate before denigrating the substantial assistance which is being given and will not take their own areas and constituencies out of the market. I hope that they will play their part in encouraging industry to take full advantage of the help available and avoid undermining confidence in a region which I believe has a promising future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

WALES
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Statutory Water Undertakings (Payments to Local Authorities)
  Statutory Water Undertakings (Payments to Local Authorities)
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Employment (South Caernarvonshire)
  Employment (South Caernarvonshire)
  Carmarthen (Bypasses)
  Carmarthen (Bypasses)
  Rio Tinto Zinco (Drilling Application)
  Rio Tinto Zinco (Drilling Application)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Senior Civil Servants
  Senior Civil Servants
  Rhymney Valley
  Rhymney Valley
  Derelict Land (Clearance)
  Derelict Land (Clearance)
  Road Programme
  Road Programme
  Selective Employment Tax
  Selective Employment Tax
  Report, "Water in Wales"
  Report, "Water in Wales"
  Rhoose Airport, Glamorgan
  Rhoose Airport, Glamorgan
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  National Fuel Policy
  National Fuel Policy
  Computerised Export Intelligence Service
  Computerised Export Intelligence Service
  Computerised Data-banks (Confidentiality)
  Computerised Data-banks (Confidentiality)
  Industrial Tariff Barriers
  Industrial Tariff Barriers
  Hotels and Boarding Houses (Regulations)
  Hotels and Boarding Houses (Regulations)
  Paper Industry
  Paper Industry
  Employment (Manchester)
  Employment (Manchester)
  Motor Manufacturing Industry (Balance of Payments)
  Motor Manufacturing Industry (Balance of Payments)
  Newton Aycliffe Industrial Estate
  Newton Aycliffe Industrial Estate
  Electrical Appliances (Manufacture)
  Electrical Appliances (Manufacture)
  Institutions Accepting Deposits (Accounts)
  Institutions Accepting Deposits (Accounts)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Plant)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Plant)
  Rhodesia (British Exports)
  Rhodesia (British Exports)
  Factories (Wales)
  Factories (Wales)
  Wines and Spirits (Import of Bottles)
  Wines and Spirits (Import of Bottles)
  Airlines (JP4 Fuel)
  Airlines (JP4 Fuel)
  Airlines (Flight Attendants)
  Airlines (Flight Attendants)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Air Information Services (Standards)
  Air Information Services (Standards)
  Australian Sugar
  Australian Sugar
  Shipbuilding (Grants and Loans)
  Shipbuilding (Grants and Loans)
  Foulness Airport
  Foulness Airport
  Aircraft (Accidents)
  Aircraft (Accidents)
  Firms, Durham (Government Assistance)
  Firms, Durham (Government Assistance)
  Registration of Business Names Act
  Registration of Business Names Act
  Dollar Land Holdings Ltd.
  Dollar Land Holdings Ltd.
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Public Companies (Investigations)
  Public Companies (Investigations)
  West Lothian (Visit)
  West Lothian (Visit)
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Air-Sea Rescue Service, Manston
  Air-Sea Rescue Service, Manston
  Llantrisant (Industrial Developments)
  Llantrisant (Industrial Developments)
AVIATION SUPPLY
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition Treaty)
  Republic of Ireland (Extradition Treaty)
  Venezuela
  Venezuela
  West European Federation
  West European Federation
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Lord Cromer (Speech)
  Lord Cromer (Speech)
  Disarmament (Research Department)
  Disarmament (Research Department)
  Moneys Transmitted Abroad
  Moneys Transmitted Abroad
  Ambassador to France (Engagements)
  Ambassador to France (Engagements)
  Gibraltar (Viaduct Housing Project)
  Gibraltar (Viaduct Housing Project)
  Pakistan
  Pakistan
  Secretary of State's Engagements
  Secretary of State's Engagements
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
ENVIRONMENT
  Petroleum Companies (Concessions)
  Petroleum Companies (Concessions)
  Land Commission
  Land Commission
  London Overspill Schemes
  London Overspill Schemes
  M3 (Hawley-Lightwater)
  M3 (Hawley-Lightwater)
  Dartford Tunnel (Approach Roads)
  Dartford Tunnel (Approach Roads)
  Local Authorities (Land Disposal)
  Local Authorities (Land Disposal)
  Water Rates (Rebates)
  Water Rates (Rebates)
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill
  M1, Watford Area (Accidents)
  M1, Watford Area (Accidents)
  Paths (Signposting)
  Paths (Signposting)
  Road Vehicles (Safety Measures)
  Road Vehicles (Safety Measures)
  Street Name Plates and House Numbering
  Street Name Plates and House Numbering
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Driving and Drink
  Driving and Drink
  Housing Subsidy Act, 1967
  Housing Subsidy Act, 1967
  A21
  A21
  Rent (Payment by Giro)
  Rent (Payment by Giro)
  St. James's Park (Traffic Signals)
  St. James's Park (Traffic Signals)
DEFENCE
  York Trailers
  York Trailers
  Portsmouth Naval Detention Quarters (Suicides)
  Portsmouth Naval Detention Quarters (Suicides)
  Royal Fleet Auxiliary Vessels (Time Tendering)
  Royal Fleet Auxiliary Vessels (Time Tendering)
  Royal Fleet Auxiliary Ships (Dockyard Repairs)
  Royal Fleet Auxiliary Ships (Dockyard Repairs)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Admiralty Ferry Crew Association
  Admiralty Ferry Crew Association
  South African Navy (Survey Ship)
  South African Navy (Survey Ship)
  H.M.S. "Ark Royal"
  H.M.S. "Ark Royal"
  OFFICIAL SECRETS CASE (COSTS)
  OFFICIAL SECRETS CASE (COSTS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk and Eggs (Farm Costs)
  Milk and Eggs (Farm Costs)
  Agricultural Subsidy
  Agricultural Subsidy
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Wheat and Barley (Target Prices)
  Wheat and Barley (Target Prices)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Schools (London Area)
  Schools (London Area)
  Torriano Infants School, Kentish Town
  Torriano Infants School, Kentish Town
  Lambeth Secondary Schools (Reorganisation)
  Lambeth Secondary Schools (Reorganisation)
  School Meals
  School Meals
EMPLOYMENT
  Professional and Executive Register (Reading)
  Professional and Executive Register (Reading)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoner, Liverpool (Escort Costs)
  Prisoner, Liverpool (Escort Costs)
  Irish Republican Army Gunmen
  Irish Republican Army Gunmen
  Anila Mystry
  Anila Mystry
  Collection and Distribution of Money (Security)
  Collection and Distribution of Money (Security)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Wales (Income and Expenditure Accounts)
  Wales (Income and Expenditure Accounts)
  Aquafilters (Purchase Tax)
  Aquafilters (Purchase Tax)
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Broadcasting Licences
  Broadcasting Licences
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Registrar General
  Registrar General
  Manchester Regional Hospital Board (Waiting Lists)
  Manchester Regional Hospital Board (Waiting Lists)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Death Grants
  Death Grants
  Geriatric Hospitals
  Geriatric Hospitals
  Social Survey
  Social Survey
  Social Welfare Cash Benefits
  Social Welfare Cash Benefits
  Pensioner Households
  Pensioner Households
  Retirement Benefit (Investment Income)
  Retirement Benefit (Investment Income)
SCOTLAND
  Guard Dogs
  Guard Dogs

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

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
LORD COBBOLD: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty The Queen signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received your Address praying that the Ministry of Aviation Supply (Dissolution) Order, 1971, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
"I will comply with your request."

CIGARETTE VENDING MACHINES
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there are any cigarette vending machines exclusively available to children as suggested by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (H.C. Deb. 23rd April, col. 1589); and
2
what stands in the way of banning all cigarette vending machines which are available to children and young persons.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, Section 7(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 empowers a magistrates' court to order the removal of a cigarette machine if the court is satisfied that the machine is being extensively used by persons under the age of 16. Enforcement does, however, present considerable difficulties. The question of vending machines is one of the matters which the Government will consider following the inter-departmental discussions on all the implications of the Report of the Royal College of Physicians.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply to my Question. In view of certain matters which have been published since I tabled the Question, may I ask why the question of vending machines was not included in the secret discussions that went on with the tobacco manufacturers? Further, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that secret discussions of this kind, without reference to Parliament, published eight weeks later and ending with practically an assurance that the Government will not trouble the manufacturers again until the end of 1972, are a satisfactory way of campaigning against cancer?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, on the first point, the manufacturers are not the appropriate people with whom to discuss

3
the question of vending machines. The vending machines are owned by various other people, who sell the cigarettes from them. On the second point, the Government firmly believe that to proceed as they are proposing to proceed, by means of voluntary agreement with the manufacturers, is a quicker and more effective way of achieving what we all want than legislation at this stage.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, can my noble friend say how much action has taken place under the Act of Parliament to which he referred? Can he also say why, in view of the very large number of retail outlets which exist for the sale of cigarettes, there is any reason at all for cigarettes to be sold from vending machines?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, on the first point, I am afraid that the figures of proceedings are not available, although I suspect that they are pretty low, owing to the difficulty of enforcing this particular provision. On the second point, the whole question is being discussed and we are awaiting the outcome of the interdepartmental discussions.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us any indication as to when we can expect the outcome? He will recall that at the end of our recent debate on smoking and health he himself gave an undertaking that this specific question would be considered.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I cannot give an answer as to when the result will be available, but I can say, as the noble Baroness will know if she has been following the debate on the Health Hazards Bill in another place, that my right honourable friend has paid great heed to what was said in this House about vending machines.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the first Report on this subject from the Royal College of Physicians—a Report which was made by a Committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Platt, was chairman—was made some years ago, and that a second, most authoritative Report, with Lord Rosenheim as the chairman of the Committee, has recently been made, can the Government explain why they are
4
dragging their feet and not taking immediate action in order to prevent children acquiring this pernicious habit?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not think that the Government are dragging their feet. I think they took action extremely quickly after the last Report, in announcing a voluntary agreement with the manufacturers. So far as the question of vending machines is concerned, this is a matter which requires legislation and we cannot go rushing bullheaded into it.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But is it rushing, my Lords? Has the noble Lord read the first Report, which was made years ago? Can it be regarded as rushing in view of the fact that he has had two Reports covering the last six or seven years?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: It is a Tory rush!
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we discussed this when we had the debate, and I believe that we are going ahead as quickly as we can on the last Report.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's statement that the voluntary method of procedure in these negotiations is quicker and more efficient than other methods of procedure, will he advise his right honourable friend to apply that to the Industrial Relations Bill?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the legislation which was intended to keep cigarettes out of the hands of children is the worst enforced and least enforceable legislation on our Statute Book, and will he please understand that it cannot be left there and must either go backwards or a great deal forwards?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think that is what I said in my original Answer.

TRADE MISSIONS: REDUCTION IN GOVERNMENT AID
2.41 p.m.
LORD BROWN: 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 will reconsider the curtailment of financial support given to overseas trade export missions which has already led to the postponement of 61 such missions.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the Government have considered this matter very carefully. We have concluded that we should keep expenditure within the proposed financial provision for 1971–72, and accept that this means a curtailment of financial support for outward missions after June 1.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask two supplementary questions? Is the noble Lord aware that hundreds of companies, which had assumed that there was little market for their products in certain overseas countries, were attracted in the first place to investigate by the generous terms made available by the old Board of Trade via the B.N.E.C.?
Is the noble Lord acquainted with the fact that these initial visits lead in many cases to the establishment of substantial exports which would not otherwise have come about?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the answer to both supplementary questions is, Yes.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that, simply because the Government inherited a balance of payments surplus from the last Government of nearly £600 million, it is very dangerous to whittle away the procedures which helped industry achieve such results?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are not whittling away the support which is given to missions. What we are doing, and what we have always done, is to exercise a certain amount of selectivity in missions. The fact is that the amount available this year is about £100,000 less than was available last year.
LORD HOY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government decision over this has been greeted in Scotland as absolutely intolerable? Will he not look at this question again to permit the Glasgow deputation to China at least to
6
meet their planned needs in the near future?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think it will be possible to go into the merits of individual applications in the form of question and answer. Undoubtedly, some missions planned or being planned for this year may have to be postponed to next year.
LORD HOY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this Glasgow one had been planned, many businesses in Glasgow have already been put to considerable expenditure, and only the decision of the Government has prevented it from taking place? In these circumstances would he not ask the Government to look at this question once more?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that those missions which were to go out in the following year have already been told so. I do not think it would be justifiable, because of one particular mission, to exceed the expenditure which is being put forward.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not extremely short-sighted for the sake of £100,000 to postpone something which will have an important effect on our balance of payments? Does the noble Lord consider this to be the right perspective?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is inevitable with missions arising from different parts of the country, whether industrial or chamber of commerce missions, that there has to be a certain amount of selectivity exercised in the choice of those to be assisted in any year.
LORD BYERS: The noble Lord has not said that it was a question of selectivity alone; he said that the money had run out. Why not offer another £100,000 and get these people on to the road?
LORD BROWN: Is the noble Lord implying that all these 61 missions which have been postponed have been postponed on the grounds of selectivity which, as the noble Lord knows, means that the B.N.E.C. does not think them worthwhile? Is that the inference of the noble Lord's answer?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. There are two factors: the general factor

7
of selectivity, which simply means that every mission which makes an application will not necessarily get support; and there is the factor of the estimate for this year.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if we put down a Question for Written Answer, will the noble Lord undertake to give the names of the proposed missions and of those missions which have been turned down? Will the noble Lord, if he can, give an estimate of what has been the sort of average export results of previous missions?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with regard to the second part of the supplementary question, I think that this would be extremely difficult to do because one cannot tell what has been the exact effect of a mission. With regard to the first part, I shall look at it; but I should prefer not to give an undertaking. The names of the missions that are going forward are usually published but I do not want to give rise to false hopes in this matter.

GROUP EXPORT REPRESENTATION SERVICE
LORD BROWN: 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 how many country export groups have now been formed by the Group Export Representative Unit of the Department of Trade and Industry.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Since the formation of the Group Export Representation service it has negotiated some 60 groups. There have been carried out 29 market surveys (12 by firms in one group) and 4 groups have now established overseas offices and warehouses.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am grateful for that information—and encouraged. In view of the known difficulty that British firms in pursuit of their export markets have in finding suitable agents and distributors overseas, will the noble Lord discuss with the Minister of Trade and Industry the idea of increasing
8
the number of people who are available to negotiate these group export agreements; for this would add a considerable boost to the number of groups being formed.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that I should pay tribute to the noble Lord for the intiative that he has shown in having this group set up; and valuable experience has been gained from it. But I think that he will recognise from the figures that this is not something that works in every case. We have to look at the cost effectiveness of this kind of expenditure, and my right honourable friend has come to the conclusion that it is a proper function of industry itself to establish warehouses abroad and that it is proper for Her Majesty's Government to help with the financing of market research.
LORD HOY: My Lords, will the noble Lord pay attention to the remarkable record of the British Agriculture Exports Council in this connection, and will he do all he can to ensure that the work of this Council is strengthened and not weakened?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, so far as getting the group concerned together—and I am aware, too, of the part the noble Lord played in this—and also assisting with the market research in the countries concerned.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, would the noble Lord state the number of senior personnel engaged in the Ministry of Trade and Industry on helping form these groups?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think I am right in saying there is a section doing this in particular, with one senior officer assisted by the usual staff in his section.
LORD BROWN: Does the noble Lord really believe that a scheme as valuable as this does not warrant, say, three or four additional personnel to speed up the formation of these highly valuable groups?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, I think the noble Lord will realise when he studies the answer I have already given that this is not universally acceptable. Perhaps I could just tell him that out

9
of the 60 groups formed, 17 groups have carried out a total of 29 market surveys, and four groups in addition are offering financial assistance with overseas offices and warehouses, while four are in negotiation for the provision of overseas offices arid warehouses. This is a comparatively small proportion of a very small proportion of total industry.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, in welcoming the Government's reply, may I ask whether they will consider the extreme value of encouraging British businessmen to go out and actually work the market? Will they also consider that while the British balance of payments is extremely favourable at the moment a good deal of it is due to capital inflow, and capital has a way of going away if exports are not maintained in a healthy state? It would therefore seem very important for the Government to encourage British businessmen to go and work the market, using the machinery that has been referred to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In general terms, I would agree with the noble Lord, but we are on the fairly narrow issue here of persuading groups of manufacturers with what might be regarded as complementary products to work together with a view to stimulating sales in particular markets.

CHINA AND THE UNITED NATIONS
2.53 p.m.
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 whether the admission of Communist China as a Member of the United Nations will qualify her for a permanent seat on the Security Council.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, China is an original member of the United Nations and under the Charter has the right to a permanent seat on the Security Council. The discussions in the United Nations over the years have been about which authorities are entitled to represent China in the United Nations. Her Majesty's
10
Government believe that the Government of the Chinese People's Republic should represent China in all organs of the United Nations, including the Security Council.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Since a change in the permanent membership of the Security Council is without precedent in the history of the United Nations, can she say what procedure would be followed for the admission of Communist China and whether it would be automatic or whether any change in the constitution is needed?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BSELHELVIE: No, my Lords, it would not be automatic because, as the noble Lord will know, the question is at present before the General Assembly and until that is decided the Security Council is not going to take it up.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, am I to understand that membership of the Communist Republic of China would mean that representation by Taiwan would cease? Is it not therefore desirable that consideration should be given to the future representation of Taiwan? Further, have Her Majesty's Government yet considered the proposal I made that there should be a period after which a referendum might be held in Taiwan as to whether it wishes to be an independent member of the United Nations?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will take note of the noble Lord's Question. Since 1961 we have voted consistently for the admission of the Chinese People's Republic of China, and that would automatically mean the expulsion of the National representatives. That is what we have voted for: but at the moment the question is only before the General Assembly.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the admission of Communist China is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the power of the Security Council to take any effective action?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I do not think I could comment upon that, but I think that most people agree on the necessity

11
for so large a country having representation at the United Nations.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness and the Government, whatever arrangements are made on the possible changeover in the Chinese representation, never to forget the outstanding work and help given to this country by Generalissimo Chiang Kaishek and his forces, and the indication we gave to them that they would have to continue their work until we had finished with the Germans, when we would come immediately to their assistance?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure that that Question will be borne in mind by my right honourable friend, but the question of the sovereignty of Taiwan is an undetermined question.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the Peking Government has at any time expressed approval of the purposes of the United Nations?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Not to my knowledge, my Lords.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
2.58 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 3 [Approval by Parliament of code of practice and revisions of code]:
LORD DIAMOND: I beg to move Amendment No. 16 standing on the Order Paper in the name of Lord Champion and myself:
Page 2, line 36, after ("Parliament") insert ("proposals for a draft code of practice in
12
order to debate and amend the principles to be embodied in").
It is a happy occasion that we should be starting this week's Business on this Bill with this particular Amendment, because we are now dealing with a clause which proposes the setting up of a code of practice. This is something which, in principle we all seem to desire. We are dealing with a matter of detail arising out of that clause which I think is desired by all sides of this Committee, certainly by all sides of the House in another place, and one to which expression has been given by the Government.
Perhaps it would be convenient to start by referring your Lordships to what the Solicitor General said in considering this point on January 27. He said (referring to the Secretary of State in charge of the Bill for the Government):
"My right honourable friend has made clear, and asks me again to make clear, that consultation about the code will be wide-ranging and thorough, and that ample time will be allowed for that consultation to take account of the views expressed by honourable Members of the House and of the other place."
We could not ask for a clearer expression of an acceptable viewpoint by the Solicitor General, speaking on behalf of the most responsible Minister of the Government so far as this Bill is concerned. I am sure your Lordships will recognise that not the slighest discourtesy is intended to anybody at all if we take the view that so excellent is that expression of opinion that it should be embodied in the Statute, and therefore the Amendment proposes that there should be the opportunity—and I quote the words of the Solicitor General again:
"For that consultation to take account of the views expressed by honourable Members of the House and of the other place."
Your Lordships will be more fully aware than I am of the limitations of the present method of consultation as proposed in the Bill; a method under which a detailed code, which may run into many paragraphs and will undoubtedly touch on a number of issues of great importance dealing with human relationships and industrial relations, will be put before your Lordships' House and explained in full detail. No doubt your Lordships will have views on each paragraph. but under the Bill as it stands you will be entitled to vote for or against the whole code, and nothing, but the whole code.

13
I am suggesting that that is a totally inappropriate and inadequate method of expressing your Lordships' views and of taking advantage of the great experience available from both sides of the Committee. The only way to give an opportunity for thorough consultation and for carrying out the desires of the Secretary of State and the Solicitor General is for there to be ample opportunity for consideration, a full debate, in which opposing views may be expressed so that the truth may thereby emerge. That is the purpose of the Amendment.
May I read subsection (1) as it is proposed to amend it?
"The Secretary of State shall, before the end of a period of one year"
et cetera,
"lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for a draft code of practice in order to debate and amend the principles to be embodied in a draft of the code of practice prepared by him under section 2(1) …".
What the Secretary of State has to prepare is called a draft code of practice. If I wish to suggest, as indeed I do, that there should be a document in advance of that, so that it may be debated in detail, I have to refer to something other than a draft code of practice. Therefore the Amendment refers to proposals that should be put before your Lordships' House so that there may be full consultation and a debate. This, I repeat, is the best way we have been able to think of to achieve the desire expressed by the Solicitor General and the Secretary of State. I hope it will meet with the approval of the Government and the Committee.
LORD SHINWELL: At this stage I venture to pose a question, and the nature of the subsequent debate will depend on the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I wish to ascertain whether the submission of a draft code of practice to the other place will be in the form of "Take it or leave it ", without any prospect of amendment? No doubt there will be an opportunity for debate; but, as I understand it, the draft code cannot be amended in the other place. The prerequisite feature of the full implementation of the Government's policy depends, in my submission, on co-operation which should begin in both Houses, or at any rate in the other place to start with, to obtain the views of honourable Members.
14
I understand that this is merely a draft code; it is not intended to be the ultimate word on the subject. In my submission it should take the form—as is the customary procedure, adopted by several Governments in past years and accepted by the present Government—of submitting a White Paper to both Houses in order to ascertain the general point of view, to "collect the voices". This is a desirable method of injecting co-operation. The purpose of my question is to ascertain the view of the noble Lord on this matter, and on his answer will depend the nature of the subsequent debate.
LORD DRUMALBYN: What the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has suggested seems eminently reasonable; but I think we should carefully consider what the procedure is to be, so that there may be no misunderstanding. First, the consultative draft will be published. At that point there is publication and there can be representations about it and consultations. Anyone may make representations; it will be open to any Member of your Lordships' House or the other place, or any group of Members to make representations. Once that has been done, my right honourable friend will seek to achieve the greatest consensus; and as the Bill is now drafted he will put the draft before Parliament, which would be a perfectly normal thing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, asks whether this could not be put forward in the first place as a White Paper, before the draft is actually made. I take it that he means a Paper which would have a brief introduction followed by the code. No doubt the code would have been amended already in the light of representations made. Or, at any rate, there would be an opportunity to amend it. It might be so perfect that it would need no amendment; but perhaps that is asking too much—even of this Government. The noble Lord, asks, will this be done? I am not in a position to commit another place about what it will ask to be done in respect of the draft code, or indeed of the consultative document. They may want to have a debate on it; they may then want to make representations.
LORD SHINWELL: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but when he speaks' about "representations" what does that mean? Does it mean that when

15
the draft code is submitted in another place, and perhaps in your Lordships' House, it will be subject to any amendment, and possibly a vote taken on any of the items?
3.10 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. I understand that what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is suggesting is a White Paper before the draft is actually submitted to Parliament for approval. I am saying that it will be open to the House, at an earlier stage on the consultative document, to debate it then. We have had this rather unusual proposal. I am sure the noble Lord recognises that for many years it has been unusual to amend draft Orders in either House—I believe that there is one noteworthy exception. But what the noble Lord is now asking for, as I understand it, is that the principles of the code, and only the principles, should be amendable when proposals embodying what the Secretary of State hopes to put into the draft are laid before Parliament. It would be extremely unusual to take a White Paper or anything of that kind—because that is what the proposals would be; the noble Lord can call it a White Paper—and go through it line by line, or even those parts which relate to the principles, and amend them. The ordinary course surely is to take proposals of that kind as a whole and debate them.
What I am saying is that I am not authorised to commit this House or another House to debating the draft proposals before they are laid before your Lordships and another place. Even if that were done, it would not be appropriate to go through the draft proposals line by line and amend them. The right course is in debate to indicate what you find to object to; and then, certainly where you have a draft, if the feeling is strong enough the House can say that it considers that the noble Lord, or the right honourable gentleman, as the case may be, should take the Order back and re-draft it and bring it forward again; and there can, of course, be a vote on that. That is what happens when the draft comes forward. All I am saying is that in the light of what will have taken place before it comes forward—there will have been representations,
16
there will have been consultation, there will have been full consideration by the Secretary of State of all this, in order to achieve the greatest consensus—it would be unreasonable, I think, at that stage, to depart from the usual procedure with a draft. I cannot, as I say, commit my noble friend or my right honourable friend to have a debate on the draft before it is laid, or on a White Paper. But what the noble Lord is here seeking to put into the Bill—namely, that proposals should be laid before Parliament for debating and amending—would be a most unusual procedure, and in the light of the consultation that is going to take place I am suggesting that that would not be justified.
LORD BURNTWOOD: I stand subject to correction, but in the matter put before the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, could we not get over the difficulty by using the device known as a Green Paper, which was used reasonably successfully only half a year ago in connection with the reform of the National Health Service?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Quite plainly, there are two features to this debate: first, that this House is asking for an opportunity to debate the proposals which are to be put into the draft before the Secretary of State actually lays them in the form of a draft. That is a common request, but it would be most unusual, and I think inappropriate, to put it in a Bill. Secondly, I am saying that it would be really unusual, to the point of being completely inappropriate, to provide new machinery by which such proposals should be actually amended by the House. That is really going too far in all the circumstances.
LORD SHINWELL: The noble Lord appears to misunderstand me. I did not suggest that the Government should present a White Paper. I used that as an illustration. It has been customary to choose a White Paper for the purpose of collecting the voices, and subsequently the Government have made up their mind on the items of legislation about which they were concerned. What I suggest is that when the draft code of practice is submitted it should take the form of a White Paper, and it should be subject not only to discussion but to possible amendment. As I understood the noble Lord—

17
he will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am within the recollection of noble Lords—he said that subsequently, when the actual code of practice is submitted to the House (that is, following the draft code having been submitted), it could be subject to a Vote. Those were the words he used.
LORD DRUMALBYN: When the draft is put before Parliament for approval, it is quite possible for the House to withhold approval.
LORD SHINWELL: In other words, what he is saying is precisely what I suggested when I ventured to pose the question. What the Government are proposing is: "Take it or leave it. You can vote against it lout you cannot amend a single line, a single principle, embodied in the code of practice." There must be general agreement in your Lordships' House, whatever views are held about the proposed legislation, that the code of practice is of fundamental and vital importance, because the code of practice will govern the practice associated with the legislation, not the theory of legislation. It governs what is to happen on the shop floor, the relations between the trade union movement and the employers' associations, and the relations between both these organisations and the Government? I am surprised at the attitude of the noble Lord, because he ventured to say, almost apologetically, that he could not answer for what was actually going to happen; he merely had some idea, some notion, some suspicion about it, but as to any actual knowledge he had which would enable him to inform your Lordships' House on this very important matter, he was somewhat doubtful. There was something dubious in what he said.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Would the noble Lord forgive me? I think I may not have made myself quite clear on this, but the point on which I could not answer was whether there would be a debate on the consultative document when it came forward. When the consultative document comes forward it will be published, and I take it that if the House wants that debated and insists on its being debated, it can be debated. That is the point I was making. Then the consultative document will be fully examined and discussed all over the country
18
and any of your Lordships can make representations about it. All we are now discussing is whether between that consultative document and the draft there should be a further opportunity, in the form of proposals or a White Paper or whatever else you may call it, for the House to consider before the draft code of practice is laid before the House for approval.
LORD SHINWELL: Obviously I recognise that the noble Lord is anxious to inform the House about what is in his mind, but may I take the matter in chronological order? A draft code of practice is to be submitted in the other place. If it is submitted, it is expected, presumably, that honourable Members and right honourable gentlemen will wish to have something to say about it. The Government will hear what they have to say and will promise to take note of what has been said. But no honourable Member or right honourable gentleman can move an amendment: he can make suggestions, but that is all. The Government can ignore those. The next point is that they submit what is called the draft code. That can be debated and a vote taken on it, but no amendment may be moved and accepted. The noble Lord takes refuge in the normal practice of both Houses of an Affirmative Resolution. Such a Resolution can be submitted to both Houses of Parliament but is not subject to Amendment. Sometimes this has given rise to a great deal of misunderstanding and difficulty; it has been regarded as a device by a Government to obstruct, and usually they have succeeded in their efforts of obstruction.
The next point, in chronological order, is that the draft code is to be submitted to the Commission. Perhaps the noble Lord has not read the Bill. The subsequent subsection says that the Secretary of State
"shall submit a copy of the draft to the Commission for their consideration and advice."
This is the next step. It is to be submitted to this somewhat amorphous body, about whose functions we have no clear idea. Why not submit it to honourable Members of another place for their consideration and advice, and allow them to express their views about it, and let the Government promise to take note and act accordingly?

19
Finally, unless we are satisfied about this, then I shall have grave doubts about the Government's intentions. I say that in all sincerity. I do not attribute any malice to the Government in this legislation. They believe that they are doing the right thing. But may I paraphrase a statement made many years ago by a notable politician, Lord Milner—not the present noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, but the Lord Milner who was associated with the Boer War and the Liberal Governments of 1906 and 1910? He said, "If a Government produces legislation which in the opinion of the Opposition is bad, it is the duty of the Opposition to prevent it and we are going to prevent it, and damn the consequences". That is not what I am saying; that is what Lord Milner said. I think that we are entitled to protest, because protest is the only remedy we have to try to bring some kind of—not pressure, but persuasion, upon the Government to do the right thing. Unless we can be assured that here is an opportunity for co-operation and perhaps conciliation, which can pave the way, if the Government like, to the implementation of this legislation—though some of it is very disagreeable to the trade union movement and even to some of the employers organisations; unless the Government seize this opportunity to take a path to co-operation, then in my opinion this is a path to further industrial turbulence.
LORD BYERS: Without wishing to argue the merits of this Amendment—and I can see grave technical difficulties in accepting it—I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has not done justice to his own case by giving no assurance that this code of practice can be debated. Surely it is inconceivable that if any noble Lord wishes to debate it anybody will stop him. This House runs its own business and I am sure that it is the least of our worries that we shall not be able to debate this.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The only reason why I did not give an assurance is because it is not a matter for me but for my noble friend the Leader of the House, in conjunction with the usual channels, if there is a demand for a debate. I cannot give an assurance on
20
this as the question has not really been presented.
LORD BYERS: This is what I mean. The noble Lord is not helping his case. We could put down a Motion on the Liberal day, or the Opposition could put down a Motion. There is no difficulty about that. I think that the noble Lord is creating the difficulty.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am being asked to provide a day without any further action at all. We are now being asked: "Will there be a debate?" and I am saying that this is a matter for the noble Lord and other noble Lords and the House.
May I just clear up one or two points which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has made? It is not in the Bill, but my right honourable friend has given an assurance that this code in draft form will be published first as a consultative document. When that is done there will be the greatest possible opportunity for discussion, consultation and the like, with the object of getting the maximum agreement. In the course of that, it will be possible for Members of your Lordships' House and of another place to make representations and get the maximum agreement. What noble Lords are now asking is that another process shall be interposed at which that maximum agreement can be amended, in principle at any rate. Of all things I should have thought that this was just what is undesirable. There will be the maximum consultation and agreement. We hope very much that we shall get considerable agreement on this. Now noble Lords are asking that that agreement should be open to amendment by another place and by this House.
May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that if he looks carefully at subsection (3), he will see that it is only on the revision of the code that there is a duty to submit a copy to the Commission for their consideration and advice. When the original consultative document—the code in draft, or the consultative code—is produced, the Commission will obviously be asked, together with many other bodies, including the industrial society, for their comments. I really think it is quite unnecessary to have an entirely extraneous and additional procedure, which is at variance with the normal procedure of your Lordships' House.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. From my reading of the Bill, I understand that an infringement of the code of practice could lead to the courts. It is said that anybody can make representation on this code. If I throw my mind back to Lord Milner, I remember that Lord Milner, a great man, made representations to the Tsar of Russia—and with what result! How can we expect people in all equity to agree unseen to a code of practice which leads to the courts, without knowing what is in it? That seems to me unreasonable and slightly improper.
3.29 p.m.
LORD PLATT: I did not intend to say anything on this Amendment but I am really alarmed about this discussion. On Thursday, when I spoke, it seemed to me that the whole of the Bill applied to the trade unions, but in many places I doubted its relevance to the professions. Surely it is precisely in the terms of the code of practice that these differences, if they have any substance—which I believe they have—will come out and become important. The idea of giving an assenting or negative vote to the whole code, without a full opportunity to say why, is one with which I disagree. I am in favour of this Amendment, I think that this is a splendid idea and I wholeheartedly support it, because I think that certain clauses should not apply to my particular profession, which is an important profession, because this is precisely the position I shall be put into, as I understand the Minister's replies to the questions which have been raised. I admit that my knowledge of Parliamentary procedure is not profound, and my fears may be unfounded; but to me it has an alarming phase.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Those of us who have earned our living by writing words sometimes find great difficulty in trying to interpret them when we see them on paper. There is an expression in this clause, "draft code of practice". I want to establish that the draft code of practice is really the final definitive code of practice. We cannot amend it; we have to take it or leave it. I move back to the original stage which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, mentioned, the stage of the consultative document. That consultative document, he said, will be widely
22
circulated. It will go to the C.B.I., the T.U.C., the Ballet Dancers' Association, the National Association of Dolls' Eyes Manufacturers, to the plumbers trade union. Whom will it not go to? It will not go to one of the Houses of this Legislature, a vital part of the constitution, the House of Commons, and it will not go to the other vital part of the Constitution, your Lordships' House. I know it can be said that individual noble Lords may privately, in the course of a furtive letter, make suggestions about whether they think this or that particular clause in the code of practice is good or bad. That is quite different from the Houses of Parliament. They must have this opportunity of considering the proposals of the code. The procedure here seems to savour far too much of Signor Mussolini's corporate state, and not that of the constitutional Parliamentary democracy of Britain.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: This procedure, as explained, is a very disturbing one. Memories are short. The greatest complaint the T.U.C. had against the Government's original proposals was the manner in which they were put out, in a so-called consultative paper, and the T.U.C. were given about six weeks in which to submit comments. Their first complaint was that this period of time for such an important Bill was completely inadequate, and many of us are more and more becoming convinced, as has been said, that words are taking on a new meaning. The concept of consultation is taking upon itself a new meaning, and although I am putting a trade union view, I too, feel that this is a most serious situation. First of all you put out a draft of what you are thinking of doing, then you gather evidence and get a consensus, but neither House of Parliament has the opportunity of consultation—they can make their submission, but they cannot amend or vary any of the many proposals, I think about 20, in this new code of fair practice. As has been said, the trade unions are aware that the violation of these codes, especially if a trade union is not registered, can be a most serious matter for them, and I hope Parliament will have the chance of looking at the proposals contained in the practice code and have the opportunity of amending or rejecting some of them.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: Many of the points which have been raised in earlier speeches are very important and very serious, and we should not pass over them lightly or in a hurry. This is the first time—at any rate within my knowledge, and I am open to be corrected—that a legal code of practice in industrial relations has been proposed. Because of that this is a very serious matter.
I have read the debates on this Clause 3 and the Amendments which were made in another place, and they regarded the matter with such seriousness that on both sides of the Committee there were apprehensions and perturbations, and much pressure was applied to the Solicitor General to make this matter as clear and as understandable as possible. In the light of what the Solicitor General said on January 27 in another place—which I will quote in a moment if I am permitted—I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has been quite as clear or as forthcoming as his right honourable friend was. Although this is not what the Clause says, do I understand now that the position is that before a draft code, before an affirmative resolution is laid before both Houses of Parliament, there will be published what the noble Lord refers to as a consultative document? The Clause does not say that at all, and what we are dependent upon is the intention and the good will of pronouncements that there will be this consultative document.
The Solicitor General in another place was very much seized with this, and he was referring, in reply to a question put by one of his honourable friends, to what we now know as the consultative document that will be published before the code of practice, and this is what he said, and I would like to know if the noble Lord agrees with this:
"When the matter is debated here or in the other place, as my honourable and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) pointed out"—
no dubiety, no ambiguity here—
"it can he taken back for reconsideration if any substantial points are put which would justify that action,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 27/1/71, col. 576.]
All I want to know, and what my noble friends wish to know, is whether we shall be able to debate this document, and be
24
able to amend it, in the hope that the Secretary of State will take note of what is in the minds of noble Lords here, and be so impressed that he will take it back and have another look at it before the code of practice is submitted to both Houses—where it cannot be amended but only voted on. Could the noble Lord give us some clarification and guidance on that point, the consultative document as against the draft code which is mentioned in the clause.
BARONESS BACON: The noble Lord is quite right when he says that usually Orders in Council have to be taken as a whole and either approved or disapproved, but surely the difficulty here is that an important part of this Bill is really the code of practice, and had this code of practice been put as a Schedule to this Bill it would have been possible for both Houses to consider it in detail and amend it. The difficulty is that this code of practice is being regarded as an Order, in the way in which the noble Lord has stated. Could not the noble Lord take this back and devise some way of bringing this before both Houses of Parliament, so that it could he debated and, if necessary, amended, even though perhaps it was not in the form of an Order in Council, as is the usual practice. This is an important point, and one on which the whole of the Bill really hangs.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I think my noble friend has made a constructive point. Would it not be possible for the noble Lord to have this included in a Schedule? I remember distinctly the Government saying during the propaganda period about this Bill that there were pillars of wisdom in the Bill which were not negotiable. Is the code of practice one of the mighty pillars of wisdom? All we are asking is for the right of Parliament, as such, including both Houses, to amend and debate the principles. I cannot see why this democratic resolution cannot be accepted. It is part of the principles of the British way of life.
I hope that the noble Lord will get some information on this. I sympathise with the noble Lord—I do not say that in a condescending way—because I know the difficulties that Ministers in this House have. They are provided with briefs, they have a whole range of duties upon them, and often they get a brief and

25
there is too little time to consider fundamental questions. I would therefore ask the noble Lord this direct question. Has the noble Lord had an opportunity of discussing this important Amendment with the Government to see what possibility there is of conceding this constructive point. If I spoke any longer I should only be reiterating what has already been said, but I appeal in the name of our democratic system, and I think of common sense, that we should include this Amendment in the Bill.
LORD HENLEY: I wonder if the Opposition know what they are really asking for when they ask to have the code of practice put into the Bill either as a schedule or in any other way. It seems to me that codes of practice, whether they are Highway Codes, Countryside Codes or whatever, are going to be things that we use increasingly. If you have a code of practice like this, it seems to me that it should be something outside the Act of Parliament, and something to be amended according to practice as it develops. If you adopt the idea of putting a code of practice as a Schedule to a Bill, or as part of a Bill, you are going to tie yourself down more rigorously than it seems to me you would be doing if you left the code of practice as something outside the Bill.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My noble friend Lord Davies of Leek asked if the code of practice was going to be a pillar of wisdom, or was a pillar of wisdom. Having listened to the debate this afternoon on the code of practice, for me it has a kind of Alice in Wonderland quality. If noble Lords will think of Alice with the Cheshire Cat, and he way the Cheshire Cat faded out and only the grin was left, your Lordships will appreciate why it seems to me that this is exactly what has happened this afternoon in debate. We seem to see it at one moment, and then it fades out, as in Alice in Wonderland, and now we only have the grin left.
LORD ROBBINS: I am only moved to ask the noble Lord, who suffers many grievous tribulations, whether in addresing his illustrations to the Committee he will put in the centre of his thought an answer to the question which was posed
26
by the noble Lord, Lord Byers: will this House have an opportunity of discussing this code before it becomes the subject of a Yes or No vote?
3.44 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I can answer that question straight away, I would say that this is in the hands of the House. I think perhaps in the light of past history—the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, has rather brought this home to me—I might have used a different expression from "consultative draft". It is really a preliminary draft. It is common practice for outside bodies to be consulted in the preparation of a draft that is going to be laid before Parliament. This will be done on a very wide scale indeed; and there will be no hurry about it. I should like to quote what my right honourable friend said in another place in response to a question on the code of industrial relations practice. He said
"I assure my honourable friend that there will be months for consultation. The timetable I have in mind is that it should finally be put in the House towards the end of the year. That will give many months for consultation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 29/4/70, col. 691.]
Again and again my right honourable friend has gone out of his way to say how anxious he is that all bodies concerned with the code—or, if I may put it for the noble Lord, Lord Platt, in another way, those to whom the preliminary draft gives cause for concern—will be very welcome indeed to make their representations and, if they so wish, to have consultations. Surely very little more could be said than this.
I cannot give way on this particular Amendment, partly because I do not think the Amendment itself, as it stands, is viable, but partly, in any case, because it would represent a departure from our normal practices. I think the Committee should take into consideration what I have said on this: the fullest consultation; the opportunity to debate on the preliminary document; the formation of the document itself; its laying before Parliament, and the fullest possible opportunity for Parliament to debate it. And, of course, if Parliament were able to convince my right honourable friend, or if either House was convinced, that changes ought to be made—and not only

27
in the principle—then I have no doubt that my right honourable friend would withdraw the code and relay it. This is the usual procedure.
Perhaps I should also say that when we come to Clause 4 we shall deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, as to its being a legal code of practice. Of course it is legal in the sense that the Bill provides for it; but when we come to Clause 4 we shall then see that it is not legal in the sense that anybody can be hauled before the Court for having offended against the provisions of the code by themselves.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: This is not good enough.
LORD ROYLE: In relation to the latest speech the noble Lord has made, I am getting more and more encouraged, not discouraged. It seems to me that we are going on talking about this Bill quite up to the Summer Recess, whenever that may be, and then a little later; in due course, after the passing of the Act, we shall have a code of practice within twelve months, and then there will be months of consultation with all kinds of people. It seems to me that we might possibly see the Bill fully effective by the end of 1972. If by that time we are getting anywhere near a General Election, the encouragement for me is that this Bill in full implementation will never see the light of day.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for his answer. I think that when we get involved in dealing with the code of practice—on either side—it will tax the limits of any good lawyer. In another place, the Solicitor General said that the code of practice:
"is to be laid before each House. It requires debate on an Affirmative Resolution but it is not amendable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 27/1/71, col. 574.]
I am still in the dark about whether we can amend the code of practice before it becomes law.
LORD ARCHIBALD: May I follow the question asked by my noble friend? I may be stupid, but I am getting more and more confused. It would appear from Lord Drumalbyn's answer that when the preliminary draft is produced it will be discussed with many organisations and
28
people outside both Houses of Parliament. Yet, when it is finally agreed with those organisations which are consulted, it will be laid before Parliament in an unamendable form, to which we can say either yea or nay. The T.U.C., the C.B.I. and other people may be consulted and have the opportunity of discussing the code, but the two Houses of Parliament will have no opportunity of discussing it other than saying yea or nay. Is that the position?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My noble friend actually said the opposite. It could not be put more neatly in the reverse sense of what he said. What he said was that when the preliminary draft was laid before outside bodies it would rest with each House of Parliament, and in particular this one, to say whether they should debate it at that stage or not. Presumably if a noble Lord wanted to raise a debate about it that could be done, here or in another place. My noble friend said that the preliminary draft would rest before either House of Parliament, or both.
3.53 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: We are all most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who normally sits on the Woolsack, for having made clear precisely what we are not talking about. What we are not talking about is the opportunity to debate and say "Yes" or "No" by voting in one Lobby or the other. What we are saying, and what six members on the Government side in another place intervened to say (I am not using their exact words, but am putting it in my words, and I will use very plain words, having regard to what the noble and learned Lord has just said) is that it was an insult to both Houses of Parliament that there should be no regard paid to consultation on a matter of such wide-ranging importance as the code of practice. Everyone has made clear that this code is fundamental to this Bill—and, indeed, it might well be justified without any Bill, if one really intended to improve industrial relations. This has been made clear by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, in a most moving speech, and also in speeches by noble Lords on the Cross-Benches and by many others who sit behind me. What we are concerned about is the fact that

29
the Government, in this Bill, have acted in a totally unreasonable way in refusing consultation, or in paying no regard to consultation, and certainly in paying no attention to the arguments that have been put forward.
I do not know the view of noble Lords who sit behind the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn; I know only the view as represented by Conservative Members in another place. They are just as anxious as we are. I am twice as anxious as I was before Lord Drumalbyn spoke, for two reasons. First, because he seems to have gone back somewhat on the undertaking, although he cannot go back on it, by the Solicitor General; and, secondly, because his speech was such a throwing of dust in our eyes as I never expected from anyone not expert in such a Gilbertian activity.
I shall say why I make that claim. Every one of us has come to respect the proceedings of both Houses, because we know that within those proceedings we can do whatever we want and whatever is reasonable and right. There are procedures for doing everything. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, "We"—the Government—"have picked a certain procedure. That procedure allows only of the answer yes or no. Therefore would it not be unreasonable to go on in that procedure and ask for more than yes or no?" Of course it would, but why pick that procedure when there are so many other procedures open to the Government?
If I may draw on my experience over the Finance Bill, for example, as every noble Lord knows, there are the provisions in the main body of the Bill which are the main provisions. Then there are Schedules galore giving the detail, which gives a good deal of the life to the provisions themselves. Then, outside the Bill, one may have completely detailed administrative arrangements which may be subject to an Affirmative or a Negative Resolution. That is for Parliament to decide.
The Government are suggesting that this is the best procedure for dealing with a very important matter which is incorporated in this Bill, that we are going through Clause by Clause and line by line so as to secure Amendments—the Government should not say that no Amendments are necessary—and that
30
finally we can reach a stage in which we can take it yes or no because very shortly—more shortly if Lord Drumalbyn's answer had been in the slightest degree a satisfactory one—we shall be getting on to Clause 5. Then the Government themselves will be introducing the largest Amendment on the Notice Paper. So it is not for the Government to say that they have all the wisdom and that it is ever necessary for a Government to come before Parliament, having considered matters, and to say to Parliament "We would like your views as well as ours".
It is quite intolerable for the noble Lord to take the view that they should know so much about all the views of all the Members of both Houses that it is not necessary to have a debate and a discussion, and the possibility of amendments, when it comes to this most important part of our proceedings, the code of practice. I am saying, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, said, and as is in everyone's mind, unfortunately we do not know what on earth we are talking about. It may be said that that is something in my normal practice. Maybe that is an appropriate reply, but we do not know what we are talking about because the code of practice is not before us.
One noble Lord has suggested that it will have 20 principles. I should have thought it might have very many more. I do not know, but what we do know is that it is of enormous importance to all engaged in the Houses of Parliament, and that all these matters and opinions do not simply fall Party-wise. For example, there are many provisions in this Bill where the Government are on one side and where on the other side are joined together employers and trade unions, such as several of the closed shop provisions.
I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate that it is absurd to pretend that the code of practice is of such minimal importance, such simplicity, that the Government, after consultation with outside bodies, and listening to what they say, can come before Parliament and put the matter to Parliament on a simple "yes or no" basis. I should have thought that the Government would be the first to say that that is not treating either House of Parliament with the respect which it ought to receive; it is not giving Members, who are responsible for their

31
constituents in one place, and noble Lords, who have vast experience in this field in another place, the opportunity to make their contribution to what should be a much improved code of practice after the Government have had an opportunity of considering it.
I had not thought for one second that this would be an Amendment on which I should be put in the position of seeking to divide your Lordships' House. I had assumed that the noble Lord would say that he recognised the pressure in the other place by his own side as well as by our side; that he recognised the force of what the Secretary of State and the Solicitor General said, and that he recognised that there are many procedures by which this could be both discussed and amended, as my Amendment says. One suggestion is putting it as a Schedule to a Bill; that is a very simple suggestion and is standard practice. There are other ways in which it could be done. What I am suggesting to your Lordships—
LORD HENLEY: May I interrupt the noble Lord?
LORD DIAMOND: May I finish my sentence? What I am suggesting is that it is totally inadequate that it should be done in a way in which important parts of the code of practice should have to be accepted with other parts, irrespective of the fact that we may approve of some part and, as a House, disapprove of some other parts.
LORD HENLEY: I am in this difficulty. If the matter is debated in such a way, not that you accepted or rejected the general principles, but that you amended them, you would be amending something which became part of legislation. Then you would defeat the object of Clause 4, because you make what you have amended something on which a man can be sued. The beauty of the code of practice is that it is a general principle which can be observed and called into question, as is suggested under Clause 4, but it is not something on which a man can be sued.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, if he will forgive me for saying so, is neither under a difficulty on the point he has just raised, nor is he under any difficulty on the point he raised
32
previously. On the point he just raised no different legal status need necessarily be given to this code because it is a code on which Parliament has a chance to approve it in parts instead of in totality.
As to the other point, no difference in the feasibility of varying the code is in the slightest degree affected by what we are proposing. I recognse that he was put in the odd position of proposing an autocratic procedure which is totally at variance with his Liberal attitudes. He was put in the awkward position of proposing an autocratic procedure because he thought that otherwise we should get a code of practice which could not be amended. I am suggesting that it can be amended precisely as it is proposed to be amended in the Bill, whether either House of Parliament have a capacity to deal with it in detail or in total. There is no earthly reason why Parliament—
LORD HENLEY: I must interrupt the noble Lord. I will read carefully what he has said because I am not quite sure that I agree that he has the point right, or that he has answered it correctly. I hope he will withdraw his most unfair suggestion that I was in no difficulty here at all, but was merely making a debating point. I am in a difficulty here and I think I have a valid point.
LORD DIAMOND: Of course the noble Lord thinks he has a valid point, and I should not dream of suggesting that the noble Lord does not think he has a valid point—
LORD HENLEY: That is just what the noble Lord has suggested.
LORD DIAMOND: All I am saying is I do not think he has a valid point. I am not asking whether the noble Lord really believes what he says—of course I accept that he believes what he says. But he must not force me into the position of saying that I take the view that what he is saying is not accurate, and is not the case. I believe that we can deal with this Bill, as this Amendment suggests; discuss it responsibly and intelligently and amend any part which needs amending, leaving other parts which do not need amending, without causing any difficulty. It is because I feel that anything less than that would be treating

33
both Houses with scant respect that I ask the noble Lord whether he will reconsider this matter. If he does not like the exact wording of the Amendment he can suggest which other way it should be dealt with. If he wants to put it in as a schedule we will consider that. There are many methods of doing it. If he is not going to consider it at all, then this is a situation which neither House should accept.
4.7 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: I have no desire to prolong the debate unduly, but I must reply to the noble Lord, Lord Henley. He believes that he has presented a valid point because he made the statement that a man could not be sued in connection with the code of practice. How could he indulge in an assumption of that kind? Because he does not know what is going to be in the code of practice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is not an assumption, it is in Clause 4 which one day we shall reach.
LORD SHINWELL: The noble and learned Lord need not indulge in these unseemly interruptions. I had a long acquaintance with the noble and learned Lord in the other place. There we had to put up with them sometimes, but there is no reason why we should have it here when we are a little less unseemly than they are in the other place, if I may say that. It does not matter what is in Clause 4. The actual terms of the code of practice are unknown to anybody but members of the Government; and I doubt whether they are fully aware of what is going to be presented when the time comes. Any noble Lord can challenge that. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, or the noble and learned Lord may indulge in another interruption.
LORD BYERS: Would the noble Lord accept another unseemly interruption? Clause 4 is very important from all our points of view. It says specifically—no matter what is in the code of practice—
"A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a code of practice which is for the time being in force under this Part of this Act shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings …"
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: "Of itself".
LORD SHINWELL: They can put in what they like in Clause 4. The consultative
34
document is to be presented and the code of practice is to be submitted to both Houses of Parliament. A decision will be taken by Parliament on every item contained in the code of practice. If any noble Lord, either a legal luminary or a layman, is going to tell me that once Parliament have given a decision on a matter of this sort it is not associated with legislation, then this is quite a new experience for me. It is all very well to come along with this Government smarm and say: "We do not intend to sue anybody under the code of practice". They do not tell you what the code of practice contains. We are completely in the dark about that, and my noble friend Lord Diamond was correct when he said that we are talking about something we know nothing about. I hope that not too much notice of that statement, not only that made by myself, but by other noble Lords, is taken by the Press as an illustration of our ignorance.
What is to be embodied in the code of practice? We do not know that, but we know that the code of practice, once the Government have engaged in consultation—and we accept that for what it is worth—becomes the decision of both Houses of Parliament, and it is the law. A man can be sued for contravening any item which is associated, even in a minor fashion, with what is embodied in the legislation.
I am bound to say that the attitude of the Government worries me a great deal. I had hoped all along, because of what was said when the Bill came to your Lordships' House, that the situation would be different. Do your Lordships remember what was said? It was stated in the other place, and illustrated in the Press, that the Bill was coming to your Lordships' House in the hope of improvement. We were to engage in discussion with the sole purpose of improving the Bill. So far there has been no sign of improvement, no evidence of any concession on the part of the Government—none whatever. They are as adamant now as they were when we began our deliberations a week ago. That is the position.
It is obvious that the Government do not want any co-operation. So what is to be the ultimate result of refusal to co-operate or grant some kind of concession? And what is it we are asking

35
for? We are making a request in the absence of knowledge about what is to be embodied in the code of practice—nobody here can say he has full knowledge of what is to be contained in the code of practice. We are asking that we should have an assurance (and there is no reason why we should divide on this Amendment if the Government are at all conciliatory) that the Government will consider this item in the clause and come back and tell us before the end of our deliberations whether they can say not only that there will be consultation with outside bodies but that both Houses of Parliament will have an opportunity—and they are entitled to such an opportunity in a matter of this sort—to seek to effect some changes in the code of practice. That is all we are asking for. We are not asking the Government to withdraw their legislation—not at all. We do not expect they will. We are asking for very little. Perhaps the noble Lord opposite would like to take counsel with his noble friends, and particularly with the noble and learned Lord sitting beside him—reclining in a very relaxed position, although he will no doubt awaken in due course if prompted. Perhaps the noble Lord would care to take counsel with him and come back to us later in the day, or before the end of the week, arid say, "On consideration, we will look at this matter again."
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I beg the noble Lord opposite to take note of that appeal. This will not delay, in fact it will expedite, getting this Bill through. I look at the sun shining on that talent opposite: there are skill, generations of culture, good breeding, education, ability and business acumen. I say that if I went to any of those distinguished noble Lords opposite with a "South Sea Bubble" deal like this and said that I wanted noble Lords opposite to put their money and their faith in me and my code of practice, without their board of directors having the ability to add or subtract or amend, but having just a general consensus of feeling, they would usher me away without a penny in my pockets. I know that the Sunday Times, on March 8, 1969, said that the trade unions to-day had more power than the Mediæval Church. They missed the point. The Mediæval Church cooked and
36
roasted people who did not agree with it. At least we are not asking to cook and roast the Government. We are asking the Government to look sympathetically at one of the most constructive Amendments that have been put forward so far in this Committee.
LORD JANNER: I think the main point, if one wants an explanation, is the statements which have been made that this code of practice is not going to render a person in breach of it liable for any offence. I do not understand that at all, and I am sure that many other noble Lords will find themselves in the same position. Either it is a code of practice which has to he observed or it is a directive which can be taken up by any individual or otherwise, according to his desire.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord will read Clause 4 again, he will see the answer to the problem which he is posing to the Committee. If he will then, having read it carefully, read Section 74 of the Road Traffic Act he will see the same answer, which has been on the Statute Book for forty years.
LORD JANNER: I am still not happy, in spite of the explanation given. We had Clause 4 read out a few minutes ago. It did not say categorically that this code need not be followed. What it said was that in certain circumstances it does not become an offence if one does not use the code. So far as I can see, either a code of practice is to be enforceable or anyone may use it according to his discretion. I am not sure, and perhaps many other noble Lords will want an explanation of this point.
The other point is that, if the code is enforceable, then surely an opportunity should be given to both Houses of Parliament—at any rate, to this House—to consider what is in the code, and to vary it in some way or another according to our own ideas. It should not be said, "Either you accept the code, which is enforceable in some way or another, or you turn down the whole code, no matter how many good parts there may be in it." It may very well be that the code is like the curate's egg which cannot be put right. That is really what is being said—either it is right or it is wrong. How can anyone be expected to accept something which has not yet been prepared

37
entirely, or to reject it entirely? Some way must be found whereby the code can be varied by Parliament. In all the circumstances, I think the Amendment is correct.
4.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 16) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 135.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Royle, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Balogh, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hoy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L.

Samuel, V.

Blackburn, L.Bp.

Janner, L.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Serota, Bs.

Brown, L.

Leathers, V.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Slater, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stamp, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Moyle, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Stonham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Pargiter, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Faringdon, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fiske, L.

Platt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Plummer, Bs.

White, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Popplewell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Lyell, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Effingham, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Albemarle, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mancroft, L.

Allerton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Margardale, L.

Amherst, E.

Essex, E.

Meston, L.

Amory, V.

Ferrers, E.

Milverton, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Ferrier, L.

Monck, V.

Balerno, L.

Fisher, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Balfour, E.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Barnby, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Belstead, L.

Glasgow, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Poltimore, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gowrie, E.

Radnor, E.

Blackford, L.

Grantchester, L.

Ranfurly, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gray, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Rea, L.

Buchan, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Burgh, L.

Hacking, L.

Reigate, L.

Byers, L.

Hailes, L.

Rennell, L.

Caccia, L.

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

Rockley, L.

Chesham, L.

Rothes, E.

Clwyd, L.

Hankey, L.

Sackville, L.

Coleridge, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Colgrain, L.

Hayter, L.

St. Helens, L.

Conesford, L.

Hemphill, L.

St. Just, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Henley, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Courtown, E.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Cowley, E.

Hood, V.

Sandys, L.

Craigavon, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Savile, L.

Crathorne, L.

Howe, E.

Selkirk, E.

Crawshaw, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Shannon, E.

Cromartie, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Somers, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Jessel, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Daventry, V.

Kemsley, V.

Strang, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kilmany, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Derwent, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Swaythling, L.

Dudley, E.

Loudoun, C.

Templemore, L.

Dundee, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Thomas, L.

Vivian, L.

Wise, L.

Tollemache, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Wolverton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Willingdon, M.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Windlesham, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.29 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 1, after ("shall") insert ("after consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry.")
The noble Lord said: I moved an Amendment on Thursday last on Clause 2 of the Bill, seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State would agree upon a draft code of practice with the General Council of the T.U.C. and organisations of employers before presenting that draft code to Parliament. I then gave something of the history of the co-operation which had existed between the T.U.C. and the Government of the day over very many years, no matter what the political persuasion of the Government happened to be. I went on to point out that there had been a regrettable failure by this Government to secure that sort of cooperation in relation to the consultative document and this Industrial Relations Bill. That seemed to me to be, and still seems to me to be, a deplorable failure, because this Bill is about the most momentous for industrial relations since the Trade Disputes Act. Indeed, in many ways it is so much more far-reaching than even that Act that my description of it as being momentous is not putting it too high.
Despite the strained relations which exist between the Government and itself, the T.U.C. has committed itself in an authoritative document to admitting that the Government have a part to play in the process of providing information to guide trade unions and employers towards the adoption of good industrial relations procedures. The very fact that the Trades Union Congress has so committed itself seems to me to point clearly to the acceptance by that important body of some sort of code of practice. To the Amendment which I moved at some length I received the reply from the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, that to put the word "agree" into the Bill at that point might be unconstitutional and that he would have to ask the Committee to reject it.
He also said, using the words of the Secretary of State:
"I can give an unqualified assurance that I shall be taking the initiative in seeking discussions and views about the formulation of this code of practice".
He later added, in his own words, speaking of agreement:
"We hope that it will be obtained, and I am sure it will be substantially obtained, because the Secretary of State would be very unwise to bring a code of practice before Parliament with which there was not substantial agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29/4/71; col. 1382.]
On that undertaking, and the fact that I felt that to insert the word "agree" at that point in the Bill might indeed be unconstitutional, I had little hesitation about withdrawing the Amendment. This Amendment is a milder one altogether and relates to consultation at a subsequent revision of the original code of practice. We must be clear about that. It deals with a subsequent revision and not the initial steps leading up to a code of practice which caused so much discussion on the Amendment upon which we have just voted. I regard the revision of the code of practice as being an important stage, possibly the most important stage, because it will take place in the light of the experience that has been gained of the working of the code of practice. The trade unions, the employers, the Government and everyone will be expected to owe obedience to the code of practice. It is inevitable that some time after that certain faults will show themselves, and will have to be amended at that stage. I think there cannot be the slightest objection to the inclusion of the words I am now proposing, either on constitutional grounds or on the grounds of Government intentions. These intentions of the Government in relation to the Trades Union Congress and to consultation have been made clear by the words of the Secretary of State and by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, himself.
It might be asked why we should include these words when such a clear undertaking has been given by Ministers on behalf of the Government of the day. The only answer I can give to such a

41
question is the simple one that only an Act of Parliament can bind Ministers to a course of action. Words that are spoken in this House and in another House by a Minister do not bind Ministers or their successors to a course of action. In honour bound, of course, present-day Ministers 'would be expected to carry out the words given to a House of Parliament, but Ministers do not live for ever; they do not stay in their posts for ever, as I know to my cost.
In the same way as words in an Act, it will be noted that the clause instructs the Secretary of State to transmit a copy of the draft to the Commission for their consideration and advice. I am not quite sure that I have made absolutely clear what I was trying to say. What we are trying to include in this part of the Bill is something similar to what is already in the Bill in relation to the Commission. The clause says that the Secretary of State has to transmit a copy of the draft to the Commission for their consideration and advice. The Commission will be an important body, despite the fact that the Trades Union Congress has threatened to withdraw its members from that body, and indeed, as we know, Mr. George Woodcock has already resigned from the Commission in protest against the Government's action in relation to this Bill. But I agree that the Commission can be, and ought to be, an extremely important body in relation to the legislation which will eventually appear on the Statute Book.
The Commission will be a body that will have had experience of industrial relations. I imagine that before a code comes up for revision there will be some time during which references will have been made to the Commission, so that in fact the Commission will be knowledgeable. If this draft is going to the Commission as a result of an Act of Parliament, why not to the bodies that are concerned even more than the Commission, namely, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry?
This Amendment is one which the Government can accept. Up to now, this side of the Committee, inevitably and understandably, feels that the Government are sticking too closely to their brief in their replies to the points from this side of the Committee, many of which I would regard as having been
42
made with a great deal of force. I cannot see that there can be the slightest objection to the acceptance of this Amendment. The intentions of the Government are clear. After all, it is going to consult a Commission. It ought, also, to be expected to consult these bodies. This Amendment does not say "agree"; it says "consult". I believe that those are the sort of words that ought to go into a Bill of this kind, and I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend, hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will accept it. If he does not, I hope he will make much more conciliatory noises about it than he has on previous Amendments moved from this side of the Committee. I beg to move.
4.40 p.m.
LORD SLATER: I rise to give support to my noble friend in the Amendment he has moved. I have thought of the workings of the Bill as a whole, and the parts, and particularly this clause, and wondered how any Government, even with Parliamentary approval, could impose a code of conduct on the day-to-day business of industrial enterprises in this country, whether they be private or publicly owned. To me it is just absurd, to say the least. And what are the excuses that we are receiving from Government spokesmen in both Houses of Parliament in regard to this for not consulting the T.U.C., on the one side, and the C.B.I., on the other? The reason seems to me to be: why consult with an organisation, particularly the Trades Union Congress, which does not approve of the principal contents of this Bill? If this is to be their attitude, to proceed without consultation, either with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. or with other organisations, how can we ever expect to get anyone who is working in industry to fall into line with their proposals on industrial conduct? After watching the attitude of the Government up to date, I arrive at the conclusion that what they are seeking to do is to bulldoze this Bill through at any cost, without attempting to have any consultation at all.
Surely it has always been an accepted fact in regard to industrial relations that it is far better to discuss and talk on such issues of importance; in other words, it is better to talk, as it were, than to fight,

43
and that is the secret of getting anything done. But the attitude of this Government seems to be embraced in that phrase, so often used in the past and still being used, "We are the masters now". Let me say to noble Lords that there are no masters in regard to industrial relations, and anyone who thinks there are had better think again. For if industry is to be kept on the move, and if the cycles of operations are to be fulfilled and are to complete their function, it can be achieved only through co-operation, through consultation. I should have thought that the Government would know this. If they say they are aware that such is the case, why do they ignore it?
How can the Government expect either that the functions of industry will be properly exercised, or that people in industry will feel responsible towards the working of the code of conduct on industrial practice when they have not even been consulted (as has been brought out in the previous Amendment) on the details of what is going to be put into it? This is something that has never been explained. We did not receive an explanation in the last debate on the previous Amendment; we did not receive an explanation in the other place during the Committee stage when this point was being debated. It seems as though we are met with nothing more and nothing less than evasion tactics, when we should be more satisfied if we could get direct and more positive replies from the Government.
It may be that the Government, when they embarked on this Bill, thought that the Minister who would be responsible for its being carried through, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, would be a man who had had industrial experience. I remember him making a statement to the effect that at one time he was an employee and not an employer; that he had worked on the shop floor, and that that had given him knowledge and experience of industrial practice. If this is so, then the Secretary of State is bound to know from his personal experience that these things must be done in a way which commits people to feeling that they have a reasonable interest in conducting themselves in a certain way.
44
On the other hand, when we move on to the question of consultation with the T.U.C., the attitude of the Minister and of the Government seems to be that as the T.U.C. is against the Bill it would be a waste of time to consult it. How do they know it would be a waste of time if they do not try it? Surely the Secretary of State, as an employer of labour in the past, before he took on his present responsibilities, must at some time have had brought to his notice that even his own employees had been very resentful when the management inflicted certain conditions without consultation and that, so far as the employees were concerned, such directives would not be carried out, and if the status quo was not restored it would lead to a stoppage. I am sure that if the Government were faced with this situation, or if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, were faced with this situation, he would say, "Let us have the official view. Bring in the shop stewards; let us have their reasons for this upset that has come about". I am sure that if they were to accept the Amendment so ably moved by my noble friend it would get them off the hook.
I know that the noble Lord who is responsible for the Bill going through this House understands the working of Parliament just as well as anyone else. There were many things said in the previous debate as to how Parliament works, how statutory orders are presented, the reasons for amendments and such like. But I am beginning to look on the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and his colleagues on that side of the House as being like "Stonewall" Jackson; they are put in, as it were, at the last wicket, and they will keep this wicket intact because they have received instructions from the captain that they must do so. This is what seems to be the attitude of the Government. After all, when we look at the figures, there must have been a great many people working on the shop floor who were responsible for electing the present Government to power; but no doubt they have had second thoughts and are now beginning to ask themselves; "Are these the people we expected so much from?".
The Government are now seeking to impose types of legislation like that of the Industrial Relations Bill. They are

45
trying to persuade key organisations of employers and trade unions that they have a stake in the national interest. We all have, but what many of us take exception to is imposition. I am old enough to remember the First and the Second World Wars, and there were certain people who, because of their convictions, had to suffer severe penalties through the law of the land as it was at that time. If this Bill goes through and becomes an Act, it will not be interpreted by the courts saying, "The Minister said this or that, which means this or that." When the Bill becomes an Act it will mean what it says, and an interpretation will be put upon it by those responsible within their judiciary capacity.
In view of the way my noble friend moved the Amendment, I hope that the noble Lord will accept it and add it to the Bill. Why does he not, as a Minister take his courage in both hands? He may be Minister Without Portfolio, but he is a member of the Government. I should like to see some Ministers have a little more courage than they have shown; to stand on their own feet and not allow themselves to be pushed around, and be prepared to accept Amendments when their consciences lead them to that conclusion.
The Bill states most definitely that it is the intention of the Minister to transmit a copy of the draft to the Commission. For what purpose? For their consideration and advice. If he is going to do this with the Commission, why cannot he do it with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I.? One body is the employer of labour, and the other represents the employees. I have no doubt that from the Cross-Benches we shall get views presented to us by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, in respect of other types of organisations and association. Why cannot it be passed on? In the Amendment we bring forward two organisations who are those most concerned with codes of conduct in the industrial field. As I see it, they ought to be consulted first, and not the Commission.
I hope that the Minister will not ignore what has been said. I would ask him to stop being a "Stonewall Jackson", and be a Minister who is responsible for presenting this Bill with the object of getting its acceptance. This
46
Amendment is minor in effect compared to previous Amendments in regard to the code of conduct and the principles embraced by it. I sincerely hope and trust that, before the debate on this Amendment is concluded, the Minister will be able to put himself into that position. Have a word with the noble Earl the Leader of the House, who is a member of the Cabinet. Surely to goodness he is strong enough to be able to carry his Cabinet colleagues (even against the Secretary of State who is responsible for the Bill) into accepting this Amendment.
4.55 p.m.
LORD PLATT: I trust your Lordships will forgive me if I speak once again. I think I fully understand the principles behind the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has proposed, and which the noble Lord, Lord Slater, has spoken to. Surely this highlights what I was trying to say on Thursday. This Bill is about industry; it is about employers and employees, and about shop floors and shop stewards. They are splendid people, but they have nothing whatever to do with the practice of medicine—and why the practice of medicine is in this Bill I cannot conceive. I may say that the noble Lord, Lord Slater, looked my way and added "other organisations" at one period. I do not want to emphasise that I was President of the Royal College of Physicians for five years, but I must say that I never remember consulting either the T.U.C. or the C.B.I. about our codes of practice. I think it will be a bad day when the Royal College of Physicians starts to consult the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. about its codes of practice. I hope, and think, that I am speaking not only for my own profession, but it is my own profession that I know best.
If there were a feeling, as I think there may be, that this Bill does not apply very well to at any rate certain professions, then I think I should probably vote in favour of this Amendment. But, as the Amendment stands at present, I could not possibly do so, because I think it would give a false appearance of respectability and sweet reasonableness to something which I do not really support.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I am very sorry indeed that the Minister has not

47
indicated his line of thought in connection with this. When I say that, I think he has indicated quite clearly that he is not going to accept the Amendment, or he would have been on his feet before now. If that be so, and if my assumption is correct, I really am very disappointed. It indicates quite clearly that the charge of "union bashing" which was made against the Government in the past was fully justified. How can you get a satisfactory code of conduct unless discussions take place with both sides of industry? According to this clause, the Government are going to make their mind up on what the practice is to be. It does not indicate at all with whom they are going to discuss these matters. If we take the Bill as being something that the lawyers are going to be actively engaged upon, one can only assume that discussions must be taking place with the Departments of the Secretary of State and the Attorney General to try to build up the law in so far as this code of practice is concerned. One can only assume that.
I must apologise for not being present during the discussion on the first Amendment, because I was in attendance at the Highways Bill Committee, which has just finished. The discussions here have some relationship to what has taken place. Here you get representative bodies of both sides upon whom case law is going to be established, and still the political animals feel that they are the people to decide what this case law should really be. Not a great deal is being asked in this Amendment. Regrettably, we have had to accept that a draft code will be prepared. Now the suggestion is that after that draft code—at least so I understand—has been prepared, the pros and cons should be discussed with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. before the finalisation of that draft is laid before Parliament. Surely that is not outrageous.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. I think that perhaps we are getting a little away from the question. The noble Lord was not here this afternoon, but I hope he will not go over the Amendment that we have just discussed. Perhaps the noble Lord would devote himself to the point that this is a question of the revision of the code; it
48
is not a question of the making of the code in the first place.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I stand corrected. The noble Lord has given me the word I ought to have used. It is the revision of the draft code, the revising of the draft code. We are saying here that surely both sides of industry should be consulted in that; they will have to work it. Is there anything wrong in that? We all know that if we do not get the co-operation of both sides, if a code is established that is only very reluctantly accepted because it is forced upon any section of the community, that will not be conducive to its working well. To get the best out of industry there must be a very close relationship, with give and take on both sides. How can you expect give and take on both sides if something is simply imposed, without discussion? These are important factors, and I sincerely hope that this is something that the Government will give way about. Later on, no doubt, there will be quite a lot of debate regarding the type of discussions that should take place, but for the time being we are specifying that, as between the responsible bodies of organised labour and the employers, discussion should take place as regards this revised code of practice.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: I rise to support the Amendment because I hold a basic view—and I think the trade union movement hold the same basic view—which is fundamentally opposed to everything upon which the Bill is based, but it is nevertheless a point of view which I think can be put forward in regard to this code of practice. That view is that we shall never have a satisfactory labour relations situation in this country on a compulsory basis, and it will depend entirely upon the Government and industry, as represented by the trade unions and by the C.B.I., even although that representation might to some extent not be as adequate as one would wish. But this Amendment deals with a clause which is setting out how the code of practice may be regarded, and I can only assume—I hope this is not a wrong assumption—that that means either that the code of practice as contemplated is considered not to be adequate or that it has been tried and has failed. This code of practice

49
is part and parcel of the concept of the Bill. It is, of course, to provide a legal framework within which labour relations may operate. If in fact compulsion has failed in regard to certain parts of the code of practice, then the only hope of getting it to work, I presume, will be on a voluntary basis; and if you want it to work on a voluntary basis then you must go to the parties who at the moment are endeavouring—not with as much success as I should like to see; but they are trying—to operate on a voluntary basis.
Throughout this we must always keep in mind that the objective of getting improved industrial relations is important in itself, but it is much more important for this country because of the economic effects that will follow if we fail to get that good relationship. It is because of that, and because I believe we need to have positive, understandable policies among the trade unions, the C.B.I. and the Government, that in my view this Amendment is a reasonable one and I am not going to assume that it will not be accepted. I hope that we can make positive, worthwhile and useful suggestions which will be given the consideration which I think they deserve.
Coming finally to the Commission, the Commission is a new body being set up by law, as was intended, of course, under the previous Bill, which never got very far on its way under the last Government. That contained the same concept of a Commission, and there is nothing wrong in this. I do not think, as Lord Platt seemed to suggest, that it is offensive to suggest that there is more wisdom in the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. in regard to labour relations than there can be in any Commission that is suddenly set up, no matter how well it is manned. In fact, I should think that if the Commission have to find out anything about any proposition in regard to the origin of the code the first places they would go would be to the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., to get their observations.
LORD PLATT: I think there is a misunderstanding here. I was not talking about a Commissison. I was only saying that the way we manage our affairs in the professions is somewhat different from the way in which they are managed
50
in industry, and the one does not always relate to the other. If I seemed to be superior about my profession, it was, first, because I have a loyalty to it and, secondly, because the real difference is not superiority or anything else. The real difference, as I said on Thursday, is that we have an overriding loyalty to our patients, as the engineers and people have to their clients; and questions of employers and employees, the Trades Union Congress and the C.B.I., never enter into any of our notions at all. We just work differently; that is all.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: I appreciate that, and the reason is that the parallel is not there. As the noble Lord says, members of his profession have an over-riding loyalty to their Patients. We have an over-riding degree of patience with our members, (if I may play with words), who rely on us, just as his patients do on him.
But ultimately, as I have suggested, the job of putting practices into operation comes down to the shop floor; and, as I suggested in an earlier debate, we cannot get perfection in this field. What we can do, of course, is to try constantly to push towards an improved situation; and the instrument for carrying this out, of course, is the individual trade union. Therefore it is important to have some regard to the unions. I know we may be told, "You will be consulted at another level", and so on. There is a great problem here, of course. The code may be so offensive that even the trade union movement may say, "We do not want to be consulted. It is so bad that there is nothing we can do about it". This, I appreciate, is a problem. But in the very bad situation which exists, and has existed in this country for some time, someone has to make a move to try to get the three parties—the trade unions, the employers and the Government—together. The sooner we do that the better and it would not be a bad thing if this Amendment made its contribution towards that endeavour.
LORD BROWN: I have no wish to labour the points so ably made by my noble friends in relation to this Amendment. I want to take a rather different point, and it is that this particular Amendment is likely to be regarded by

51
a good many people—certainly by myself—as a sort of test case of the Government's ability to accept any Amendment to this Bill; for here is an Amendment which is quite consistent, as I understand it, with the Government's attitude to the whole of this Bill. We all know what happens, if we have been Ministers in one Government or another: the senior Cabinet Minister, who is not in this House, takes up an intransigent attitude, sometimes out of contempt for this House and sometimes through a lack of understanding of just what this House can do by way of improving a Bill. I suspect that the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench is suffering a good deal from this attitude, displayed towards him by Mr. Carr and others in the Cabinet in the present Government.
If this Amendment, innocuous to the Government, but very important to us, is rejected, what hope can we have, in face of the intransigent attitude so far unfortunately adopted, in relation to any Amendment? I have not been whole-heartedly in support of some of the Amendments coming from my own side of the Committee because they would have undermined the Government's attitude to the Bill, much as I dislike it. We recognise that the Government could not accept many of the Amendments, but there have been one or two and this is the latest example—where it would be inconceivable that the Government could object to what is proposed in the Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was opposite me when I was in the last Government, and on a number of occasions during the discussions on a Bill he has been zealous in pointing to deficiencies in a clause which makes it obligatory on the Government to consult with trade associations, consumer associations and the like. Consistently—I think on every occasion—I have yielded to his Amendment or have had a similar Amendment put into the Bill to bring it into line with what is known to be necessary: the maximum amount of consultation. Here is a similar example. If I were in his place I should have no hesitation over this.
I am not going to go on any further. I am saying that this is really something of a test case. If the noble Lord is not in a position to accept this Amendment
52
I beg him not to say that he is going to reject it, and thereby force us to a Division. I beg him to go back and report what has been said in this Committee about this Amendment to those who have to condition his attitude—otherwise I do not know what the future holds for all the following Amendments.
5.12 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: A number of different points of view have been put and I must say that when the noble Lord, Lord Champion, moved this Amendment and urged me to be more conciliatory than in the previous one I felt that he might have urged his noble friends also to be more conciliatory. This Amendment, as I feel sure the noble Lord knows, has the entire sympathy of the Government; but the question is whether the Amendment should be made to the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Brown, knows, it is not merely a question of whether the Amendment will do any harm or anything of that sort; it is a question of considering whether it is desirable to include it in the Bill having regard to what it actually says. We all know that an Amendment can be, in appearance, extremely innocuous or extremely helpful; the question is whether it could possibly, in any circumstances, have a damaging effect.
We all recognise that the code of practice, if it is to be effective and to fulfil its purpose, must be a practical document giving practical advice to practical people. We shall therefore be looking for such advice, and we hope very much that we shall get it from those whom we invite to give it; but do let us remember what we are talking about here. If noble Lords will look at Clause 2 they will see what the code of practice is going to do. It is going to contain practical guides. Let us be quite clear about this. If you are going to seek practical guidance, you are going to seek it from people who have the practical experience. This would obviously, and must necessarily, include the Trade Union Congress. I must say that I thought it a bit odd that we should be accused of not wanting to consult the T.U.C. On a matter of this kind, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Cooper said, a code of practice can work only with the consent and guidance of both sides. But there are others as well. Is that not so? We shall want to consult with people

53
like the Industrial Society and the Institute of Management. I am asked why there is consultation with the C.I.R. but not with the T.U.C. and C.B.I.—
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Do I understand—
LORD DRUMALBYN: I really should like to develop my argument. I know what the noble Lord is going to say.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: Until I have said it, even the noble Lord cannot know what I am to say. I thought I heard him say that this can operate only with the advice and the consent of the T.U.C. The Clerks will know whether I heard it aright, but that is what I understood him to say.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, a system like this can work only with the active consent of all participating. In the long run that is true. It does not moan that the Government should desert their proper role. What it means is that after full consultation, the fullest that can be obtained, there should be general consent that this is the best code that can be contrived and Parliament can take it in that light. I do not think there can be any doubt about that. I am asked why there should be consultation with the C.I.R. and not with the T.U.C. and C.B.I. There is no question of not consulting the T.U.C. and C.B.I.; but the C.I.R. is a corporate body set up to advise the Secretary of State on these matters, and it is therefore right that the Commission should have a statutory right to be consulted. There is no reason or need to extend that to other bodies, because without the broad consent—and, of course, I was talking about broad consent, as the noble Lord will know quite well—of all concerned this kind of thing will not operate.
LORD BROWN: In Bill after Bill it has been customary to put on the Government statutory obligation to consult—and the noble Lord has made this point to me many times across the Floor of the House. Why is he denying now the statutory obligation to consult? It is a common enough practice. Why reverse what is the practice in Bill after Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The reason is simply this. The noble Lord, Lord
54
Champion, was talking about committing future Ministers. Consultation is a two-way process. What one has to do here is consider whether it is right to commit future Ministers to have to wait for consultation with the C.B.I. or the T.U.C. It is of no use the noble Lord turning aside; this is a serious point. Has the Minister got to wait in all circumstances?—and we are talking about future Ministers. I am sure that the T.U.C. will want to be consulted and will be consulted. This is bound to be so. We are talking about future Ministers being committed to wait until possibly a reluctant or recalcitrant C.B.I. or T.U.C. consult with the Minister. This is what has to happen.
Noble Lords must look at what the clause will say: "He shall after consulting"—he cannot do it until he has consulted—"with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I.". Whatever noble Lords may have wanted—and I can understand their wanting an obligation to consult the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. put into the Bill—they are doing exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, pointed out the other night on the Amendment concerning agreement: they are really putting a veto on the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. in future, in the same way.
LORD SHEPHERD: Would the noble Lord not agree with my noble friend that on many occasions Parliament has put this statutory duty into legislation? This is the first time I have ever heard it suggested that by putting in a statutory obligation you are putting in a veto. I think the noble Lord is going much too far. I should have thought that if only he would make a gesture to my noble friends on this side of the House he would be doing not only a service to the Committee but to his own Government.
BARONESS WHITE: Does the noble Lord not recall that the point Lord Tangley made was that the Amendment then under discussion made that particular provision subject to the agreement of the Trades Union Congress, and this was objected to. That has nothing whatever to do with the obligation to consult, which is something entirely different.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This may seem a kind of niggling point to the noble

55
Lords opposite, but there are two meanings to the word "consult" and we can be reminded of that in the future. If noble Lords will look up the meaning of "consult" in the dictionary, they will see that it is "to ask information or advice from", and to consult with—which is to take counsel with—means that there are two of you. So we have to be just a little careful with an Amendment of this kind. I am sure the noble Lords moved this Amendment in the utmost good faith. I am sure they were not just seeking to erect a barrier to the revision of the code in the future. However, we have to be careful about the wording of particular Amendments and it is perhaps not right to restrict the obligation to consult to only two bodies. If noble Lords will really consider it I think that they will feel that this is not right. At other points they have put "organisations of employers" in the plural. It is really not right to seek to restrict this consultation to only two bodies in this way.
This does not in any way indicate any sort of union-bashing—of course it does not—any more than it indicates industry bashing or C.B.I. bashing. I must repeat this very solemnly: it shows that it is the intention of my right honourable friend to consult whenever the code is revised. And may I say in passing that experience may well show that the code can be improved and that therefore it is desirable to revise it. What is more, circumstances may change, and it may therefore be desirable also to change the code. I do not think there can be anything between us on that. What I am being asked to do is to accept an Amendment which I indicated to noble Lords there would be some danger in accepting. Moreover it is unusual to put in an obligation to consult only two bodies when there are many more bodies who would have an interest in being consulted.
LORD BLYTON: Would the noble Lord not agree that here, in the Government's own Bill, is a draft to be sent to the Commission for their consideration and advice. This is an organisation that is going to be set up under the Bill, with plenary powers. What do they expect to get from the Commission from the obligation to submit the draft to this Commission? What do they expect to get?
LORD DRUMALBYN: All I have been saying is that it is inconceivable that the Secretary of State would not consult with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. He will also no doubt wish to consult with other bodies as well before he drafts the code, and again in the course of drafting it. Surely we can agree on this. I think it is really a test of the willingness of the Opposition to have confidence in future Governments—indeed it is. The noble Lord says that we cannot bind future Ministers, but future Ministers must do the common-sense thing, and at the end of the day if there has not been sufficient consultation and if Parliament says, "You ought to have consulted with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. and you have not done so", then it can throw out the revised code. Surely this is the final answer. I really do not think we need pursue it. The inbuilt safeguard and the common sense of the whole thing is so clear that it is not worth pursuing.
LORD BROWN: Will the noble Lord not undertake to review the question and to consider the introduction into this clause of the normal duties that a Government have accepted in a number of Acts in regard to consultation? If he will do even that, I daresay my noble friends will withdraw this Amendment. When consultation clauses have appeared in Bill after Bill, can the noble Lord really give good reasons why one should not appear in this Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am perfectly willing to consider what the noble Lord has just said. Obviously I cannot enter into a commitment, but I am willing to consider it.
LORD BLYTON: The Minister must not be under any misunderstanding about consultation. Our experience was that when this Bill was being formulated the consultation with the T.U.C. consisted of saying "You take this, or else!", and the T.U.C. turned it down. Is the T.U.C. in the context of Clause 3 to witness the same fait accompli and be told, "Accept this, or else!"? If that is the form consultation is to take, we want none of it.
LORD DERWENT: May I say a word? There are one or two of us on these Benches who are a little concerned about this Amendment and its

57
acceptance or non-acceptance. We are not clear in our own minds. There is a considerable danger in naming two organisations in case it might be argued in future that other organisations were not to be consulted. My honourable friend has said he will look at the matter again, and I should like to say from these Benches, as a supporter of the Government, that I hope he will look at it. It may not be possible to put it into words that will satisfy noble Lords opposite. I do not think the Amendment is right in naming two organisations; but as my noble friend has said he will look at it again, I hope noble Lords opposite will not press this Amendment.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Do I understand the noble Lord to say firmly that he will look at this again? If that is so, I am rather delighted. The looks of concern on the faces of the supporters behind him show that they are not happy with the stand he has taken, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has emphasised that. If he will look at it again, that will bring us back to what we have known of the noble Lord in the past, as opposed to his stonewalling attitude now.
LORD DRUMALBYN: To make the matter quite clear, I have just said that I will look again at what the noble Lord said. That does not mean that we could accept this Amendment.
5.30 p.m.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: May I press the noble Lord on this? I think he torpedoed his own case when he said that to revise the code meant that one had to get consent.
LORD DRUMALBYN: With great respect, I was talking about the original code and saying that the whole system of the code could not work without consent.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: I presume that the whole system of the code means the revised code as well as the original code? Very well: then the noble Lord is saying that a code cannot be operated without consent. You cannot get consent unless you consult. So if you have to consult, you must consult certain bodies in the field. Now there is the T.U.C., without any question; and there
58
is the C.B.I., without any question. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, says that there are some other bodies. If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is really saying, "I will look at the Amendment in order to see that it takes care of the bodies that the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has in mind", I understand what he is saying. If that is what he means, then no doubt we can arrange that someone will put down a suitable Amendment at some stage. So long as that is what he is saying. But I am bound to tell the Committee that I have an uncomfortable feeling that the noble Lord is not saying quite that.
Speaking for myself, I say that "consent" means "consultation". That most certainly means with the T.U.C., which I know best, and it most certainly means with the C.B.I.—which noble Lords on the Government Benches know better than I do; though I am getting to know it a little bit now—and it must mean with the professional bodies. If the Amendment is objectionable only because it is not wide enough, very well; let us wait for the widened version. If it is objectionable because the Government do not want to be tied down to consult and consent, I think we must push the Government, even to a Division. I am not quite sure what the noble Lord is saying. I think he is trying to be a little, to use my old favourite word, "phenebulous". Let me put it the other way round. "Consent" must mean "consultation". But "consultation" does not have to mean "consent ". The noble Lord said that it had to have consent; that must mean consultation, and all we are asking about is which body has to be consulted. That is easy. We can amend the Amendment to make sure we take account of everybody else. If the noble Lord is trying to be a little bit too clever, and because we have not named everybody he is telling us we cannot have even consultation, he should not have used the word "consent"—there will not be any. I trust that we shall push the noble Lord, not merely to say that he will look into it again, but also to say that he will look into it again in order to ensure that all the bodies concerned, whoever they are, shall have the right to be consulted. If we can get that, we can get an appropriate Amendment at some stage and then we shall all be happy.
LORD PLATT: Would the words, "T.U.C. and C.B.I. or other relevant organisations" fill the bill here? I would prefer the word "or" to "and", because I see no particular reason why bodies like the Royal College of Physicians, who have managed their own affairs up to now, should in future be under the supervision of the T.U.C. or the C.B.I. I do not agree that they should, and therefore I would use the word "or" and not the word "and".
LORD ALPORT: My noble friend who is in charge of the Bill for the Government has undertaken, as senior Minister responsible, that he will look again at this problem. The problem is quite clear to us all. My noble friend Lord Derwent said that some of us on this side of the Committee—he spoke for himself; I also feel the same—think that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn is right to say that he will take another look at this, in view of the arguments which have been put forward. It would be wrong, I think, to try to carry it to the length to which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is attempting to do, or indeed to take the detailed proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Platt. The circumstances of this important Amendment should be left to be considered by the Government again at the next stage of the Bill, but at the same time without commitments which no Minister in these circumstances could be expected to undertake.
LORD HANKEY: We have had a very satisfactory assurance from the Government. I think we have too many organisations already and I should like the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. to be given more power and have a good deal more influence. I think that would greatly facilitate our industrial relations. But I hope that the Minister will also consider what is to be the next stage After all, after this consultation we have been talking about it has to go to the Commission on Industrial Relations. When I looked at this text I said to myself originally, "Obviously, the C.I.R. will consult the T.U.C. and the C.B.I.". Someone has to do it, and if we are not careful we shall make everybody do the work of the C.I.R. I should like the C.I.R. to be a powerful body, too. If the consultation happened there, I should be equally happy. I agree that consultation ought to
60
take place. We do not want matters delayed until consent is obtained by everybody, especially in view of the experiences we have had. But I think it would be a very good thing if the Government looked seriously again at the procedures contained in this clause, including the next bit which we have not yet discussed, and laid another Amendment before the Committee.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord replies, may I say one thing? I think that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, took me up a bit sharply. We all know what is meant by "Government by consent". It does not mean that everyone in the whole country has to give consent. The noble Lord knew that that was the sense in which I used the word.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: May I say one other thing? I feel that we should carefully consider what is being said in subsection (3). If I may nut it briefly, it states that any revision of the code of practice by the Secretary of State shall be placed before the Commission for their consideration and advice. That is putting it in simple English. Let us not forget that the code of practice is not legally binding, and in my opinion it should not be. Secondly, any revision of the code of practice is delegated by the Secretary of State to the Commission. It is up to the Commission to decide whom they shall consult. They are limited enough in their duties under this Bill. It would be a pity, I feel, for the Secretary of State, or by the provisions in the Bill, to dictate to the Commission that they must consult the T.U.C. or the C.B.I. The matter might be something that had little to do with the T.U.C. or the C.B.I. It might be something in the code of practice which needed to be introduced to provide particular Amendments, possibly affecting NALGO, or something in respect of the B.M.A., or something else.
LORD COOPER or STOCKTON HEATH: Is not the noble Lord aware that NALGO is part of the T.U.C.?
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: Yes, of course I am; but the matter might specifically concern a particular branch. Many unions cover a very wide field. It could refer to some specific negotiating body, and I think it would be a mistake to limit them.
LORD BROWN: Is the noble Earl aware that everything he is saying could he said about every consultation clause in every measure that this House passes? If he is right, every other consultation clause in every other measure is wrong.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I do not think that you want to specify whom they shall consult. I think that would be a mistake, and I feel very strongly about it.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Does the noble Lord realise that when one refers to the T.U.C. one does not mean all the members? From practical knowledge, as a former Minister I know that when one was dealing with an increase in pensions one discussed it with the British Legion, if the pensions concerned were war pensions. The T.U.C. was also called in, but that did not mean that every member of the T.U.C. would be present. There would be three or four members who were knowledgeable about the matter under discussion. That is all we are asking here, we are not asking for the whole gamut. To be fair to the noble Lord, in view of the success achieved, I feel that the sun must shine on him a little, and I will not speak any longer in case I annoy the Committee. I hope we get a little success here.
LORD STONHAM: I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, intends to do about this Amendment, or indeed what my noble friend Lord Champion thinks about it. But in my view the Amendment should be pressed as it is, unless the noble Lord is able to give a firm assurance in explicit terms. If we have to think of a form of words that will satisfy everyone, it means that we have to satisfy a large number of organisations—not the trade unions, because they are already covered by the T.U.C., but the employers' organisations. My noble friend Lord Platt has told us of the position of physicians and surgeons. But the National Farmers' Union are extremely critical of this Bill, in many of its aspects, and very concerned about its effect on their members. I have had a considerable number of documents from the N.F.U. asking me to move Amendments and to support opposition to the Bill.
The noble Lord the Minister said, "Of course the Government is in favour of consultation". When one naturally asked, "Why do you not put it in the Bill?", he attempted another explanation, which I must say I found singularly unconvincing, and therefore the noble Lord has only himself to blame if he finds it difficult to convince us. If we put forward an Amendment which seems utterly reasonable, as indeed it is, we cannot be put off by sophistries and perhaps clever words which would need a good deal of study before we got to the bottom of them. Therefore I say, with my noble friend Lord Champion—and I think this was also Lord George-Brown's view—that we should stick to our Amendment unless the noble Lord is able to tell us convincingly that if we leave it now and come back to it at a later stage we shall have something which will meet with the agreement of all parts of the House.
LORD PARGITER: I wonder whether we could get a little more from the Minister? If the Minister says—and after what he has been saying at the Despatch Box there ought to be no difficulty about this—that he accepts the principle of this Amendment, but would require it to be worded in such a way that it was not necessarily so limiting as it may be as it is now worded, it seems to me that that will be acceptable. But we should like to know that at least the principle is acceptable. The Minister has not said so in so many words: he has merely gone all round it. But if he says that much, I am sure it will be satisfactory.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: The trouble with this Amendment as I see it is that it says one must consult with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., and I agree with the Minister that it would be inconceivable that a Government should not do so where there was any matter which had any concern of those two. What worries me far more is that the other people concerned, the professional associations, might not be consulted. I do not believe one can hatch up an Amendment which adequately covers this sort of thing without leaving a number of loopholes and leaving out other people. I therefore think it would be the greatest mistake to put forward an Amendment such as

63
this, which only tells people to do what they will do anyway, and leave the whole of the rest of the field uncovered. I should have thought the common-sense point of view was to leave it to the Government. We all seem so suspicious that it is hardly true.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I should like to support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter. I think there should be a consultation clause in this Bill. I do not think the present Amendment is really satisfactorily worded. If the Minister would give us an assurance on the principle of a consultation clause, I think we ought to leave it and return to it at the Report stage. If he does not, I for one would certainly support the Amendment as it stands.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: May I just say, speaking as a former industrialist, and in the knowledge of the fact that I am still on the Council of the C.B.I., that I should feel it very unfortunate if, as a result of the debate to-day, a vote were taken against this Amendment, and the impression thereby created that this House was against consultation in this way. I believe that that would not reflect the opinion of the great majority of this House, and I strongly support what my noble friends Lord Derwent and Lord Alport said, in the hope that the Committee may accept the assurance given by the Minister. I might add that I very much hope that that assurance might be extended, on further consideration, to providing for adequate consultation within a reasonable time between the publication of the code and its coming to debate in Parliament. That is something which I think could be very important if the practical considerations which some of us feel are vital are adequately considered.
LORD CHAMPION: I am most grateful to the noble Lord who has just sat down for the good sense which he has injected certainly into this part of the debate; namely, that dealing with the possibility of something happening between now and Report. I am a politician, a strange one, who does not particularly like the sound of his own voice. For that reason I do not propose to attempt to reply to all the points which have been made in this debate. But I am going to
64
accept the word of a man with whom I have had honourable dealings when I sat on that side of the House. As the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has said, Lord Drumalbyn and I have changed sides now. We have in the past sat opposite one another on Bills, and I am absolutely sure that if I gave the assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has now given us, were he sitting on this side he would accept that assurance and expect something to happen between now and the Report stage. All we are asking is something that has already been stressed a few times: that if we do not press this Amendment, which deals with only two bodies, but rather leave the door wide open to ensure that there shall be a statutory obligation to consult more generally. This is what I understand the noble Lord is prepared to look at and, to some extent, to satisfy the House that he will bring something in on Report. If, as I believe, that is the case, then I certainly will not press the Amendment. If the noble Lord will just nod to me and tell me that that is what his speech was all about, I shall be perfectly happy to withdraw this Amendment, on the understanding that we may consult together and that if that consultation arrives at something which is satisfactory to both of us, an Amendment will be put down at Report stage. I sincerely hope that that will happen, for the good will which can exist across the Committee even on a controversial Bill such as this. Does the noble Lord nod?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes; I do nod. I shall be very happy to consult with the noble Lord. I hope that something more than that will happen between now and the Report stage. All I can say is that I cannot absolutely guarantee that it will result in an Amendment being put down.
LORD CHAMPION: I understand the noble Lord's position. Having regard to the fact that he backed up his nod with words, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.49 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK LORD DAVIES OF LEEK moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 3, line 3, after ("Commission") insert ("and Parliament").
The noble Lord said: So that we can be brief as possible, and thereby indicate

65
our gratitude for at least the nodding of the Minister on the Front Bench, I will read out subsection (3). There is a reason for my reading, because I want to get the semantics right, and then the meaning. Subsection (3) says:
"Where the Secretary of State proposes to revise the whole or part of the code of practice (in the form in which, whether as originally approved or as previously revised, the code or that part of it has effect for the time being) he shall prepare a draft of the revised code, or of that part of it, as the case may be, and shall transmit a copy of the draft to the Commission"—
my Amendment then wants to say, "and Parliament"—
"for their consideration and advice,"
I do not think there is need for an involved and long discussion on this point. The Secretary of State is defending himself from the charge of autocracy by suggesting that when he proposes a revision of the code—of a revised code, or any kind of revision—he shall put that draft before the Commission for their consideration and advice. The Commission may be working in a mysterious sea that is uncharted, and may not seek advice, though now we are told they will probably do so in other quarters. It seems that as the clause now stands Parliament itself could not have a say in it. I should think it is essential in an Industrial Relations measure of this magnitude for the draft to be brought before Parliament for consideration and advice. The noble Lord may say, "Ah, there are no penal conditions". But we are not sure about this. Do definitions of unfair practices enter into this?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is wrong. If by that he means an unfair industrial practice, that is either in the Bill or not there at all. In the code there cannot be found an unfair industrial practice.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: May I ask the noble and learned Lord, if it cannot be found in the code, can an unfair practice be arrived at as a result of the code?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The short answer is, No. This is contained in Clause 4 very clearly, and perhaps we shall come to that in due course. Let me give a "No" now, because it is clear in Clause 4 what the code will do. If
66
the noble Lord wants an easy analogy at this stage, the Highway Code is a good guide.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I accept the noble and learned Lord's advice, out of fairness and leave it at that. Once we get the realm of jurisprudence overlapping with the realm of ethics no one knows where they arc. I think it is essential to get consultations all along the line. In view of the good mood in which the Committee has been, may I ask the noble Lord if he could deal with this Amendment as he dealt with the other and reply right away, and I shall sit down now and enable the Committee to expedite its business. Frankly, I see nothing in the Amendment that need damage the Bill, and I think that it will improve the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is an Amendment which I do not think the noble Lord would really wish to press. The Commission is set up as adviser to the Secretary of State; they will give informal or formal advice, and they shall be in a direct relationship with the Secretary of State. But to suggest that a copy of the draft should be submitted to Parliament for its consideration and advice raises an altogether different picture. It means that Parliament must consider this, presumably in a debate, and then in some way or other tender advice either after or during the course of the debate. Surely this is not the right stage for that to happen. Surely the stage is after the C.I.R. have given their advice and the Secretary of State lays the draft before Parliament. At that point Parliament can discuss it and give the Secretary of State advice. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: I feel that my noble friend was anxious that this worthwhile point should be given an airing and that the view of the Government should be taken, and that we should hear the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, explain their view. The noble Lord will agree that at this point in the Bill there is no reference to the way in which Parliament should have an opportunity to consider a revised code. The Secretary of State has given

67
an indication of what course of conduct the Government are likely to take, but there is nothing in the Bill so far indicating what part Parliament will have to play in the revision of the code.
Of course, the preparation of the code in the first place, turning it from a draft into a code, is admittedly the more important part. Once we have a code we can see how it works, and experience on all sides, including the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., and of course doctors and surgeons and for that matter accountants or anybody else, may suggest revisions. I do not think that the revision of the code is likely to require the same care and consideration as the creation of a code in the first place. It could well be that a part of the code becomes due to be revised and requires full consideration at as early a stage as possible before opinions have solidified, and it is from that point of view that it would be helpful to have an Amendment of this kind to secure Parliament's opinion upon it.
I think that I should invite a word or two more from the noble Lord about the way that Parliament would be given an opportunity to be considered in relation to a revision of the code. Then I feel, and I sense that my noble friend might share this view, that if the noble Lord were to make it plain to us that Parliament was to have a proper place in the revising of the code, this is not a matter on which we should wish to delay the House overlong.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My answer to that would be that one of the ways in which the need to revise the code would arise would be from Parliament, because the working of the code would be constantly before Parliament. Obviously anything that goes wrong in industrial relations would eventually come before Parliament and the working of the code will be kept under close watch. I do not see any difficulty about this. Noble Lords should bear in mind that the revision of a part of the code may not be a very serious matter. From what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has indicated, I think he is aware of this. My own experience of Government is that if we make matters too formal the result is that many things requiring revision will be saved up over a long time and then have to be laid together, before the code
68
can actually be revised as it should be, so that I hope we will be able to retain flexibility in this, and not have too much formality.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Could I ask the noble Lord a question? I appreciate the point he is making that ultimately this code will be handed over in effect to the N.I.R.C. or the industrial tribunals, that one of the questions to be asked in Parliament would be, what is the reaction of the Government? Would they be able to answer the question? Would they be able to say, just as they do with nationalised industries, "This is a question of day-to-day management, that comes under the N.I.R.C." and not give any answer. It is purely information that I am seeking at the moment.
VISCOUNT AMORY: If I understood my noble friend aright he appreciated that Parliament might wish to discuss and debate some revision, depending on the importance of it as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said. I understood him to reply that should Parliament wish to discuss and debate a revision then it would be able to find an opportunity and a way of doing so. I think that is what the Committee would like to feel.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Perhaps the noble Viscount can help me again. This clause says that the Secretary of State
"shall prepare a draft of the revised code. or of that part of it, … and shall transmit a copy of the draft to the Commission for their consideration and advice".
It does not say whether he will let anybody know what the Commission says about it. Subsection (4) says that he shall take account of any advice, but he then goes on to do more or less what he wishes to do. Will he let Parliament and others know what the advice was from the Commission so that Parliament could consider the Commission's advice as well?
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is the subject of the next Amendment.
LORD PARGITER: The particular problem about consultation is that once the draft order is laid it cannot be amended. This is the problem we are up against—whether a White Paper could be produced which would give Parliament some idea of what was in mind so that representations could be

69
made to the Secretary of State by Parliament in some form or other. Once it gets to the draft order stage we have either to accept it or reject it, and sometimes it might be rejected for something that could easily be put right. That is why we want to think of some means of consultation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend has asked me to answer one or two of the points made. As I understand it, the position is this. In answer to the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary of State has certain duties under this Act. He is subject fully to interrogation in Parliament. There would be no means of trying to establish a doctrine such as that which exists in relation to nationalised industries, whereby the day-to-day management is left to someone else. This is the Secretary of State's day-to-day responsibility. From that, each House has its own procedures, this House perhaps more than the Commons. The Commons would have full-time at Question Time, Adjournment Debates, Estimates, Supply Days and so on to discuss particular aspects of the code. The simplest form would be to ask the Secretary of State whether he would amend the code in such and such a way, and that would be accepted by the Commons Table, or by the House here, as a question to be put, and the Secretary of State would have to answer it.
LORD PARGITER: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that answer.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: That was an important answer from the noble and learned Lord. The Amendment was exploratory, to ensure that Parliament was maintaining its rights. In view of Clause 4 which follows—though I should be out of order if I started discussing that—I will, with permission, withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.6 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 9, at end insert ("any advice given to the Secretary of State by the Commission under this sub-section shall be published by the Secretary of State.")
The noble Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name
70
and that of my noble friends. The purpose of this Amendment is that any advice given to the Secretary of State by the Commission on Industrial Relations under this subsection shall be published by the Secretary of State. This point, as noble Lords will have noticed, has already been raised when discussing the last Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, did not rise to reply and I hope he will rise to this one.
The Commission on Industrial Relations is to be a statutory body, a very important one in terms of the making or the revision of this code. It is no way going to he a sectional body which might have secrets which it would not want to be disclosed, whether or not they should be. The responsibility must in the last resort lie with the Government and the Secretary of State for decisions made. But I think, if we are setting up a body as important as this the onus should be very much on the Secretary of State, if he is going to disregard the advice given by this extremely important Commission, to say why he is not following their advice, and for that to happen it is obviously necessary that the advice should be made public. I cannot see any disadvantage in the advice being made public. Presumably all of us are in favour, where possible, of more open government.
This seems to me an elementary point where again confidence in the work of the Secretary of State and of the Commission could be heightened in everybody concerned if they knew exactly what was going on; and it will be part of the effort of building up the Commission on Industrial Relations into being the important body it undoubtedly ought to be if the Commission knows that what is recommends is going to be published, and therefore if it is in any way going to be overruled that will become the subject of serious and open discussion. I do not think there is any need to say any more. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: Perhaps I could be excused for a moment to explain that the number of names which appear on this Amendment are by no means the result of a shot-gun wedding; they are the result of independent minds searching after truth and arriving at the same conclusion. The noble Lords, Lord Byers,

71
Lord Henley and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, reached their conclusion and put an Amendment down, and we on our side reached a similar conclusion and put an identical Amendment down, and the joining of the names, which is a matter of privilege and happiness so far as I am concerned, is the result of the work of the authorities of the House. Having explained that, and having endorsed every word which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has said, 1 will be interested to hear the reply of the Government.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is an Amendment which has been very cogently moved by the noble Lord, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. One would have to recognise, and it was inherent in the noble Lord's speech that he recognises, that there might be some circumstances in which it would not be in the public interest to publish the advice. There might be certain circumstances in which the C.I.R. itself might not wish the advice published, and we may be dealing with a wide range of different kinds of revisions. Indeed the device may in some cases be simply, "We agree". We are disposed to accept in principle the noble Lord's Amendment, on the understanding that we can have a look at it and make any changes which we think would commend themselves to the House. But if the noble Lord will leave this with us, we will look at it, and either reintroduce his Amendment or bring it forward in some amended form.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I know that I speak for other noble Lords in saying that we are most grateful to the Government for this welcome thaw in relations. It is good of them to accept the principle. We recognise that there may be occasions when it is not justifiable for the advice to be published, although that was not actually part of my speech, and I am dubious about it. We look forward to hearing the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when he comes back either on the Report stage or if we have consultations between now and Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment standing
72
in my name and that of my noble friends and of my semi-friend.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Use of code of practice in proceedings under this Act]:
6.11 p.m.
LORD BLYTON LORD BLYTON moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 21, leave out ("of itself").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and those of my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench. Clause 4, as it stands, means that a person or persons could be brought before the court, and the deletion of the words "of itself" would mean that such a person or persons could not then be brought before the court. As I have said before, trade unions do not like the law and lawyers intruding into their affairs, and they have substantial reasons for taking this attitude. This clause deals with the legal status of the code. It is another instance of injecting quasi-communal legislation into our existing industrial tribunals. Here in this clause the courts are enjoined to follow a code which has not yet been seen and no one has had a chance to examine it. It seems to me that a breach of the code will automatically mean a "guilty" verdict for those appearing before the court, just as with the Highway Code in relation to road traffic. Despite the role of the so-called civil tribunal, there is no doubt that powers will exist to fine, attach earnings and imprison if you do not pay for contempt of court. There will be other concepts like inducement, threat to strike, aiding and abetting, together with this code.
I hope the Committee will appreciate that the trade unions' history has been built up on voluntary negotiation and settling problems and difficulties by means of negotiating machinery. Also, our experience over the years of how courts have decided against us, and how we have had to fight to get their decisions reversed, does not lead the trade unions to welcome the procedures under this Bill. What will happen is that trade unionists or trade unions will be dragged before the courts, accused of breaking

73
the code of conduct, to which they have never agreed—and by courts weighted against them. Trade unions and persons can be brought before courts and tried by judges and lawyers who are members of the biggest closed shop in this country. We are being asked to pass legislation which will allow a code to be used as evidence before we have a chance to see the code. The Government are asking for a blank cheque.
It is quite evident to anyone who knows about industrial affairs that when you get into a position of legally binding codes you get into real difficulties. It is not possible to foresee, and to base a code on the assumption that all eventualities can be foreseen is something that no negotiator on either side of industry can claim. These generalised rules or guidance rules will apply to all unions, as diverse as those of actors, doctors, miners, nurses, teachers, seamen, civil servants and engineers. If the code of conduct is a generalised one, only chaos will result, since conditions are so different, and the National Industrial Relations Court, with the sanctions in the Bill against individuals and trade unions, will create untold trouble.
There may be arguments for guidelines, but their intrusion into the enforcement agencies, with the implication that a breach of the code is evidence of culpability, is the reason why it is not possible to accept this state of affairs. The Solicitor General himself said that the code, which nobody has seen, will be taken into account in deciding whether or not a complaint of non-compliance with the provisions of the Bill has been established. The complaint can be about an unfair practice by or on behalf of a union, or about an employer not giving recognition or information; and, as I understand it, it will be a complaint before a civil court. It is quite plain that when the code is to be used as terms of reference, when a charge is being brought not because of an offence against the code, but for another reason, such as an alleged unfair practice, the determination of the charge will in part depend on reference to certain parts of the code of conduct.
Surely, in circumstances like this, if the charge is sustained there can be fines, and if the fines are not paid it can mean
74
imprisonment under the civil law. If we are dealing in this instance with civil law, it will be supported by civil remedies: and they are as I have stated. Again, the code, whenever it arrives in the House, will, I hope, come in a form in which it can be amended; otherwise, it will put everyone in a very difficult position, because we shall have to take it whether we like it or not. In a matter of great importance such as this, the Committee should have a chance to amend the code, which is to play such an important part in the courts, when men are to be tried for any offence under this Bill. I say that there will be a lot of strife on this issue in the years ahead, especially in the courts, if this legislation is passed and our people are dragged before the courts in the way I have tried to illustrate. Therefore I move this Amendment in order to minimise the injustice which the Bill will inflict on men and women who in their unions endeavour to raise their standard of life, which is the only way they have of achieving their goal, and because of our total opposition to courts and penal sanctions. I beg to move.
6.21 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has misunderstood the whole picture of this clause. I should like to try to explain it to him, and I hope that I may be successful. I start by saying that he is quite wrong about the lawyers operating a closed shop. They do nothing of the kind. As I said at an earlier stage, the Bar Council has about an 80 per cent. membership. One would very much like it to be wider, but it is in fact purely voluntary. I do not know the position about solicitors, but that is the position about the profession of which I was a proud member until I came here.
The noble Lord was also wrong—I say this by way of preliminary observation—in saying that the Government are asking for a blank cheque. It is of course true that the preliminary draft of the code has not been published, but I hope we have been through that sufficiently to show that it will have been discussed very clearly and fully before it becomes effective and will then have to be endorsed by each House of Parliament. I

75
say this by way of repetition as we have gone through it in debate which I do not wish to re-open. But to say that it is a blank cheque when there is not a cheque and it will not be blank when it is signed, is a misuse of language of a serious kind.
The noble Lord began by saying that trade unions will be dragged before the courts for a breach of the code and there will be a guilty verdict. Under this Bill one cannot be dragged before any court for a breach of the code of practice. The noble Lord did not say—and I think perhaps he should have said—that the words of which he complains have been on the Statute Book now for 40 years, since 1930, in relation to the Road Traffic Acts. They have given rise to none of the difficulties which the noble Lord anticipates.
If he will look at Section 74 of the present Road Traffic Act, which I think was passed in 1960, he will see that it reproduces the words of an earlier Statute, I think the Act of 1930. He will see exactly the same words as are here in relation to the code of industrial practice in relation to the Highway Code, which I hold in my hand. Nobody is dragged before a court for a breach of the Highway Code, but the Highway Code can be used in evidence by either the prosecution or the defence. It can be used in criminal proceedings but no criminal proceedings are contemplated here; and it can be used in civil actions either for the plaintiff or for the defendant.
Let me give an example. Regulation No. 6 is about pedestrians. It says, "Before you cross stop at the kerb." Another one is, "Keep your vehicle in good condition." That is the sort of thing which goes into codes of this kind. The way it works, if I may give an example, is this. Suppose a motorist is being sued for damages for negligence by a pedestrian and the fact be that the pedestrian ran out without stopping at the kerb. The fact that he ran out without stopping at the kerb and that that is a breach of the code can be used in argument or in evidence to show that the motorist was not to blame. Equally, if a motorist is being sued for negligence or is being prosecuted for some offence
76
and it is shown that the accident happened because his vehicle was in a bad condition, that fact can be referred to in argument or in evidence as placing the responsibility for the accident on him.
It is just as likely to be used by a defendant as by a plaintiff. It is just as likely to be used by the defence as by the prosecution and it is very seldom referred to in so many words. It does not hold up proceedings because the contents of the Highway Code are really only the dictates of common sense which every good motorist is supposed to learn before he goes on the road and which counsel and judges throughout the land are perfectly familiar with, so that an actual reference is scarcely ever made to it.
Translating that into this particular Amendment, the noble Lord started with the assumption that it is designed to beat trade unions about the head. I suppose it is no good going on saying to the noble Lord that that really is not the picture. There are of course a number of unfair industrial practices defined in this measure. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, on the Cross Benches. He knows how naughty he was on Second Reading to try to put the number at 179. I make it about 25 possible clauses which are concerned. There is Clause 5 which concerns unfair industrial practices by employers. There are Clauses 5, 12, 15, 20, 31, 44, 68, 52, 55, 53, 92, 93 and 94. Those are all concerned with unfair industrial practices by employers. There are about 12 clauses dealing with trade unions some of which are the same. So it is not 26, but something rather fewer than 25.
LORD DONOVAN: One of those clauses contains 40 malpractices. I have the Schedule, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord would like me to send him a copy?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: When we come to those clauses I think we shall have to go into the noble and learned Lord's computation a little more carefully. The fact is that those are the clauses and, unless one calculates in a most extraordinary and unfair way, one does not get anything like the results which the noble and learned Lord seeks to make out. Incidentally, this does not in the main attract a fine. It attracts a claim for compensation and the noble

77
and learned Lord knows that that is not a fine. It is not a tort; it is a breach of statutory duty coming before a separate series of tribunals. It does not contain the solatium for injured feelings which damages for tort normally contains. It contains compensation based on actual loss with a ceiling attached. It is ultimately for the House to decide whether the noble and learned Lord was on his usual form when he made those rather wild observations on Second Reading.
LORD DIAMOND: May I interrupt the Lord Chancellor for advice? When he says that there is a ceiling, does he mean that there is a ceiling in the case of only registered unions or a ceiling in all cases?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It means a ceiling in the case of unfair dismissals, a ceiling in the case of registered unions, but not, I think, in all cases. In any case, it is a very different picture from that which the noble and learned Lord painted on Second Reading. It is either in the Bill or not. The code does not attract any new unfair industrial practice, either to the employer or to the employed. It works just as the Highway Code does.
If I may now come to an example, under Clause 54 employers are under a duty to disclose information, and that duty is defined in rather general terms in that clause for the purpose of enabling a union to carry out collective bargaining. If you look on to Clause 98 you will see that the union has certain rights in court if the employer fails to disclose information. The code of practice will presumably spell out a little more definitely the kind of information required, and when the trade union takes the employer to court for failing to disclose information it will refer to the code of practice with regard to the information which is required and say: "I want an order, under Clause 98, to compel you to perform your duty, under Clause 54, because this is what the code provides and you have not gone anywhere near it."
The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to deprive the trade union of that right. If a good practice of collective bargaining is consultation
78
about matters likely to affect the workers, and a trade union is accused by an employer of an unfair industrial practice, it will be able to draw attention to the employer's failure to perform his obligations under the code, not that that is itself an unfair industrial practice, but as affording an explanation of why the union has done certain things of which the employer has complained.
The function of the code of industrial practice is to operate exactly as the Highway Code does in highways litigation, and to pass an Amendment of this kind would be to deprive it of its essential function, which is not to lay down legal obligations, but to show exactly what a reasonable employer, a reasonable shop steward, or reasonable union might do in a given set of circumstances, and to give the kind of usually commonsense advice that the Highway Code does to motorists, and has done for forty years.
To try to "scarify" the issue, as the noble Lord has done, by assuming the most impossible motives, and making the most wild statements about what the Bill contains, or what the motives of its sponsors may be, does not stand up in the light of the experience of courts extending over 40 years, that in certain circumstances a code of good practice is an aid to justice when offences or wrongs, or matters of that kind, come before it in order to see in some detail what reasonable people do, without giving it the actual force of law. That is the purpose of the code. It would be deprived of its function if the Amendment were passed.
I hope that, having had that explanation presented to the Committee in good faith, the noble Lord will think it right not to press this Amendment. We are not asking for a blank cheque. We are not creating by the code any new offence. On the contrary, it is a weapon of defence, a shield just as much as it is a spear, and it is applicable to the employer every bit as much as to the trade union. In each case the court will be able to draw the inferences from unreasonable behaviour, whichever side has been guilty of it. It is the very opposite of what the noble Lord thought; the opposite of a legally enforceable code, part of the law. It is, on the contrary, a guide to reasonable conduct of the kind that the Highway Code has already proved such a success in another field.
6.35 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: Unfortunately I did not hear the whole of my noble friend's argument, but I know what is in his mind. Would the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, not agree with me that he has not really given the whole picture, which my noble friend has in mind, and which causes him the anxiety which he has expressed. The noble and learned Lord drew an analogy from the Highway Code. The Highway Code contains certain directions and recommendations, and specifies certain desirable practices. If proceedings, either in a civil court or in a criminal court, are instituted against a motorist, and it is demonstrated that he has transgressed any of the directions or prohibitions in the Highway Code, supposing there is no obvious explanation as to why he came to transgress that particular requirement in the Code, it is normally the case that the court comes to the conclusion that he was guilty of blame in a civil sense, or that he was guilty of the crinimal offence with which he is charged.
I know that what makes my noble friend anxious is this: we do not know what those prohibitions, recommendations or lines of guidance will be when they ultimately find their way into the code of conduct. There is a controversy between the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, about the number of unfair industrial practices which are created by this Act. My arithmetic was much closer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, than to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. But never mind who is right. Supposing one takes an example.
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, referred to Clauses 92 to 94. Clause 94 contains a wording which creates an unfair industrial practice in the case of any person, that is to say a registered or unregistered trade union, or any person enacting on behalf of either a registered or unregistered trade union, or any person acting on nobody's behalf if, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, he takes certain steps involving a person who is an extraneous party in relation to that industrial dispute. Nobody knows so far whether the code of practice will have any impact, either directly or by implication, upon
80
the form of that unfair industrial practice.
We are going along, taking the necessary steps to enact the various clauses of this Bill, including this crucial Clause 4, without knowing, for example, in relation to Clause 94 what may be the effect of the code of practice. For all we know when it makes its appearance it may have a direct relevance to Clause 94, and if it is asserted against any person that he took the steps described in Clause 94 reference may be made to some provision in the code of practice, the form of which we have no idea at the moment, and it may produce the result that a person who otherwise would escape from the consequences of Clause 94 (1), and be able to establish that he was not within his toils, because of the application of the code of practice, he may find himself directly involved in liability for a substantial sum of compensation.
It is in those circumstances that my noble friend has drawn the attention of the Committee to this particular wording in Clause 4; and if I may respectfully submit to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, it really is not an adequate answer to my noble friend's anxieties to say, "Oh, well, this is just like the Highway Code that we know all about, which has its application in an extremely simple context, which everybody can understand; its parlance is simple, and conformity with its practice is something which every motorist has in mind every five minutes of the day that he sits in his motor car."
The context we are discussing is really a hundred miles away from that. We have a highly complex system of new, unfair industrial practices which have hitherto in no comparable form ever made their appearance in any Statute that we have ever had to consider; they are very large in number; we do not know what the code of practice is going to be, and we have not the remotest idea what changes in effect—because that is what it comes to—the wording of that code of practice may bring about in the clauses which we have to administer later, if and when this Bill becomes law.
I submit to the noble and learned Lord that, if we are going to pass Clause 4, we should do so in the full knowledge

81
of what is involved. When we see the code of practice we may find that when we have to apply the provisions of these later clauses, of which I have given an example, the result which will emerge on a given state of facts, if we simply look at the wording of Clause 94 by itself, will be quite different from the result which will emerge if we apply in relation to Clause 94 the provisions of this unknown code which have to be taken into account by the court; and which, if there is transgression against the provisions which is unexplained, presumably will produce a liability which the actual wording of Clause 94, without the application of the code of practice, would not produce. I should have thought that that was a very undesirable situation in which the Committee is asked to pass the provisions of Clause 4 as they stand.
I think—and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me—that what I have ventured to add to his explanation is correct. We are all very grateful for his explanation, which was graphic and vivid and coloured by phrases which we delight to hear from him, over and over again; but, while we are grateful to him for that, I submit with respect that it was rather woefully incomplete, and I hope he will adopt my additions, at any rate as completing an insufficient account of the situation with which we have to deal.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: May I add one or two sentences in this debate? I think it is not only confusing for us here to compare the Highway Code with this prospective code of practice, I think it adds suspicion. It is almost an insult to compare the Highway Code with what is going to be a code of practice in such an area as industrial relations, such a vast area involving so many human attitudes, so many complexities. It not only confuses us, but makes us suspicious of the intentions of the Government. It is no help at all continually to compare what this code of practice is going to be with the Highway Code.
6.44 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I was going to suggest that perhaps the noble and learned Lord would wish to reply to some further questions I have to put to him at the same time as he replies to others. If it is convenient to the Committee, perhaps
82
I might intervene at this stage and pick up what my noble friend Lord Stow Hill—I was wondering whether he is still a "learned" noble friend, but I gather not—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Not "learned" in this House.
LORD DIAMOND:—what my noble friend Lord Stow Hill said about the noble and learned Lord's explanation being woefully incomplete. I wanted to add to my sense of woe. But, first of all, it is only right that I should thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor both for the explanation he gave and for the fact, which I think is very material indeed, that he demonstrated by his presence what we are trying to prove throughout the discussions on this Bill: namely, that it is a legal tangle which any ordinary person cannot follow—indeed, most Members of your Lordships' House cannot follow it, judging by the discussion which has already taken place; and that we need, not a Minister in charge of the Bill to reply, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself. I repeat, it is a great courtesy of him to explain it, but I think it is was perfectly obvious that the kind of explanation he gave could have come only from somebody with the deep legal knowledge and experience of somebody such as the noble and learned Lord himself. That is indeed the first point I want to make about the whole of this legal framework to the Bill, evidenced by this particular Amendment which goes to the heart of it.
Indeed, if I wanted to add to that point, which I do not think I need do, one has only to refer to a problem which is of some little interest to an accountant such as myself; namely, do you add up the figures and arrive at 179, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, said, he being the Chairman of the Royal Commission and being, as I have indicated before, in my view, perhaps the most authoritative of your Lordships present on this particular field; or do we take the view of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, and say that if you do your sum a different way it adds up to only 26; or do you take the view of my noble friend the ex-Attorney General, as well as being ex-Home Secretary, who has just given us his view, that

83
it may well be that the figure is somewhere between the two, but he leans more towards the noble and learned Lord the Chairman of the Donovan Commission, rather than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor?
I have had to attach my signature with the responsibility that goes whenever a chartered accountant attaches his signature to a sum, but I should not like, for any fee in the world, to give my professional view on what the answer to that particular sum is. We are again in a situation—although I have always previously been perfectly prepared to accept the authority of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan—where it is necessary for the Lord Chancellor himself to explain the meaning of a particular part of a particular clause of this Bill, and where we have a wide difference on what ought to be a perfectly simple matter of addition.
May I now turn to some of the things the noble and learned Lord said, supporting his case—which did not go to the heart of his case but with which he supported his case—because unless I do, and unless I make clear to him the vast difference in approach between what he said and what we feel and believe on this side, he will not be able to direct his mind to the real anxieties which we have. The first thing he said—and my noble friend Lady Gaitskell picked on it with her usual capacity for going to the heart of a difficult and troublesome matter—was that a good analogy (I think that is what the noble and learned Lord said, a good analogy) was the Highway Code. I cannot accept that. We are always in difficulty in arguing by analogy, but I cannot accept that that summons up in our minds a kind of picture which is reliable. The Highway Code, as has already been said, is a matter of simplicity—such simplicity that it is capable of being understood by children, and indeed is being altered in respect of that part which applies to children at this very moment.
Secondly, it is not a formulation of a new pattern of behaviour to which it is hoped both sides of industry will subscribe in the future, and to which no doubt the best on both sides already do subscribe; but it is the description of existing practices which everyone knows,
84
and without which nobody can even pass his driving test to start coming on to the road at all. Therefore it is a totally different matter, quite apart from its legal implications. We give ourselves no advantage by attempting to relate the two and saying that the code of practice is just as simple and as easy as the Highway Code; that any school child can understand it. Far from it!
The second thing I want to refer to, on which the noble and learned Lord commented, is the concept of the blank cheque. Again we are in the realm of analogy. I subscribe entirely to the point made by my noble friend Lord Blyton, that Clause 2 of this Bill is giving a blank cheque. We have passed Clause 2, which says that it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to prepare, in draft, a code of practice. We have passed that, and that means that the Secretary of State has to do that. Of course, nobody knows what is going to be in the code of practice. We have authorised the Secretary of State to prepare it. As I understand it, we cannot now go back on that clause and say that if we do not like the contents of the code of practice we shall not have a code of practice at all. We cannot say that. We are committed to a code of practice. So far as I can see, that is the same thing as giving blank authority or, for convenience of description, a blank cheque. That is the situation we are in. I want to move from there to indicate why I do not think the explanation given by the noble and learned Lord was at all adequate. It has not removed our anxieties. I hope that he will reply to the point put by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill, as well as attempting to deal more fully with the debate and with what my noble friend and I are both saying.
The second of the difficulties here is that there are words used which we cannot relate to our experience of the Highway Code, because this Bill is not truly analogous, as I have explained, to the Transport Act to which the noble and learned Lord referred. I am advised that the words "of itself" must mean something. Of course, if the noble and learned Lord says I am wrong, that they mean nothing, then I shall be utterly delighted and invite him immediately to remove superflous words from the clause. But if they mean something, as I am advised they do, they mean that, although a failure of itself cannot render a man liable

85
to any proceedings, two failures or three failures or four failures, by implication, would. That is what I am advised. It is not for me to read statutes and offer comment to your Lordships' House as to what they mean. I have taken advice, and that is what I am advised those words mean. If they have any meaning, they can, as my noble friend Lord Blyton suggested, have that effect by implication. Secondly, they have the effect which my noble friend Lord Stow Hill made absolutely clear with regard to a later clause in the Bill. Therefore there is no need for me to add to that.
Although I recognise immediately that the Highivay Code is related to proceedings which could be criminal, and this Bill is related to proceedings which are, I would say, quasi-criminal—that is, not criminal, and therefore civil—nevertheless the clear transgression of the code of practice would be a relevant consideration in proceedings brought under any part of the Bill and, therefore, would affect the amount of damages. The amount of damages in the case of an unregistered union would be unlimited. The damages may be damages on an individual. If an individual does not pay, and if the court is satisfied that he can and should pay the damages, it can send him to prison for contempt of court. So the distinction is not all that great. We are back again in the situation that these words produce a position in which, clearly, an individual may be prejudiced in relation to other proceedings under the Act and may at the end of the day find himself in prison.
The real objection we have is one of principle. The noble and learned Lord said that this weapon is a shield as well as a spear. The noble Lord looked upon it as a weapon in the warfare between the two sides which we seek to eliminate. We want no kind of warfare at all; we want industrial co-operation, and we do not believe that spears or shields are relevant. We are not seeking the protection of this kind of legislation for industrial employees against industrial employers. We would rather have none of it and go by co-operation.
The noble and learned Lord said that the code of practice is an aid to justice. We look upon the code of practice as being an aid to co-operation, not an aid to justice, in the sense of what one gets after going through a variety of courts,
86
and finally at the end of the day getting the final answer, wherever that may be. I am bound to say to the noble and learned Lord that we are far from satisfied on this point. There is no need for me to say any more than that, because the noble and learned Lord has indicated that he is about to get up and offer us the benefit of his further advice.
However, before I sit down, I am bound to say, in relation to what one of my noble friends, Lord Stow Hill, very wisely said, that we are dealing with the legal effects of a code which we have not seen. Clause 4 is very material to that point, and I am bound to say to those in charge of our proceedings in this place that it is almost inevitable that when we see the code of practice we may feel bound to ask your Lordships to reconsider this code in the light of that knowledge, not in the light of some supposition of what we think is in it and what they think is in it when nobody knows what is in it. Therefore on Clause 4 we would wish to seek advice on recommittal, and I say no more than that at that point. I should be grateful to the noble and learned Lord if he would help to remove our anxieties.
6.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The truth is that if one starts with a proposition that one is going to use emotional language like insult where no insult is intended, or woe where there is no ground for any woe, or suspicion where the obvious intention is as open as it can be, it is rather difficult to conduct a debate at all. The fact is that none of the suspicions which the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, asserted in general terms is justified. There is no insult to anybody in introducing language which has been on the Statute Book for 40 years. I ventured to refer to the Highway Code because I was speaking to the Amendment. We have dealt with the code of practice for nearly a week now. Its genesis is the consultation which will precede it, the opportunities for Parliamentary discussion. I had rather hoped that some of the discussions which we have had during the past week might have sunk in. Therefore I repeated them. I was speaking to the Amendment, and only to the Amendment, which is to leave out "of itself". It was an Amendment of a legal kind and I spoke to it.

87
I said, in explanation of why I thought the Amendment was based upon a misunderstanding, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, that the Highway Code in the Road Traffic Act was not a bad analogy. I meant what I said. The fact is that it is not only an analogy, but the very words which are in Clause 4 are in the Road Traffic Act in this context, and it has given rise to none of the anxieties which noble Lords opposite have expressed in relation to this code of practice. When the noble Lord says that he wants the code of practice to be a code of co-operation we should all agree. We do not want it to be used in legal proceedings because we hope that there will be no legal proceedings. We do not want it to be used as a weapon of warfare because we do not want there to be any warfare. But the fact of the matter is that the Bill as it is drafted explains the circumstances in which it can be used as evidence or by way of argument in legal proceedings. It was in that context and in no other that the Amendment was proposed, and it was in that context and in no other that I was referring to it. So much for that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has hit upon rather an ingenious device. Because the Lord Chancellor gets up to speak on the direct invitation of a noble Lord opposite and is asked to play the kind of role played by the Solicitor General in another place and to give advice on matters of legal proceedings, the noble Lord said "Well, that proves it is a legal Bill". That is the sort of argument which we are faced with in this Committee. If we do not speak then it appears to be the case as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, last week said, that all the words of a Statute and their meaning are necessarily legal points because it falls to a court to construe them and therefore the Lord Chancellor ought to speak on every clause. But if, after seven days' debate the Lord Chancellor ventures for the first time to reply to an Amendment which has directly to do with the legal effect in a court of law then that is said to prove that the whole Bill is a legal Bill. That is the standard which the Opposition are putting up in our rather protracted discussions; but the fact is that I intervened because this was a legal Amendment and because it
88
was introduced with the object of affecting the law. It seems to me that after seven days I am at least justified in saying that the fact I have only spoken once shows that it was not a legal Bill at all, but I will not descend to that level of debate.
Let me now deal with one or two of the last observations of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, before I proceed to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. Of course the words "of itself" mean something. They mean exactly what they have meant for 40 years since they appeared in the Road Traffic Act, and if the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, thinks that what they mean in the Road Traffic Act is that if there are three breaches of the Highway Code that constitutes an offence—and he said he was advised that such was the case—it seems to me to be pretty peculiar advice because it is not the case at all. As I tried to explain in my first speech, it means that although not keeping your vehicle in good condition does not of itself render you liable to somebody else, if somebody can show that he has suffered personal injuries as a result of your vehicle being in bad condition—for instance, by not having properly maintained brakes, that in conjunction with the whole context may render you liable. Equally, if a person does not stop at the kerb and look both ways before running out into the road and he brings an action for damages, that fact may be referred to, although not in itself either a ground of liability or defence. It may be referred to by either side as giving some grounds why that person should be debarred from receiving the whole or some part of his compensation.
LORD POPPLEWELL: The noble and learned Lord refers to the question of motoring offences and unfit brakes. That of course would carry an endorsement. Two endorsements are totted up and, on the third endorsement, his driving licence would be taken away. Is there anything in the Bill which is comparable to the analogy being put forward by the noble and learned Lord?
Tim LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is not following the argument. The fact is that there is a certain offence under the Road Traffic Act of having unfit brakes. I think it is under the

89
Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, but, as I said in my opening remarks, there is nothing in the code of practice which by itself can constitute an unfair industrial practice, or anything else, and I hoped that by this time this would be absolutely plain.
The noble Lord also said that at the end of the day these breaches would land a man in gaol. So far as I can see, that simply cannot happen under this Bill. We are abolishing imprisonment for debt, so far as I know, before the Bill is likely to come into force, under the implementation of the Report of the Payne Committee. I am speaking now without having checked the Bill for this purpose and therefore I may be in error, but I think not; no other sentence of imprisonment can be imposed except for a deliberate disobedience of an order of the court, at which stage the code of industrial practice would be neither here nor there.
I do not want to pursue analogies beyond what they will bear, and I have explained exactly the context in which I was using the analogy of the Road Traffic Act. I was using it because exactly the same phrase which the Amendment seeks to omit is used, and has been used for 40 years, in that Act, but the analogy is capable of wider application. It is of course true that a child and a novice motorist are supposed to learn bits of the Highway Code: the child should learn the part referring to pedestrians, and the motorist the use of a motor vehicle on the roads. But the same is true of industrial relations, except of course that children do not usually take part in collective bargaining. The code of industrial practice will have to be studied by people who want to take part in collective bargaining. They will want to know what are the best practices which already exist. I was interested to note that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, expressly pointed out that in almost every case the code of industrial practice will in fact reflect the best practices of trade union officials and trade unions on the one side and of employers on the other. That is exactly what an employer who is perhaps not quite so experienced, or the union official who has not got the experience of some noble Lords here, will want to study so as to attune his own practice to that of the best.
90
I do not want to go back over the analogy of the blank cheque. That was not my analogy. That was the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, and it is a bad analogy. We have already explained why. There is no cheque being signed by this Bill in relation to the code of industrial practice. In fact, the Secretary of State is being asked to write a cheque at a future date, and if we sign it it will be signed by Parliament and not by the Secretary of State. So if the analogy were a good one it would prove exactly the opposite of what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, sought to achieve.
LORD SLATER: Is the noble and learned Lord not getting off the track? This Industrial Relations Bill seeks to take under control the relationship of workpeople and management within this country by drafting a law of the land. At the moment we are free people; we are free within industry; we are free to negotiate wages and conditions. But under this Bill legal sanctions are to be imposed by the Government against people who work in industry. The noble and learned Lord is getting off the track in regard to his own Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I disagree with almost every word of that, but as it has no relevance to the point I was desiring to make, perhaps I may be allowed to pursue the point I was actually making, and I will come, if I may, to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. The noble Lord, after having complained that my analogy with the Road Traffic Act was a false one—a point with which I think I have dealt adequately—then proceeded to try to draw some comfort for his noble friend Lord Blyton from the terms of Clause 94 of the Bill. Of course we shall discuss Clause 94 when we come to it, but I must say that if I had been trying to select a clause in the Bill which was inappropriate to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, he could hardly have selected a better one for my purpose. To begin with, the clause is in itself a clause which deals with a situation already against the law of tort as the law stands unamended, without this Bill at all. If he will refer to the recent Torquay case or the Stratford v. Lindley case, he will see that in the main that is what Clause 94 is dealing with, and in fact all he is doing—although we will discuss it in greater

91
detail when we get there—is to transfer Stratford v. Lindley and the Torquay v Cousins cases from the ordinary courts of law to the new industrial tribunal under the title of the code of unfair industrial practice.
LORD GARDINER: If I may—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble and learned Lord will allow me to conclude this point I will gladly give way. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, says that he does not know what is in the code of industrial practice, which, within the severe limits which I have pointed out, is true. But what he did not say was that it is quite clear that the extraneous party who is referred to in Clause 94 of the Bill is defined most precisely by subsection (2) of that clause, and, therefore, whatever is in the code of industrial practice, it is plain enough from the clause we are now discussing—and Clause 94, which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was discussing—that the code of industrial practice, whatever it contains, cannot override subsection (2) of that clause. I am sorry to have kept the noble and learned Lord waiting, but he will understand that I wanted to conclude that point.
LORD GARDINER: I understand that the noble and learned Lord's point in regard to Clauses 92 to 94 is that to induce a breach of contract is actionable anyhow by our law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No; the noble and learned Lord is quite wrong. I was dealing with Clause 94 as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was dealing with it, the introduction of extraneous parties in furtherance of a trade dispute, and that is the Stratford v. Lindley and Torquay v. Cousins state. I did not mention Clause 92 at all, because the clause to which Lord Stow Hill was referring was Clause 94. I was dealing with that in isolation. No doubt we can deal with t he other clauses at some stage when we reach them.
LORD GARDINER: With great respect, even that is not so, is it, because our present law in this field is subject to a defence of justification; it is only wrong to induce breach of contract if there is no justification. For some reason that I have never understood, this ordinary defence which everybody has at
92
present is not in the Bill at all. The noble and learned Lord may remember that the leading case of justification was Brimlow v. Casson when the defendant, then Mr. Dennis Casson, was appearing for Actors' Equity, and induced chorus girls to break their contracts with the management on the ground that they were being paid so little that they were being driven to prostitution, and his defence of justification succeeded. I think I am right in saying that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, pointed out on Second Reading that this was one of our surprises, that the defence of justification appears to be removed and is not there in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble and learned Lord has wholly missed the point. I am not sure whether he was here when the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, spoke. If he will recollect the noble Lord's point, which was the only point I was dealing with and the only point relevant to this Amendment, although much of what the noble and learned Lord says might be germane to those clauses when we come to them, Lord Stow Hill's point was that we were discussing here the code of industrial practice alone, and he sought to give an example from Clause 94 as to why the words "of itself" and the other words should be omitted from that clause. So far as I know, the presence or absence of the defence of justification, across the board, to unfair industrial practices has no relevance that I can see to that particular point. Obviously, if the noble Lord wants to raise the point, it would provide an interesting debate at a later stage of the Bill. But I was solely concerned with answering the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, had raised. At the end of the day, I would submit that there really is nothing left for me to answer. This is a method of approach to a code of good ethics which has been tried in one field and found successful and which we are seeking to introduce into another.
I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Load Diamond, that one hopes that it will be followed irrespective of any legal proceedings, because the object is to provide a code of good behaviour in order

93
to avoid legal proceedings and not to incur them. But the clause also provides, as the Highway Code does, that if by any mischance, human nature being what it is, legal proceedings result, either by a trade union or by an employer, then the bad behaviour under the code can be referred to if and in so far as it is relevant to the issue which has to be tried. That it seems to me, is something which the Committee ought to adopt and to which we at any rate attach importance. Therefore, although I have done my very best to explain to noble Lords that their suspicions are wholly unfounded, if the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, does not in fact see fit to withdraw his Amendment (which I still hope he will because I have tried to answer the arguments in a reasonable spirit), I shall ask my noble friends to vote against it.
7.20 p.m.
Lotto DAVIES OF LEEK: I am sorry to be persistent about this, but this is a point of relevance and of some moment to democracy. We are being asked—despite the brilliance of the legal argument (I do not pretend to be able to contend with legality, but I want to follow the meaning of words) to agree to something—and we have even gone up to Clause 92 and Clause 94, which I have read, which has torts and offences in it, and wrongs which can result in some cases in imprisonment and fines. What Clause 4 says is:
"any such code of practice shall be admissible in evidence"—
We do not know what the code is, but we are agreeing to-day that it will be admitted in evidence. Secondly, we agree in (b):
"any provision of such a code of practice which appears … relevant"—
I am omitting words to make for clarity,
"to any question … by the Court or tribunal in determining that question."
In determining what question? In determining the question whether proceedings shall be taken. So far as I am concerned, despite listening to all the legal arguments, this Committee is being asked to agree to certain phraseology that implies that we are making it possible for a member of a trade union to have action taken against, him by reason of something in a code of which we know
94
nothing. In addition, I consider that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has no right to make legal statements if he, himself, does not know what is in the code.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to my intervention, may I explain that I did not use the word "insult" in any emotive sense at all. I used it in an intellectual context. To compare the Highway Code with the industrial code of practice seems to me absolutely ridiculous, because they have nothing in common, apart from the word "code". That is what I meant. I did not use the word "insult" in any emotive sense.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall try to remember that the next time I use the word myself. I should ask the noble Baroness to remember that Section 74 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, provides in these words:
"A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under this Act) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings."
I was referring to it—whether by way of insult in a non-emotive sense or otherwise—as simply being the answer to the Amendment in question.
7.23 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: The noble and learned Lord draws attention to the Highway Code. We have no knowledge of this code; it has not been debated by Parliament, but is simply brought before Parliament and we are told that we have to accept it, and there is no opportunity of amending it. Looking at society today, and in particular industrial relations, surely that is not the way to do it. Nothing has been attempted on the other side by way of reference to malpractices in industry to justify bringing industrial relations under legal jurisdiction in this fashion.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the Highway Code and "unfit brakes". In the Highway Code there are various offences that carry endorsement of a licence, and ultimately disqualification. The noble and learned

95
Lord mentions "of itself" as being in the Highway Code. If someone was prosecuted, or brought before the N.I.R.C. for offences, would it be possible for any penalties awarded to be totalled up, as in the Highway Code? These are important matters which should be fully discussed in Parliament before any question of a code of practice, which we are not able to debate, and not able to amend, is thrust upon us. We are entitled to some kind of information on this aspect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will try to answer. There is no totting up in this Bill at all, and there cannot be under the code of practice. The second proposition is that there is no totting up in the Highway Code either; it exists solely in offences scheduled to the Road Traffic Act itself. In so far as there is an analogy to that extent—and I think that is exactly the point at which the analogy breaks down—that is paralleled by the fact that the only unfair industrial practices are also in the Bill, and cannot be in the code.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It was your own reference to "unfit brakes".
LORD BERNSTEIN: Can I address myself to the non-legal members of your Lordships' House? The legal arguments were fascinating, especially for those of us who saw in the Bill a new exercise, and perhaps a new revenue for lawyers. I suggested earlier that Clause 3 might lead to the courts. My noble friend, Lord Diamond, made the same point. It seems to me that we are back to square one, where we started last week.
Let us say it is not a legal Bill. Let us say it is a Bill which has legal implications. Let us consider these implications. We have had three eminent lawyers offering views. Which of those views do laymen accept? The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had a variety of defences to the clause. May I tell you a story?—no insult to the noble and learned Lord. Some of my best friends are lawyers. Vicky told me this after listening to a long speech at a conference. I asked him his view of it. He said that it reminded him of a Hungarian meeting another Hungarian in Budapest. One said to the other. "Can you find me a one-armed lawyer?" His friend replied. "I know international lawyers, criminal
96
lawyers, chancery lawyers, but not a one-handed lawyer. Why?" He said, "I have been involved in legal troubles for a long time. I go to lawyers and they say 'On one hand this, and on the other hand, that'." That is how all this argument sounded to me.
LORD DIAMOND: I think that none of your Lordships will envy me my present position of having to recommend to my noble friend Lord Blyton, in the light of this very difficult debate, what would be the most helpful course to take. I have long since learned that when, as a layman, one is dealing with matters which are of considerable legal impact and complexity, one is very ill-advised to jump to a conclusion immediately, especially where there is a conflict of legal advice. Therefore. I am not anxious to invite my noble friend to press this to a Division at this moment, as I would be doing if we were all absolutely certain what the position is.
Secondly, I am bound to say to your Lordships that I think we are making ourselves look simply ridiculous by having all this difficulty (even though we are assisted by the finest legal brains in the country) which centres on a procedural matter; namely, that we are being asked to give views which must have relevance to a particular document which is not before us. I cannot imagine in any other walk of life anybody being prepared in these circumstances to make the responsible statements that should be made—certainly by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and all those who are engaged in the legal profession—on this issue.
For those two reasons. I think we should be far more sensible to consider very carefully what has been said—I shall certainly need to take further advice—from the legal point of view, and to wait until we have the code of industrial practice, which I am sure we will have by the time we come to the Report stage, and at that point seek to have this clause recommitted so that we can reconsider this Amendment in the light of some established fact, instead of all of us wandering in the dark and making ourselves look less than responsible to the outside world. For those reasons, without asking for any undertaking as to procedure (because I know it is not

97
the time to give that undertaking) I am going to ask my noble friend not to press this particular Amendment to a Division at this point in time.
LORD BLYTON: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIAMOND: It is not for me to say, but I understood it was your Lordships' desire that we should at this point of time move on to other business. I have therefore kept my remarks as short as I can, to be not too long after 7 o'clock.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: I was not absolutely sure whether the noble Lord wished to have a further discussion on the next Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: I am only too ready to discuss the next Amendment, and whether the clause shall stand part, which is the further Question to follow that; but both will be substantial discussions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought Amendment No. 21 was really part of No. 20. I thought it was part of the same Amendment, and that Amendment No. 20 was paving the way to No. 21.
LORD DIAMOND: No. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, but there is a different point of view and a matter of very considerable substance, and we do not need to be assisted, if I may say so, to the extent we have been assisted so far, in coming to a conclusion on the next Amendment and on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part.
House resumed.

DANGEROUS LITTER BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
POWERS OF ATTORNEY BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.

UNSOLICITED GOODS AND SERVICES BILL
7.33 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD:My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
Clause 1 [Rights of recipient of unsolicited goods]:
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("(5) Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section shall not apply if the sender can show that within the period therein stated the recipient has been served with a separate notice requesting him at the sender's expense to inform the sender whether or not the recipient ordered the goods and the recipient has not so informed the sender.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the first Amendment standing in my name. Noble Lords who are interested in this Bill may remember that at the last stage of the Bill I spoke in support of an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. It became evident in the course of that debate that the Amendment as then framed by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, was not quite comprehensive enough, and that certain amendments needed to be made to it to meet quite genuine objections which had been brought forward during the Committee stage. At the same time, I was not at all happy to find myself, on a matter of consumer principle, speaking on a different side of the debate from the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and other supporters of the consumer cause, because I myself had always until then counted myself—and, indeed, I still do—on that side. But on taking away and reading the debate, and after consulting with various people, I still came to the conclusion that we had not really had a satisfactory answer to the points of substance put forward

99
by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and, to a lesser degree, by myself. I therefore put down this Amendment, which is a more complicated and more complex Amendment and which meets some of the points that were raised. I also prepared, and have in reserve, an even more complicated and complex Amendment which I was prepared to put before your Lordships on Third Reading, if necessary, to meet some other points which had been raised with me in private conversation and in various discussions on the Bill.
The argument behind this Amendment and behind the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, at Committee stage is that in fact to a degree unexpected by its proponents this Bill opens the door to an increase in fraud on mail order companies; and I am still convinced that, although the legal machinery is adequate for dealing with cases of fraud, nevertheless an Amendment to this Bill rather along the lines of that I have put forward, to make it quite clear to prospective committers of fraud that the way is not clear for them and that this Bill does not provide them with an open door to fraud, would be a great advantage, or would certainly be an advantage of some kind. I have, through the courtesy of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and other Members of your Lordships' House, had a very full discussion of this point with a number of people concerned—those who have been putting forward this Bill over quite a long time, and those who have been concerned to amend it. In the result, although I do not move from my position that I think the Amendment as put forward would be an advantage to the Bill, I must take into account the fact that a great number of people, and not only the proponents themselves, have come to the conclusion that if an Amendment such as I have put down, or the even more complicated one which I have in reserve for Third Reading, were to be added to the Bill, it would in fact detract considerably from the clearness of expression of what the Bill aims to achieve, and which it will to a certain extent achieve (and I certainly take this point) merely by being in existence rather more than by enforcement.
I apologise to your Lordships for detaining the House, but I thought your Lordships were entitled to an explanation of my actions. I also thought it was worthwhile publicly to say to the proponents of this Bill that I hope they will take seriously some of the points put forward when dealing with and thinking about other matters in this field. It is my intention, having made this statement, to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Amendment, and not to move the second Amendment standing in my name. Having moved it, however, it is obviously up to any noble Lord who wishes to comment to do so. I merely say I hope that we may not detain your Lordships any longer, and as soon any anyone who feels they must speak has spoken. I will ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think we must get ourselves in order. Does the noble Lord beg to move? He has not yet done so.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHTTLEY: I was under the impression, my Lords, that I had done so at the beginning of my speech; but I do beg to move, yes.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I rise merely to make the point that noble Lords on these Benches find these Amendments repugnant simply because they place in the hands of recipients of goods duties which should not be placed there. It is up to the senders of goods to look after themselves if they are so foolish as to have got themselves into a position where their past practices make it possible for people to perpetrate cheats upon them. I will not delay the House any longer: I merely say that I am gratified to hear that the noble Lord is going to withdraw these Amendments.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: In asking your Lordships' permission to withdraw, I must say that I think the noble Lord. Lord Brown, has greatly over-simplified a tremendously complicated point. But I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clase 3 [Directory entries]:
7.40 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 35, leave out from ("behalf") to ("before") in line 37, and insert ("an order complying with this section or a note complying with this section of his agreement to the charge and, in the case of a note of agreement to the charge").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, during the Second Reading debate noble Lords will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, moved certain Amendments to Clause 3, which deals with directory entries, the purpose of his Amendments being to ease the stringent demands of that clause in order to meet the needs of legitimate directory publishers who would otherwise be in some difficulties in the way of running their businesses if the clause were left unamended. There were certain deficiencies in the drafting of his Amendments, although everyone supported the spirit of them. I agreed to look at them again and to discuss the matter further. At that point, the noble Lord withdrew his Amendments. With the help of legal advisers I have drafted Clause 3 and with the permission of the House, as all the Amendments refer to the clause in toto, I should like to discuss all four of them.
Clause 3 of this Bill is aimed at putting to an end the activities of bogus directory publishers, who have, so we are told, made millions of pounds by extracting money by subterfuge from mainly small tradesmen for worthless entries in trade directories which do not exist, or are useless. There are many ways in which they operate, and I would not trouble the house with the details. Suffice it to say that the Bill deals with the evil of bogus directories by requiring details about the directory, and the cost of having an entry in it, to be disclosed to a person whose name is to appear in it, in advance, and by requiring that person to sign an order form, before he can be asked to pay anything for having his name in a directory. That is the way this clause works. But it has been pointed out that this gives rise to a difficulty for the publishers of legitimate trade directories, such as Kelly's, the Yellow Pages of the telephone directory, and such like. If they have to get a signed order for every entry in every case, they
102
will have to go through the rigmarole laid down in this clause in every case, otherwise it would be illegal to ask for the cost of having an entry in their directory.
In the general run of cases they do not mind about this; that is to say, in those cases where they go to the small trader and ask him whether he would like to have his name in their directory, they perfectly accept the necessity there of going through the requirements laid down in this clause. The cases, however, which these Amendments I have put down are designed to cover are these. Where a man, say a builder, or an electrician, or the proprietor of a restaurant, takes the initiative himself and writes to a directory publisher—off his own bat, so to speak—asking to have his name included, it is suggested that it would be absurd to require that the directory publisher—and here, let me remind the House, we are thinking of the respectable directories, and not the bogus ones—to write back to the man who has already placed an order without being asked, and to require him to fill in a formal order complying with the stringent demands of this clause. In most cases, the builder, the electrician or the restaurateur, or whoever it is, would be very annoyed, having already placed his order for the directory entry, to have to confirm it in this formal way. Many of them will perhaps refuse to sign a complicated looking form in such cases, and would regard it as an annoyance.
These Amendments therefore allow an alternative way of placing a directory order. The essence of this alternative is described in Amendment No. 6, which adds several lines to the beginning of subsection (3) of Clause 3. Your Lordships will observe that what is to be allowed is an order for a directory entry:
"… made by means of an order form or other stationery belonging to the person to whom, or to whose trade or business, the entry is to relate and bearing, in print,"—
these are the important words, my Lords—
"the name and address (or one or more of the addresses) of that person".
So you will see that if the small trader writes a letter on his own printed note-paper and in that letter he places an order for a directory entry, that will suffice. That is the essence of what these Amendments achieve.
Noble Lords may wonder why we require that the order should have to be on printed notepaper. The answer is that we had to draw the line somewhere, and we consider that this is a suitable place to draw it. It will cover the majority of cases of those who place an order for a directory entry on their own accord. It will not cover a case where the small builder writes in on an ordinary piece of notepaper, with no printing on it. And I will not pretend that it will cover every situation or difficulty that the legitimate trade directory publishers may have to face. The Advertising Association, who were responsible for bringing to light the harshness of the provisions of this clause so far as the responsible directory publishers are concerned, and who sought the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, at the Committee stage of this Bill to ameliorate the demands of the Bill, are, I am assured, content with this compromise, and those of us who have been involved in promoting this Bill are content also, content in the sense that we do not feel that by easing the stringent demands of this clause we have allowed a loophole to be created, which might be exploited by the bogus directory racketeers. We did, in fact, have some little anxiety at first that the effect of these Amendments might be to make things too easy for those bogus operators this clause is designed to drive out of business. Now, however, we are satisfied that this will not happen. I beg to move.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, we on this side of the House have admired the noble Baroness's continued support of measures which seek to protect the consumer. We believe that the Amendments now proposed will very satisfactorily tidy up the original clause of the Bill and are happy to support them.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 41, leave out from second ("of") to ("be") in line 42, and insert ("an order or note of agreement to the charge complying with this section").—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 46, after ("that") insert ("the entry to which the charge relates, was ordered in accordance with this section or").—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, at beginning insert ("for the purposes of subsection (1) above, an order for an entry in a directory must be made by means of an order form or other stationery belonging to the person to whom, or to whose trade or business, the entry is to relate and bearing, in print, the name and address (or one or more of the addresses) of that person; and").—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)

RATING BILL
7.49 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE (DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extension of definition of "agricultural buildings" and "agricultural land" for purposes of derating in England and Wales]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("or section") and insert (", (buildings occupied in connection with bee-keeping) or").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this whole Bill is to fulfil a pledge given in our Election Manifesto to exempt from rates those buildings used by farmers in connection with the production of food from their land. Amendments No. 1, 5 and 6, to which with the permission of the Committee I will speak

105
at the same time, fulfil a further undertaking given in another place, and by me on Second Reading in this House, to include in that the production of honey.
There are something like 33,000 bee-keepers in England and Wales, and the great majority are amateurs and quite unworried by the effect of rates on their activities. But there are of the order of 330 enterpises in England and Wales, and 30 or 40 enterprises in Scotland, which are on a commercial scale, with over 40 colonies of bees in each enterprise. A unit of this size in a good year will yield a ton or more of honey. Many of these enterprises have buildings ancillary to the beehives which have as good a claim to exemption as those of any of the other kinds of agricultural farm buildings with which the Bill deals.
These bee farmers, in order to get exemption from rates need a separate clause of their own for two reasons. First, the insect world as a whole is not included in the definition of "livestock" in Clause 1(3), and we do not want to include "insects" just for the sake of the bees. Secondly, the buildings in which bees are kept, unlike the places where hens and pigs are kept, are not buildings but chattels. There are no primary beekeeping buildings to which the other buildings are ancillary, but we do want land occupied by buildings ancillary to bee farming, as well as the ancillary buildings themselves, to be exempt from rates, to correspond to land occupied by other buildings in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6, to which No. 1 is a paving Amendment, secure the exemption that is needed for the bee farmers of England, Scotland and Wales, and they do so in a way that leaves the main framework of the Bill in proper shape. If noble Lords in Committee agree, I propose, having moved this Amendment, to move Amendment No. 5 formally, subject to any questions noble Lords may care to raise either now or when that Amendment is reached. If noble Lords have questions relating especially to Scotland, they might care to address them to my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir when Amendment No. 6 is reached. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I could not understand why the noble Lord, Lord Sand-ford, was so reluctant to start his explanation
106
of these Amendments. At first I thought he had mislaid his notes, but then I realised that his embarrassment was due to the fact that this Bill was related to promises given at Election time, and I quite understand that the Government are still a little doubtful about the sort of posture which they adopted at that time in the course of getting votes. However, if they are going to give away a certain amount of the ratepayers' money—and that is what it amounts to—I quite agree there should be fairness as between one section of the community affected and another; and in so far as I personally have a great affection for the bee-keepers, I am prepared to support the Amendment.
7.55 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert ("bird or fish kept for the production of food or wool or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land or the stocking or restocking of rivers, lakes or ponds.")
The noble Lord said: The intention of this Amendment is to introduce a system whereby agricultural exemption from rates shall apply to fish farming. My noble friend Lord Balerno made a reference to this subject in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, and if it is suggested that this amounts to a reversal of a decision taken in another place, it is not altogether so, because my Amendment makes no reference to furs and skins. However, in the very meagre references to fish farming during the debate in the other place there was no reference at all to fish for food. The very meagreness of the references in the debate suggest that the matter may have escaped the attention which I believe it deserves. Indeed, the Minister said:
"Generally speaking, fish is produced in buildings only for sporting purposes."
That was on April 7, at column 473 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place.
With respect, this is not altogether the case. There is also an implication that game fish—and these are what the Minister was obviously getting at—if caught for sport, do not find their way into the pot. My Amendment in the main is intended to refer to fish for food. Taking salmon, for instance, it is estimated that 80 per cent. of the country's

107
whole catch is netted commercially in the estuaries. The actual figures for England and Wales, in terms of numbers of fish, are 81,600 netted and 16,100 taken by rod and line; that is for 1969. For the same year I have only the Scottish percentages, which are 11 per cent. taken by rod and line, and the balance by coastal and other engines, as I think they are called in the industry.
If exemption from rating is granted, then existing and future fish production by farming will be encouraged and many thousands of pounds' worth of development expenditure and know-how could be conserved for growth. To-day more than three-quarters of the nation's consumption of rainbow trout—and one sees them on the menus of a large number of hostelries up and down the country—are imported from various sources, including Denmark, of all places, and also from as far away as Japan. Only the balance is home produced. Perhaps some reference to salt water fish should have been made in my Amendment, because there is the development of breeding plaice in Argyll-shire, and recent work in the hatching and growing of lobsters and other crustacea in Sutherland. Fish farming for food is regarded as part of our economy—or it should be. These are developments which I believe should be encouraged and the present situation, with rating applied, is in a measure discouraging, and I can assure your Lordships that it may tend to stultify the efforts which a number of people interested in this matter are taking.
This brings me again to sport. I have never caught a salmon in my life: the wily trout is my particular quarry. It is well to remember that in the season over half-a-million anglers go fishing every weekend, and a proportion of these fish for game fish—very few for salmon. The most persistent and skilful fishers in Southern Scotland are the miners—or they used to be when there were more mines there. Angling is more than just a blood sport: it is a precious relaxation and anodine. The quarry goes into the pot. The existence of game fish, it is well to remember, is also a contribution to tourism. The Amendment, as your Lordships will appreciate, includes the word "restocking". One of the curses of pollution is the way in which entire stocks of fish in miles of river can be wiped out by detergent or sewage, or destroyed in
108
a night by a chemical leak or an overturned oil tanker. Twice in the last four or five years the Upper Clyde has been devastated by washings from gravel pits. Without hatcheries and fish farms the stock could not be replaced for years.
I would make a final point about the stocking of salmon rivers. Thanks to the netting of thousands of tons of salmon in their ocean feeding grounds by the Danes, who have no salmon rivers themselves, the run of fish in all our rivers has fallen catastrophically. Hence the bitterness of my remarks about importing rainbow trout from Denmark. Restocking is urgently necessary. One individual to whom I spoke yesterday pointed out that we are being "penny wise and pound foolish" by rating hatcheries and perhaps driving them out of existence in consequence. A petty sum is involved. It is "pound foolish", because the absence of fish in a river reduces the rates paid by the riparian owners on their fishings. Most of the fish is netted in the estuaries anyway. I await the Minister's reply with great interest, more especially with reference to the main purpose of the Bill, which is:
"… to extend the present exemption from rates of agricultural land and buildings to buildings used for the keeping or breeding of livestock"
and so on. The Explanatory Memorandum contains no reference to extending the exemption to fish farms, and I urge the Government to give this favourable consideration. The Minister who is to reply will be speaking for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: Like my noble friend Lord Ferrier, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply about why fish should be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. I say that because for many years now Government agencies, supported by Government money, have been aptly employed in producing fish. The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has spent large sums of money on fish hatcheries and the provision of fry to be placed in the head waters of rivers and burns so that they may breed there and increase the stock. Fish farming has been going on, and great efforts have been made

109
by the Hydro-Electric Board to ensure that these farms are successful by placing them in positions where they may benefit from the outflow of water from hydro-electric developments in the North of Scotland. My noble friend said something about lobsters. In Shetland and Orkney there are great undertakings producing lobsters which are flown twice a week to the Continent—I understand to Paris, in particular. So I cannot understand why fish should be excluded from this Bill. I shall await with interest the Minister's reply.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I support this Amendment, and I do so on the grounds of merit and logic. As the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, said, fish farming is a new industry, and it is worthy of support. It is making an increasing contribution to our national food supply, particularly in respect of the rainbow trout farms. I was very sorry to read that in another place the Minister referred to "so-called fish farming". What did he mean by "so-called fish farming"? I call that derisive language in respect of an enterprise which deserves encouragement. It is a new industry and is contributing to the solution of our food problems. It is wrong to say that fish farming is not an industry. The majority of its products go to help to provide food for the nation.
There is an oyster farm in the South of England which covers one and a half acres of land, and it is typical of several which have been started in England and Scotland on similar lines for the production of oysters. I hope that one day we may get hack to the situation which obtained at the turn of the century when, it may interest your Lordships to know, one hundred million oysters were sold in Billingsgate market every year. These new forms of fish farming are being extended to crustacea; prawns, lobsters and crabs. It is a new and adventurous enterprise for Britain and deserves not derisive comment but great encouragement.
The definition of "livestock" in the Bills refers to:
"any mammal or bird kept for the production of food …".
I will not read any more. Poultry and buildings used for the production of poultry would be included. Pheasants can
110
be reared under similar circumstances to poultry and some pheasants go direct to market. Others pass through a phase of sportsmanship before they finally reach the market. But you may say that basically pheasants are produced for food. As I read the Bill, a pheasant farm is exempted but a fish farm is not. That seems to me very illogical. I do not know whether my noble friend intends to press the Amendment. I hope that he will not, because I think it would need future legislation to bring in the fish farms. But I ask the Minister to accept the following propositions. First, that fish produced in fish farms are a valuable source of food. Secondly, that a young industry deserves support and not derision. Thirdly, that the present position between fish and bird is illogical, if the proposition I have put forward is correct. Fourthly, and most important, that the Government will consider this fish farming problem anew and possibly in a future legislative programme will consider inserting amending legislation so as to rectify what to-day we consider to be an anomaly.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: One important matter has been omitted by my noble friends. This is a new industry and its extension would help to stabilise the populations of villages in the Highlands and the North-West of Scotland. It is desperately important that the industry should be given every encouragement, because this is one of the few things in which we have a chance to interest young people. Every help should be given for that reason, if for no other.
8.10 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Ferrier. I was the only one at the Committee stage to raise this point, and I did it in continuation of a campaign on behalf of fish and fish farming, which I have attempted to keep going for nearly the last seven years. I strongly support what my noble friend has said in support of the Amendment. From my experience over the years, I would say that it does not matter what Government is in power, there is some gremlin somewhere backstage who, whenever there is anything to do with fish, throws it out of the legislation and puts up all sorts of argument as to why fish should not get the attention they

111
deserve. They actually managed to forbid the veterinary profession to attend to fish. It must be more than one gremlin, but there is something very subtle somewhere behind the scenes, and until that is beaten I am afraid that any efforts we make in this House for the benefit of fish farming are doomed to failure.
LORD SANDFORD: I hope that the Committee will not feel that fish have been under-rated in this Committee stage. I think they have had a great deal of consideration, and they certainly deserve it. I should like to assent to the propositions which the noble Earl, Lord Balfour put forward for the Government's agreement: fish is valuable food, those working to increase the production of such food deserve our support, and so on. The distinction in the Bill between fishes and birds does appear to be illogical, but I hope that in what I am going to say I will succeed in persuading the Committee that it is only in appearance. The fact of the matter is that we have a Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and there is a distinction, which is borne out in legislation, between agriculture on the one hand and fisheries on the other. Agriculture and agricultural buildings have been exempted from rates since 1929, and they have remained exempted ever since. What we are doing now in this small Bill is to modify the relevant rating legislation, to take account of modern trends and modern methods of farming. The trend, as noble Lords know, has been to a a larger scale and to more intensive methods. The same trends may well be at work in fresh-water fisheries and shell fish factories, but the circumstances are entirely different, because these enterprises and all the buildings associated with them have not ever, like agriculture and agricultural buildings, been exempt from rates. There is no legislation derating them, no legislation susceptible of the same sort of minor modification that we are making here in respect of agriculture and agricultural buildings.
The noble Lord's Amendment introduces an entirely new and fundamental proposition, that fisheries and various buildings associated with fisheries should
112
now and henceforth be exempt from rates. I am not saying for a moment that that is not a proposition well worth debating, and the debate we have had, which has been mounted so ably by so many noble Lords, is an instance of how worth while it is debating it. But I submit to the Committee that it is not something which could be tacked on to a Bill which from the outset and in the Title is concerned with agricultural land and with agricultural buildings only.
LORD FERRIER: I am gratified by the noble Lord's reply. It is clear that the Government accept the importance of the message which my Amendment was trying to impart. If I may criticise his speech at all, he used the word "fisheries" whereas I specifically in my speech talked about fish farming. I think there is a very real difference there which is worth bearing in mind, and it is that which links it with the Department of Agriculture. It is an industry distinct really from fisheries, about which we shall hear more from the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, later.
In view of what the noble Lord has said, I seek your Lordships' permission to withdraw my Amendment, in the hope that as time goes on we may reach some way of going forward with this. Indeed, it even crossed my mind to talk of a Private Member's Bill, but I do not think, as this concerns rating and money, it would be suitable to originate such a Bill in this House. I therefore beg your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Livestock buildings]:
8.18 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME LORD NUNBURNHOLME moved Amendment No. 4.
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("the operations carried on") and insert ("keeping or breeding of livestock or dairying processes of milk processes of milk produced on the premises").
The noble Lord said: I did not move my first Amendment because Lord Sandford gave me a very full explanation why it was unnecessary, and I did not want to waste your Lordships' time. I

113
do not like either of my Amendments, but I wanted to introduce an Amendment to cover the point I made on the Second Reading of the Bill. I could not get any support from the R.D.C. Association, so I put down these two Amendments. What I really want to know is how the rural district councils are going to make up the loss of revenue from these factory farms. In my opinion, some of the factory farms are legitimate; they are run by farmers for farmers, and there are some which are run by big business. But this five acres of land qualifying a factory to become a farmer to me seems absolutely ridiculous. What I should like Lord Sandford to tell us is how the rural district councils throughout England are going to make up their rates. I said in my first speech that the loss of revenue on an average is about 1 per cent., but in certain cases it is far more than that: in the case of somewhere in Lincolnshire there was a loss of revenue of about £30,000. I know that the Government supply 57½ per cent. towards local rates now and that in 1972–73 it will be 58 per cent. The loss of rates to the council will be about £1 million. I should like an assurance that the councils that lose a high proportion of their rates should have their money made up by the Government. I should be interested to hear the noble Lord's answer. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for setting out his case for an assurance which would help to allay his mind. Most of the authorities affected by the Bill, will be rural districts with rate products per head of population lower than the national average. They will therefore qualify for rate support grant. The loss of rate income which these authorities will suffer as a result of this Bill will consequently be largely made up by an increase in the resources element of the rate support grant. There are a few authorities not receiving a resources element grant. The loss of rate income will have to be made good in these cases by additional levies on ratepayers in their areas. But the loss of income involved varies from area to area, and it is generally very small. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask what about the case of Southwall R.D.C. in Nottinghamshire?
LORD SANDFORD: I would not be able to answer about the effect of this Bill on any one rural district authority without notice. If the noble Lord would like to correspond with me about particular cases I will certainly have them looked into.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: It is putting the rate up fourpence.
LORD BESWICK: Can I ask what this has to do with the promises made at Election time? What was said in the Southwall rural area of Nottinghamshire as to the effect of this?
LORD SANDFORD: As the noble Lord knows, I cannot enter into discussion about the effect on individual authorities. But I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Buildings occupied in connection with bee-keeping
". A building, other than a dwelling, is an agricultural building by virtue of this section if—

(a) it is occupied by a person keeping bees and is used solely in connection with the keeping of those bees; and

(b) the same condition is satisfied as has to be satisfied under subsection (4) of section 2 of this Act for a building to be an agricultural building by virtue of that section."—(Lord Sandford.)

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Buildings occupied in connection with bee-keeping
". Notwithstanding anything in section 7(2) of the Act of 1956, a building (other than a dwelling-house)—

(a) which is occupied by a person keeping bees and which is used solely in connection with the keeping of those bees, and

(b) in respect of which the same condition is satisfied as has to be satisfied under subsection (5) of section 4 of this Act for a building used as mentioned in subsection (2)(a) or (b) of that section to be a building to which that section applies,

shall be treated as respects the year 1971–72 and subsequent years as agricultural lands and heritages for the purposes of section 7(3) of the Act of 1956."—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
LORD BALERNO: May I briefly draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that apiculture is a part of agriculture. There are other forms of culture that are part of agriculture but this is really an historic moment when the bees should be remembered again. I think that the most historic event with the bees was during the last war, when the Prime Minister himself intervened to ensure that beekeepers were provided with sufficient sugar to see their bees through the winter. I think that we should take note of Parliament's continuing concern with bee-keeping at the present time.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Balerno for his remarks. I have to declare an interest, being myself a beekeeper on a small scale. I think that beekeeping is of great interest and of use to agriculture, particularly in pollination. I have not explained the Amendment more fully because its purpose—to derate buildings used for the production of honey—was so well explained by my noble friend, and therefore I moved it formally.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
8.27 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 22, leave out from first ("proceedings") to end of line 29.
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will appreciate that the effect of accepting this Amendment would be that there would be no reference in Clause 4 to any of the courts or to the legal framework needed to give effect to legal decisions for enforcement. The clause would simply be left stating that the failure of any person to observe any provision of the code of practice for the time being in force would not of itself render him liable to any proceedings. We have had a full discussion of the impact of this clause, and that is one aspect of this Amendment. We are not satisfied with the clause as it stands. Indeed, there was a clear conflict of advice about whether breaches of the code of practice would be materially relevant in proceedings before the Industrial Court or industrial tribunal—by "materially relevant" I mean likely to affect the conclusion of the proceedings. That is one aspect, the aspect of scrutiny.
The other aspect is a much more fundamental one, which distinguishes the Amendment before us now from the previous Amendment—namely, that we are wholly opposed, in philosophy and in our approach to improving industrial relations, to the legal framework that will enable legal enforcement to take place. Accordingly, we are against proceedings before the Industrial Court or industrial tribunal because they will have reference to unfair industrial practices. Again we are in a position of not knowing precisely what the code of practice will provide. But the words in Clause 4(b) are:
"any provision of such a code of practice which appears to the Court or tribunal to be relevant shall be taken into account by the Court or tribunal in determining that question."
It is not only the question of relevance but also the question of the machinery, and I want to make it clear therefore that we are opposing this part of this clause, not only for the same reasons that we had anxiety under the earlier Amendment but

117
also because we are quite clear here that these methods of improving industrial relations are likely to fail, the machinery is likely to be counter-productive, and it would be a great mistake to introduce it into this Part of the Bill. Although we should be in a better position to remove some of the uncertainty, once the code of practice is before us, nevertheless, even with a code of prcatice we shall not be likely to change our view as to whether proceedings before the Industrial Court and so on are the best method of doing what your Lordships' House seeks to do—namely, to find some means of improving industrial relations in this country. It is a major Amendment, but the arguments for it are those two, which are quite simple. I beg to move.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It is most difficult to deploy many more new arguments in opposing the Bill as it now stands, but there are some very important fundamental ones which I think bear some repetition. To establish this new legal procedure to industrial relations within industry the Bill embarks upon, as we all know, an entirely uncharted field. As this clause stands, it says specifically:
"this Act shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings,"
and then the two paragraphs, (a) and (b), become operative. I questioned the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in regard to court proceedings in connection with this, and I specifically mentioned the totting-up proceedings under the Road Traffic Act, and I was very pleased to hear him reply that no totting-up was to take place here. But the practice will operate, as in many other offences in a criminal court, that when an adjudicator has decided whether a case is proved or not proved, he will naturally ask if the case is proved, what is known; and although there is not a strict definition as operated under the totting-up procedure it at once comes out if a person has been guilty or otherwise of a previous offence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I dispose of this point straight away?—the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, mentioned it on the last Amendment. So far as I can see, there is no basis in it at all. The analogy with criminal proceedings wholly fails. There cannot be
118
any basis for discussing previous disputes in relation to the same party in civil proceedings after verdict arrived at. Nor, so far as I can see (though perhaps one of the lawyers on the other side will point out if I am wrong) can it affect in any way the quantum of damage. The quantum of damage is based on actual loss and not on previous record. The previous record is irrelevant to any other possible issue.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I am very pleased to hear what the noble and learned Lord says, but may I read again paragraph (b) of Clause 4? It says:
"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."
As I was saying, totting-up proceedings will not operate, but in proceedings in a criminal court, once the case is proved the question will be asked "What is known?", and the record will come out.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Reference to criminal proceedings has no bearing on this matter at all, nor could the analogy conceivably be drawn, so far as I am aware, in any proceedings which can arise under this Bill.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Then will the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor explain the words:
"shall be taken into account by the court or tribunal in determining the question."?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I had not realised that the noble Lord was going to cross-examine me, but the question the court will be determining is not the question of quantum or the question of order but the question of liability. I tried to explain this at very great length on the previous Amendment, but I will, if I have an opportunity of addressing the Committee, try to explain it again if the noble Lord is wholly unsatisfied. The analogy is simply that if you are charging a person, or a union, or an employers' association, or an employer, with an unfair industrial practice, or with failing to disclose some information or with breach of some other duty imposed by the Bill, the fact that he has disregarded the code of industrial practice may or may not but may, if relevant, be of assistance to the court in determining the question of liability. For instance, there is no general

119
law to say that you must drive on the left of the road, but if in fact you are driving on the off-side of the road and an accident happens you may have to explain yourself.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Again I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, but I am still looking at the wording that is there. Let me repeat it:
"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."
The Lord Chancellor's mind appears pretty clear that this will not have any bearing on the case when the court has decided the case is proved. My suspicion on reading that paragraph is that once the case is proved the record may be asked for.
I hope that the Lord Chancellor will have another look at this point. If the clause is creating confusion like this, what is it going to do when it comes to being dealt with by both sides of industry which are not used to legal jargon but are used to the ordinary common sense application? I am certain that this will create a tremendous amount of confusion, therefore I sincerely hope that the Lord Chancellor will have another look at this, and that if he cannot do anything now he will give an assurance that at the Report stage he will make some reference to this. I am certain that this is a matter that needs clearing up considerably. We should hate to think that when a case is proved, when a decision is arrived at, only the bare record of what has happened is recorded. The circumstances that arise in unfair practice may be marginal or they may be great, but in a record that evidently will be produced there is no definition showing the seriousness or its nature, only the bare fact of conviction. This is how I read it. I hope I am wrong. Therefore it seems there is a possibility of inflicting a heavier punishment than would be done if it was just the actual offence. This I think needs clearing up. It is an ambiguity in the Bill which we find objectionable.
8.40 p.m.
LORD WILBERFORCE: I am wondering if the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor can confirm or otherwise my understanding
120
of this clause on one point. He has given us by way of analogy the provisions of the Highway Code. The section which he read out says that any failure to comply with the Highway Code may be taken into account. So that if you are in breach of the Highway Code, that may be referred to, and it may be against you, although not conclusively. Am I right in thinking that this clause is much milder? It does not refer to "failure": it simply says that any provisions of the code may be taken into account.
It would seem, to my reading, that this enables the code to be taken into account either way. If you are in breach of the code it may be taken into account against you as in the Highway Code; but if you come along and wave the code and say: "I only did what it says in this code of practice which the Secretary of State has drawn up", that is in your favour, and should be so taken into account by the industrial court or the national tribunal. If that is so, it seems a much milder clause than that relating to the Highway Code, and seems to be something which really cannot be considered very objectionable whatever may be in the code. The code, when drafted, will include either the possibility of inculpation or the possibility of defence. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could say whether my understanding in that sense is right or wrong.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I, while his words are fresh in my mind, reply immediately to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce? I think that his reading of the clause is entirely correct, and that it would be open to either a pursuer or a defender (if I may use the Scottish terms so as not to obscure the issue here) to refer to the performance of the code in due ritual in his favour under the terms of the clause. Perhaps I had overlooked that in my former observations, although it was very much in my mind—and it will be within the recollection of the Committee that it was in my mind—that one can use the code to defend what one had done either in civil proceedings or in criminal proceedings under the Road Traffic Act, or in proceedings under this Bill. I said that.
But I think the point that the noble and learned Lord has made is a valid one, and that there is this distinction

121
between the Road Traffic Act and this Bill, in that the Road Traffic Act refers in terms to "failure" as being referable under the Act in legal proceedings, and this clause does not even go as far as that, and would on its wording entitle someone to draw attention to his performance of the obligations of the code. So I think the noble and learned Lord is completely right.
I do not know what I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell. I have done my best to reassure him. As he knows, we have served together in many places, and the last thing I want to do is to make him feel that I am not anxious in every way I can to remove his anxieties. But I think that the person who ought to have another look at the Bill—as he put it—is himself. He has committed himself in my hearing over the past week to one fantastic proposition after another of what the Bill contains, and yet it is always he who is asking the Government to have another look at the Bill. I implore him to have another look himself, because that is what is needed.
I may be wrong—and goodness knows how fallible I am!—but I promise him that, so far as I know, his fears are groundless. They could not be more plainly groundless than in his present attempt to draw far-fetched analogies between procedure on conviction for a criminal offence in assessing a penalty, and looking at a long record of previous offences, with which we are all painfully familiar, and a question of relevance under this clause. So far as I can see at the moment, even when one is considering the far more sophisticated question of quantum of compensation, to which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred, it is either impossible, or at least extremely unlikely, that a breach of the code could be relevant.
The first question that one would have to decide in proceedings likely to arise under this clause is whether either a breach of duty, as in Clause 54, to which I referred earlier, or an unfair industrial practice had been committed by either side—and I did point out that there were more clauses dealing with unfair industrial practices by employers than by employees. The second question is what you are going to do about it? What you are going to do about it—and
122
again I am speaking generally, because there are, as I said, quite a number of clauses to be considered—either consists of a declaration of right in an order to disclose information, for instance, or, especially in the case of unfair dismissal, an order for compensation.
When you come to look at Clause 111, the compensation clause, you will come to the conclusion I think—and certainly this is the intention—that compensation is an award of damages without a solatium for injured feelings that is to say, it is an award of damages based on actual loss. If I am wrong about that we will discuss it when we come to Clause 111. But there is no set of circumstances in which somebody will be hauled before a criminal tribunal, and a finger of scorn will be pointed and it will be said: "This is a terrible breach of the code." It does not work like that even in road traffic offences, and it certainly will not work like that in this context.
I now come to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I must say that of all the points raised in this debate this one disappointed me most. We spent, I do not know how long, but a long time, discussing the deletion of the words "of itself" on the last amendment. All those advising me" All the King's horses and all the King's men"—could not think what the purpose of this Amendment was except as part of the last Amendment. The reason is rather a simple one when you come to think of it, because there would have been no purpose at all in spending all that time on the words "of itself" if what you were going to say at the end of the day was: "We do not care whether 'of itself' is in or out. We are against the whole thing." This is what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has now said.
In other words, the whole of the last debate has been time wasted by the Committee, because the noble Lord now says in terms: "Whatever you do, whatever you say, Aunt Agatha is going to tell us it is not the way." This is not the way to conduct Parliamentary proceedings. If I had known that the noble Lord was going to say at the end of the day that the words "of itself" did not matter, but that what he was against was a more fundamental thing, namely, "We are wholly opposed to a structure which would enable legal enforcement to take place before the industrial tribunal" and

123
the rest, I really would not have taken the time of the Committee in explaining what the words "of itself" mean. Not at all; he kept his cards closely pressed to his chest. Now he tells us that the whole of our time for the last hour and a half has been wasted. I find that very disappointing indeed.
I must say this to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, whose special pleading has been a great feature of this Committee to-day. He says that there has been a conflict of advice about the question as to whether a breach of the code of practice could be materially relevant. He says that that is a point of uncertainty, but we all know that there has been no conflict of advice about this. The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, knows, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill knows, the noble Lord, Lord Donovan and the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, know that a breach of the code of practice will be materially relevant in proceedings to the extent that the clause says, without any ambiguity at all, and which I have tried to explain about five times. There is no point there but now the cat is out of the bag and whatever we do or say Aunt Agatha will tell us it is not the way. I beg the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to be more reasonable.
LORD ARCHIBALD: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told us that certain things are relevant to the code of practice. As we do not know what the code of practice is, could he define more particularly how these things are relevant to something we do not know?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have tried to explain that about six times, but I shall try again. The code of practice will have to be endorsed by both Houses of Parliament. It will have been exhaustively discussed by every conceivable body that may be interested. What is now proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is that although it can be discussed before every conceivable body that may be relevant, although it will have been exhaustively debated in Parliament by both Houses, the one place where it cannot be referred to is the place which will enforce it—I mean in the sense which I have described where it is relevant to questions in actual practice;
124
that is, the courts. If that is the proposition, I should think we have gone mad.
LORD DIAMOND: "Bonkers" would be more appropriate.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, it would.
8.53 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: We are always stimulated and entertained by the helpful speeches of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. One would have thought, however, listening to his last speech when he was beginning to work himself up into the same state of mind and fluency we have known on former occasions, and even other places, that he had never taken part in a discussion in Committee on a Bill when in Opposition. One would have thought that he had never had to think about what would happen if a particular Amendment the Opposition put forward was not accepted. I assure your Lordships that it occasionally happens that the Government are not prepared to accept every single Amendment the Opposition put forward. Indeed, on this Bill the Government have not accepted outright any Amendment, although some could have been accepted without difficulty, and the noble Earl the Leader of the House made quite clear that he would have wished to have at least the first Amendment, I think it was, accepted if that could have expedited matters and put the House in a good humour.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): If the Amendment had been acceptable.
LORD DIAMOND: Well we all heard what the noble Earl said when he made his point. It was a very helpful comment, and to my mind I thought he was very wise in thinking of ways in which business could be expedited and made easier. These thoughts, I may say, are not shared by his noble and learned friend, who stimulates all of us into much more frequent and detailed explanatory speeches; but that is his responsibility.
I want to make it quite clear that not one word of the outburst we listened to with pleasure was at all relevant. I am assuming (and if I am wrong I shall be happy to apologise) that if this Amendment is pressed to a Division the noble

125
and learned Lord will advise his noble friends to vote for the retention of this part of the clause and for the retention of the whole legal paraphernalia in the enforcement of agreements and so called good industrial relations. Because of that, one has to take into account what possibility of that remaining in the clause when one considers words such as "of itself". I repeat—and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will look at the words "of itself" again in this context—that we shall come back again to this clause and the words "of itself" on the assumption that the rest of this clause stands. One has to make an assumption, if one is in Opposition, of what the Government are likely to do. One would be stupid not to make such an assumption. We have to look at it from that point of view and with the benefit of the code of practice there. So I hope I have enlightened the noble and learned Lord as to why Oppositions sometimes assume that Governments stick to their form and do not accept every Amendment the Opposition puts forward.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course I am very familiar with the practice of Opposition. It is simply that one puts a more extreme Amendment first and a more moderate Amendment later, but the noble Lord has kept his bad wine to the last. He has put the more moderate Amendment first and then, finding it rejected, and not pressing it, he puts the more extreme Amendment afterwards.
That I regarded as preposterous in the literal sense of the word.
LORD DIAMOND: That is interesting. The Lord Chancellor has now changed his ground completely. He now objects to what we are doing in that we are moving from the major to the minor, instead of always from the minor to the major. I do not know which great composer he will call in aid to substantiate that point. I repeat, because this is serious and important, the reason I thought it right not to press the earlier Amendment to a Division. There is conflicting legal advice, and one requires to look at it again more carefully. There is lack of clarity. One would not know for certain what one was doing if one invited the House to divide and a certain result ensued because we had differing advice.
As to the second part, as I made absolutely clear we have the clearest possible view as to whether these last few lines from the word "proceedings" onward should remain in a Bill which seeks to improve industrial relations. We are satisfied that they would damage industrial relations, and we are satisfied from what the noble and learned Lord has said that he has no concept yet, in spite of speech after speech, of what we are really trying to achieve. So I can only advise the Committee to divide.
9.0 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 107.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Rusholme, L.

Bernstein, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Serota, B.

Blyton, L.

Heycock, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brown, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindgren, L.

Snow, L.

Burntwood, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Champion, L.

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

Stow Hill, L.

Chorley, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Collison, L.

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Delacort-Smith, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

White, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Fiske, L.

Peddie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Amory, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Balfour, E.

Belstead, L.

Airedale, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Allerton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Glendevon, L.

Reading, M.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gowrie, E.

Redesdale, L.

Buchan, E.

Greenway, L.

Redmayne, L.

Burgh, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Byers, L.

Hailes, L.

St. Helens, L.

Chesham, L.

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

St. Just, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Sandford, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hankey, L.

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, L.

Hanworth, V.

Savile, L.

Conesford, L.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Hives, L.

Selsdon, L.

Cowley, E.

Hood, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigavon, V.

Inglewood, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strathcarron, L.

Croft, L.

Kemsley, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Cromartie, E.

Killearn, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kilmany, L.

De La Warr, E.

Latymer, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Swaythling, L.

Derwent, L.

Lothian, M.

Tcviot, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Margadale, L.

Thomas, L.

Dudley, E.

Molson, L.

Townshend, M.

Ebbisham, L.

Monck, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Effingham, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Tweedsmuir of Bellhelvie, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Nucent of Guildford, L.

Verulam, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

O'Neill of the Main, L.

Vivian, L.

Essex, E.

Pender, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Falmouth, V.

Platt, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Ferrers, E.

Poole, L.

Westminster, D.

Gage, V.

Radnor, E.

Wigram, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Windlesham, L.

Glasgow, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

9.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: We have listened carefully to this debate. Some of us may be wrong, and that is why we have asked for further advice. That is why some of us might have thought it worth while to move the Adjournment of the debate on this clause, or recommittal, while advice is obtained. The description of the clause says:
"Use of code of practice in proceedings under this Act."
I do not want a lawyer to tell me what "proceedings" means. It means that legal action can be taken under this Bill, no matter what anybody says. It has been said that the purpose of this Bill is to provide a legal framework for the unions. We know that, by trial and error over 150 years, a certain amount of legal framework has been set up. Nevertheless, what we have been discussing for a number of hours now—and I hope not frivolously, but in a sincere effort to arrive at certainty about the meaning of words in this Bill—are the implications of Clause 4. We have
128
been talking about a code, and noble Lords—and noble and learned Lords—have used legal interpretations about a code of which they know nothing.
What is this code supposed to be doing? We have had references to the Highway Code, but, so far as I am concerned—I think I could pick up some of this from the Donovan Report—the object is to whittle down quite a lot the present powers of trade unions. The object is to exclude sympathetic strikes. The object, partly, is to exclude inter-union disputes. I presume—I do not know that the code will try to deal with these things. I consider that Clause 4 is the hinge of the whole Bill.
What worries me in looking at Part III of this Bill—I will not delay the Committee too long; I am trying to be very brief and sincere—on collective bargaining, is this. Presumably—I stand subject to correction—the code of practice will have an effect upon the meaning of collective bargaining—or will it? Will it have any relevance to Part VI, dealing with the National Industrial Relations Court and the industrial tribunals? It obviously will. Will it affect the Commission on Industrial Relations and the Industrial Arbitration Court? Will it have any

129
meaning when a workman is considered to have done some wrong? There are powers in this Bill by which he will be fined, and if he cannot meet that fine pretty well everything, except his tools and his bed, can be sold under them. It is no good saying that he could not be imprisoned under this Bill after it becomes an Act. Ultimately he could.
All I want to know—and this whole Committee should know it—is whether this code of practice, referred to in Clause 4—from which deductions are to be made by the Industrial Court, and others who are to make decisions about torts—will be applied to these punitive measures that can be put upon trade unions or members of a trade union? In some cases the fine can be colossal. Will the code of practice make it clear that in Clause 3 we are dealing with registered trade unions and not unregistered trade unions? If it seems that we are being stupid in our understanding of legal phraseology it is because we are in exactly the same position as the learned and trained lawyers who have spoken in this House. They know no more about the code of practice than we do. I believe we had a right to try—because that is our function—to extract as much information as possible.
I will now sit down, so as not to be too wearying to the House, but I hope noble Lords will believe all of us when we say we are trying to get the information as clear as possible. We are now to vote on whether this Clause stand part, and I shall willingly go into the Lobby against it standing part, because it would have helped us if this Clause had for the present been withdrawn and brought forward again when we could have had a deeper explanation, or withdrawn until the code of practice is published.
9.17 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: The most striking feature of Ills debate on Part I of the Industrial Relations Bill is the remarkable silence from the opposite benches, apart from the occasional interjection which appeared to have little relevance to the debate. What was still more remarkable to me, as a comparative newcomer to this august assembly—a fact which certainly could not have escaped notice although, as far as I can ascertain, there has been no reference to it in the newspapers of the country which are
130
assumed to inform the general public of what happens in Westminster—was the appearance of hordes of noble Lords who, at the critical moment when a Division was about to take place, suddenly appeared.
I am open to correction, and if any noble Lord cares to interrupt me I shall not regard it as a challenge, but as far as I can gather those noble Lords who deprive us of their presence during the course of the debate but suddenly thrust themselves upon us, as I have already remarked, at a critical moment, appear to have no knowledge whatever of what has been happening. They come in and under instructions—I will not say under pressure, because I would never dare to accuse Her Majesty's Government of exercising any kind of pressure on their supporters—but they come in without any knowledge, indeed it is questionable whether they are familiar with the Bill—at any rate if they are they have not exposed their views—they decide to vote. The question I ask myself, and I shall have to find the answer to the question myself, and perhaps I am more fitted to provide the answer to my own question than to leave it to the noble Lords opposite, even those on the Front Bench—
LORD HENLEY: The noble Lord ought to know the answer to his question. as he has asked himself the question so many times in the last fortnight.
LORD SHINWELL: I have great sympathy with the members of the Liberal Party. I am trying to think of a political expression, but for the moment my language is a bit impoverished and I just say what comes into my mind, but they are a "wash-out." They advertise themselves, no doubt at great expense. Where the expense comes from I am unable to ascertain. Perhaps they would be kind enough to inform me; perhaps they would let me know where their funds come from. Perhaps if we knew where their funds come from we would be better informed about the state of their minds and could understand their speeches.
As I was about to remark when I was interrupted, I ask myself why these noble Lords come in at a certain moment, and whom are they voting against?
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: The noble Lord said that he did not

131
mind being interrupted, so I should like to ask him whether he can put his hand on his heart and say that in another place he had not come straight into the Division Lobby before going into the Chamber?
LORD SHINWELL: I regard any reference to the other place, whether it is critical or complimentary, as being irrelevant, and I do not care to discuss it. I am asking myself a question and I cannot get the answer to it because of the interruptions—and now there is another one.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: May I also ask the noble Lord whether he will put his hand on his heart and say that neither he nor his noble friends will come in at an unexpected moment, as he calls it?
LORD SHINWELL: I suggest that our attendance proportionately is much higher than the attendance on the other side of the Committee.
A NOBLE LORD: Rubbish!
LORD SHINWELL: I am really surprised at the noble Earl, who I believe is a person of some intelligence, interrupting quite unnecessarily and gratuitously. Unless there are further interruptions, I must address myself to my own question. Why is it that noble Lords who thrust themselves upon us at a certain moment decide to vote against the Amendments proposed from this side of the Committee? Can the reason be that, having gathered what it is all about, they feel so strongly against the Amendment that they decide to vote against it?
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: May I interrupt for a moment? I left this Committee at about half-past seven, when the noble Lord was speaking. I returned at twenty minutes past nine, and I find that he is still speaking. Have I missed anything?
LORD SHINWELL: Observe what has happened as a result of my intervention. There have been more speeches—short, it is true—from the other side of the Committee since I rose than we have had during the whole course of our proceedings. It is a tribute to my persuasive powers. I should be delighted if there were more speeches, perhaps a little more prolonged and more to the point and related to the Bill, with which I presume
132
the noble Viscount is familiar. I presume that the members of the Government read the newspapers and the comments about the turbulence which is a characteristic of all trade unionists in the country, the comments on wildcat strikers and official strikes, and so on, and therefore they dislike them intensely. Indeed, there are some noble Lords—and again if I am corrected I shall be glad to accept it—who just hate the trade union movement. It is still more remarkable that, despite their dislike of the trade union movement, they are so anxious to strengthen it. It is what some turkey farmers do some weeks before Christmas; they fatten the turkeys to kill them. It is a very interesting exercise, but that is not the sort of thing we would expect from noble Lords in this Assembly.
Well, what is to be done about it? Already we have had several debates on Amendments, every one of them rejected. As my noble friend who is leading for us (and if I may say so, leading with great skill; and as one who is an admirer of oratory and political skill I say that with great pleasure) said, we have had all these debates and so on; and not a single Amendment has been acceptable. It is true that one or two items have been gathered to the Front Bench opposite for consideration. My suspicion is that there will be precious little consideration. I know people in the Government much better than some of those who have not been associated with Governments in the past. I am familiar with their tricks and their evasions and their subterfuges, and all the rest. I suspect that we are going to get no consideration at all.
I am speaking personally, not for my Party. It does not seem to matter two hoots—I would venture on an expression I used many years ago that got me into a heap of trouble; it would not matter a tinker's cuss whether this legislation passed or not. You can have all the law relating to trade unionism you can devise; you can have all the legislation. But at the end of the day, legislation, and more, will not prevent turbulence among the workers of this country unless the legitimate claims of the workers are understood and fully met.
At the end of the day what is going to happen? Take, for example, this code of practice—and here I must say, almost

133
in parenthesis, although it is clearly related to the question that the clause stand part, that I have never, in all my association with Westminster, which I think goes back much further than that of anybody on the Front Bench opposite, or indeed in the other place, experienced an occasion when legislation was introduced and when one of the principal topics of debate was an item about which even the Government had to admit in the course of the debate they knew little or nothing—namely, the code of practice. They have debated it in a vacuum. We asked: what is this code of practice; what will it embody; how will it be relevant to the proposed legislation? And there is no answer, no answer at all.
All we are asked to do is to wait and see. We are told that in due course the code of practice will be presented to both Houses of Parliament. There may be consultation with bodies outside, consultation with Parliament; but at the present, when we ought to be discussing, and indeed are discussing, the vital principles associated with this legislation (and that is admitted by the other side) we are told that the Government are unable to say a word—or perhaps unwilling to say a word—about the content, the embodiment of the code of practice. This is what we have been debating, and yet there is not a word. I do not think it matters very much if the Government push their legislation through. They will; they have the body of the Press behind them, and they have noble Lords, who are unfamiliar with the subject but are ready to vote in favour of the legislation. They carry all the big guns, and they are going to use them with all their might and strength—I was about to say with all their soul, but I do not think that they have a soul. At the end of the day they will believe that they have gained a victory. I assure them they will have gained no victory. The only victory that is relevant to industrial relations of the kind that every right-thinking person desires is co-operation. That is precisely what the Government have failed to achieve. Indeed, they have not only failed to achieve it, but failed to attempt it. I notice that the noble and learned Lord indulged in an interjection, which was inaudible to me.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I only said that the noble Lord has invented the
134
nearest thing to perpetual motion I have ever heard of.
LORD SHINWELL: I have watched the noble and learned Lord very often in the other place. He perpetrates what he believes is a jocular remark and laughs uproariously at it. Indeed, he infects others around him. They are a bit reluctant to be infected, but they cannot help themselves; being what he is, they have to follow. I advise him not to try that sort of thing on me. He knows me better than that. So I come to the conclusion—no, I did not mean I was coming to my conclusion. I can assure your Lordships I can go on like this for hours. Do not be surprised if some night I do go on for hours. I used to do it in the other place frequently. The noble and learned Lord agrees with me. It is a kind of refresher course.
It must not be thought that what I am saying is irrelevant to the subject, or that I am indulging in a few jocular observations. I am very serious about this, and I shall tell your Lordships why. I recognise, and have recognised for many years, that there are defects in the trade union movement of this country. I was associated with the trade unions for a long time, and I recognise that there are defects and there is need for reform. But the reform we require is not the kind of reform that is likely to develop as a result of this legislation. I believe that every responsible trade union leader—even some who indulge in observations which seem to be disagreeable to noble Lords, or employers' organisations—recognises that some reform is necessary; amalgamation of unions, and, perhaps what is more important than anything else, to restrain malcontents, the intransigents, the people who fly off the handle, the people who become bored on the shop floor. I do not know whether noble Lords have read an article which appears, strangely enough, in the new Daily Mail. I am not going to charge them for that advertisement, but there is an article by somebody in to-day's Daily Mail which I advise noble. Lords to read. It is by somebody who managed to obtain employment, as a result of which he worked on the shop floor for several weeks or months. He writes of the boredom, of the attitude of foremen and under-managers, and those

135
"drest with a little brief authority". He writes about men anxious to work, and because they cannot obtain components are unable to work. He writes about the effect of productivity resulting in redundancy on a large scale. Trade union leaders arc aware of this, and noble Lords ought to make themselves aware of it.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: May I remind the noble Lord that the writer also writes of a chargehand who refused to allow bad work to be rectified?
LORD SHINWELL: I can understand that happening. I did not require to be informed about that. I do not think that was a necessary intervention. We take that for granted. Of course that sort of thing happens on the shop floor. But I direct attention to this very interesting article in a newspaper from which one would not have expected it, certainly not in the first issue of the new Daily Mail. These are the things that are happening, and trade union leaders are anxious to correct these defects. So are we all: but they are not going to be corrected as a result of this legislation.
My conclusion is this—and I think it is a logical conclusion: what is going to be the use of such legislation unless, at the end of the day, we are going to develop a better understanding between those who work on the shop floor and, through their representatives in the trade unions, the employers and their organisations? In other words, and I admit this is repetition, we have to ensure effective cooperation and (to use the term which has appeared more often than not in the legislation and in the speeches of noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite) an understanding of what is desirable in the national interest.
One of the strange things about some of the speeches I have heard, and some of the articles I have read, in relation to this subject is the assumption that those on the trade union side are not concerned about the national interest. All I have to say is: anybody at all, whether in a trade union or an employers' organisation, or whether in the other place or in your Lordships' House, who is not primarily concerned with the national interest ought to be ashamed of himself.
136
We are bound to be concerned about the national interest, because if we discard considerations affecting the national interest then all else is just a thing of shreds and patches. That is the position. These are the assumptions which I think are guiding noble Lords on the other side, and which make them vote against quite logical and reasonable Amendments.
After all, what is it that my noble friend Lord Diamond is seeking to achieve, along with his colleagues on this side of the Committee, particularly those who come from the trade unions and who not long ago came from the mines and from the benches and the rest of it in industry? What is it they are trying to achieve? They are trying to reach some kind of arrangement so as to satisfy the general order of trade unionists in the country, and to give to the general public some assurance that, one of these days, there will be conciliation based on cooperation and on justice. That is all they are trying to achieve—and I am speaking not with any desire to orate or anything of that sort, because I feel this sort of thing keenly.
Here I venture on a really personal note. In all these discussions that have taken place, in all the wildcat strikes that have been troubling us for many years now, in all the dangers of an industrial and economic recession and all the rest of it, the one thing that concerns me is: what is going to happen to our country? There is too much of the defeatist attitude; too much of the "Stinking fish!" cry. I do not like it at all. I believe—and here I indulge in a few clichés which can be understood, even if the rest of my speech is misunderstood—that there is much character and quality, skill and talent residing in the people of this country that can be harnessed in co-operation and with good will to preserve the best interests of the country. This is what is wanted. This legislation will not achieve it, of that I am assured. All right: let the Government go on and defeat our Amendments.
In other words, I say to noble Lords—and I say it in no spirit of malice—enjoy yourselves at our expense. Bring in the backwoodsmen. Bring them in and vote us down. Go on doing it. That sort of thing has happened before. I have seen it happening during much of my political life. But the trade unions of the country

137
will survive in spite of it, and the spirit of trade unionism will survive in spite of it. I say to noble Lords: "Vote us down! Go on doing it! In the long run you will gain very little as a result—and perhaps you will lose a great deal." I ventured to remark the other day that the Government in your Lordships' House have won many of the battles and have not yet won the war but that one consideration and should be uppermost in their minds as a result of this legislation is that they are unlikely to win the peace. I believe that we are right on this side of the House and are justified in voting against this clause.
LORD HANKEY: The noble Lord who has just sat clown is absolutely right. We are going to vote them down on this. This is one of the best clauses in the Bill, and I am impressed with the assurances that the Government have given on it. I believe that with the help of many trade unionists and people all over the country we shall succeed in putting into the code of industrial practice everything which is good for both sides of industry in this country. I believe that for the first time we shall have a really forward look in our trade union legislation and I hope that we shall vote it to success.
LORD BLYTON: I have never heard a more reactionary speech than that from the noble Lord on this side of the House, a noble Lord who has never had any experience in industrial affairs. One can expect that from one who has lived in the academic world. I happened to read his pedigree and I know what I am talking about. I would say this about Clause 4. I listened to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor very carefully to-day when I moved my Amendment, and he did not deny that in the civil law under this particular clause it is possible for men who refuse to pay the fines—or the "compensation", as he called it—to find themselves in gaol. This is the awful effect of the civil remedies in the civil courts. I have been five times in court for breach of contract, and I remember when they used to fine us thirty shillings a day damages and the attachment order was made by the county court judge to take two shillings a day off your wages. The horrible thing was that to have this deducted from your wages by an employer with whom you had been in dispute created the worst possible industrial
138
relations after the court had settled the case. This clause will take away from the worker the right to dispute with their employers in court. This right is to be conferred on them as a privilege if they register as a trade union.
I want to say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that, with all his fine words, this clause must penalise the trade union movement for taking action that has been normal practice in all the 52 years that I have been connected with the trade unions. I shall support my friends to-night in voting against this clause.
9.44 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: We are now at the end of Part I of this Bill, and I think your Lordships will agree that, while I have listened a great deal, I have said virtually nothing. I should like in three or four minutes to make a few observations about Part I of the Bill. My noble friends have expressed their political objections to the Bill, which naturally I share; but I should have thought that any lawyer would agree that the Bill suffers from three grave defects. It is far too long, far too complicated, and it is trying to do much too much. There are some well-drafted Bills and I am not suggesting that this is not well-drafted-and there are many ordinary Bills, which one can discuss perfectly well clause by clause. If they are logically set out, one is not necessarily dealing with one clause in order to deal with a later clause. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, stressed on the Second Reading of the Bill, one of the great difficulties is the way it hops about: in one Part some tribunal is appointed and in other Parts you learn what its jurisdiction is and then what course it can take and what order it can make. For this you may have to go to some remote Schedule. That is why it is quite impossible to discuss Part I of the Bill, for example, without referring to any other Part.
One of our difficulties has been that although we have asked questions (I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, who first raised the question in relation to inducement to break a contract) as to why the ordinary common law defence of justification had been left out, we did not get any answer. When you

139
are dealing, as in Part I, with its effect on Sections 92 and 94 and you have again raised the question, you are told "That is a later clause in the Bill." It is a very confusing Bill to discuss from that point of view, because it is so spread about and each Part is related to every other Part. We had, inevitably, a particularly difficult time over Part I, because I do not recollect any other legislation which has ever been before Parliament where so much depends on what I gather will be itself a very lengthy and complex document which nobody has yet seen but which is constantly referred to in the Bill—the code of practice. One understands the Government's desire to get the legislation through as quickly as possible, and I should have thought the most sensible course would have been to postpone consideration of the Bill until September, or until such time as we have seen the code of practice; because until then none of us can possibly know what we are talking about.
The only other observation I would venture to make, and I do so, in particular, seeing that the noble Earl the Leader of the House is here, is this. I am personally very disappointed with the course this Bill has so far taken. I understood—I am not sure that the Government have not said this publicly elsewhere—that the Government were going to take seriously any Amendments to this Bill made by the House of Lords. Now if that was the intention, that could not possibly have meant if, but only if, the Conservative Whips slipped up in some way by not providing at least three times as many hereditary Peers as are necessary to oppose every Amendment. So far we have moved 21 Amendments, of which none has been accepted. This is simple, of course, but it is not what I understood to be intended. I must frankly say that I did not share the strong view expressed by some of my noble friends about the words, "of itself". It is difficult to see that any court would construe that clause in a different way, whether or not the words "of itself" were there. Why on earth, in a case like that, the Government cannot accept the Amendment, I do not know. Of course, if they are determined to resist every Amendment, then of course there will be no House of Lords Amendments; we all know that. However, I understood that the Government's intention
140
was to reject some Amendments and accept others. All I can say is if their conduct continues as it has done through Part I, we are really going through a charade.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I feel there is one thing which is very important in this connection and that is that the code is a two-edged sword. It affects both employers and trade unions. But in particular I feel it is important that the Industrial Court should be able to use the code of practice (a) as evidence, particularly in the case where the employer has failed to observe the code of practice, and (b) where it appears to be relevant to any question, in setting out that question. In my opinion this question is much more likely to concern an employer than a trade union. Also, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, the code of practice could be used in the defence of any claim, which I feel would be much more likely to help the trade unions than to hinder them. As the whole structure of the code of practice was stated in Clause 2(2), which places the responsibility for the code on management, and not on unions, I feel that this clause is bound to be to the benefit of the unions. To weaken it would be much more likely to do harm to an efficiently run union. The one thing I hope that it will do is "clobber" bad management, and that is exactly what the code of practice will achieve.
LORD GARDINER: Before he sits down, would the noble Earl tell us how he knows that, when he does not know what is going to be in the code of practice?
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I have read Part I very carefully. To me it makes absolute, straightforward common sense.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but there have been a series of Second Reading speeches—indeed, that of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, could hardly have been less than a "Queen's Speech speech". It had nothing to do with the Bill at all. The rest of the speeches were all Second Reading speeches, except that of my noble friend Lord Balfour, who spoke to the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill, and I think I agree with every word he

141
said. But, out of courtesy to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I should like—
LORD BESWICK: What do you mean, "courtesy"?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What do I mean by what? The noble Lord asked me a question.
LORD BESWICK: Yes. I simply thought the way in which the phrase was used was a little offensive.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, thought that. I thought that it would have been discourteous not to reply to his elaborate "Second Reading speech". If the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, does not feel it is worth a reply, he may very well be right. But I certainly do not mean any discourtesy to the noble and learned Lord. I simply wanted to say this. He complained that the Bill was too long. He complained that it was too complicated. He complained that it attempted too much. Those were the three criticisms—all Second Reading criticisms; none of them relating to the Motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
To the charge that the Bill is too long, I would say that the Bill of the Government of which the noble and learned Lord was a Member, had no teeth at all and contained 100 clauses and eight Schedules. Ours has only 161, and it has teeth and nine Schedules. So that is not bad. The Bill is much less long than the Companies Act; it is much less complicated than the Companies Act and it attempts much less than the Companies Act. It attempts to provide, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan (who spoke from the Cross-Benches) on Second Reading. a more appropriate occasion, what has been wanted for very many years—a comprehensive, legal code for industrial relations. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, thought that we need that; and so do I. Apparently, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, differs and in that respect I differ from him.
As regards his slighting reference to hereditary Peers, I would only say, as one who now has no interest in the matter, that I very much resent this
142
reference to my noble friends. My noble friend, Lord Carrington, who is an hereditary Peer, did his very best to reform the House of Lords in the former Parliament, and his efforts were very much appreciated by many. But they were defeated, very largely by the efforts of the extreme wing of the Party of which the noble and learned Lord is a member, and which tries to conceal its divisions by attacking the Conservative Party. But, if I may say so respectfully, in the meantime we have our constitutional duty to perform. It is true, of course, that they have not listened to all the speeches of Lord Shinwell and Lord Davies of Leek as I have. I am not sure how much they have missed, but what I would say to them both is this. I expressed the hope that we should manage at some stage in the Committee stage of this Bill to discuss those parts of the Bill which had not been formally discussed in the other place, but in fact all we have done is to spend a week reiterating the Amendments which were exhaustively discussed in the other place; and not even discussing those with any degree of rationality, but discussing them in the context of misrepresentation of what the rest of the Bill contains, and in the context of Second Reading speeches on mere generalities which are hardly worthy of reply.
LORD DIAMOND: I sense that your Lordships would wish to come very shortly to a conclusion on this clause, as to which we are not going to reach agreement and as to which the noble and learned Lord has made the differences between the two sides greater than before—as I am bound to say he mostly does in the interventions which he has made to us. May I make one procedural point, as we have the pleasure of the company of the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the House? I make this point clearly out of ignorance and not out of knowledge. I have some experience of another House, where the Solicitor General and the Attorney General regard themselves as law officers, able and open to advise the House, another place.
I had, but I was obviously wrong, the impression that we were to be similarly assisted here. Obviously I was wrong. I have checked and I find that there is no such clearly established tradition here.

143
Therefore your Lordships will not be surprised when I say that, as to the two questions about the law on which I was going to ask the benefit of the advice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I shall not trouble him, because obviously what we are being supplied with are very skilful debating points, irrespective of whether they fit in with an accurate and objective view of the law or not. It is beyond the capacity of anyone both to be a very active political debater, concerned with making skilful debating points, and at the same time to be an objective cool-headed legal adviser on matters of difficult and deep controversiality. I therefore do not think it would be right for me to delay your Lordships by questions on the law iteself. I am bound to say however that on the clause which is before us, which gives legal effect to the code of practice, the more I think about it the more I think we were wise at an earlier stage on this side of the House to withhold discussion until we have a code of practice in front of us. I say this the more so because we have had speeches, including the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Platt, about the effect of this clause on non-industrial employees.
One only has to refer to the most recent statement by the right honourable gentleman, the Secretary of State, to realise in what an absurd position we are being placed. He said as recently as April 29:
"The code will be universal. We want trade union membership to increase and believe that it will. But this is a code of practice for industrial relations and for every company in every centre of employment in the economy and therefore it must be universal and apply to non-trade unionists as well as to trade unionists."
That is to say, the number which is affected is not of the order of 12 million but of 25 or 26 million persons in the
land. We are being seriously asked to define the position in the legal framework of a code designed to affect the conduct of some 26 million people and have not been given any idea of what is to be in the code.
Coming back to the suggestion made earlier, it would be stupid for us to attempt to reach a sensible conclusion on this when we have not the code in front of us. I think we would be wiser to recommit this clause until the code is before us, so that we can see to what extent the code affects the provisions; but in so far as this clause contains provisions referring to the industrial court and other machinery in which the code of practice will be taken into account, we are wholly opposed to it, because we are satisfied that this is the wrong way of going about improving industrial relations. This has been well said by many of my noble friends in this debate and therefore I will leave it at that.
The way to influence public attitudes and public opinion to better and more understanding of industrial relations is by persuasion and by an agreed code of conduct, which represents the past experience of employers and employees throughout the country. The way to put the clock back and to destroy such co-operation as has been effected is to have at the end of the day the enforcement of legal provisions such as we have discussed. Just think what a mockery they would make of industrial relations. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords, both those who have heard the debate and those who have heard only a part of it, will support us in the Division Lobby.
10.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 116; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Belstead, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Allerton, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Colville of Culross, V.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Conesford, L.

Amory, V.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Arran, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Cowley, E.

Balerno, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Craigavon, V.

Balfour, E.

Buchan, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Burgh, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Carrington, L.

Croft, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Chesham, L.

Cromartie, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Inglewood, F.

St. Helens, F.

Daventry, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Just, F.

Denham, F. [Teller.]

Kemsley, V.

St. Oswald, F.

Derwent, L.

Killearn, L.

Sandford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sandys, L.

Dudley, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Savile, L.

Eccles, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Selkirk, E.

Effingham, E.

Latymer, L.

Selsdon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lauderdale, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lothian, M.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Essex, E.

Lyell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Exeter, M.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Falmouth, V.

Ferrers, E.

Margadale, L.

Ferrier, L.

Merthyr, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Gage, V.

Molson, L.

Swaythling, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Templemore, L.

Glendevon, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Teviot, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Thomas, L.

Gowrie, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Townshend, M.

Gray, L.

Pender, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Greenway, L.

Platt, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Radnor, E.

Verulam, E.

Hailes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Vivian, L.

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

Reading, M.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Redesdale, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Henley, L.

Redmayne, L.

Westminster, D.

Hives, L.

Rothermere, V,

Wigram, L.

Hood, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENFS

Archibald, L.

Fiske, L.

Popplewell, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Rusholme, L.

Balogh, L.

Gardiner, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bernstein, L.

Garnsworthy, F. [Teller.]

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Heycock, L.

Shackleton, L.

Birk, Bs.

Hoy, L.

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Brockway, L.

Lindgren, L.

Snow, L.

Burntwood, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Collison, L.

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

Davies of Feek, L.

Milner of Feeds, L. [Teller.]

White, Bs.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 4 agreed to accordingly.
House resumed.

HIGHWAYS BILL
Reported from the Committee with Amendments and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House: Bill to be printed as amended.
  LAW REFORM: FAMILY PROPERTY
  LAW REFORM: FAMILY PROPERTY