Sitting of 4 May 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  AUSTRALIAN, MERCANTILE, LAND AND FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED BILL [Lords]
    JOHN HOLLIS TRUST FOR EMPLOYEES (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords]
    Bills read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL (By Order)

  ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
  Bills to be considered upon Tuesday next.

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Consultants (Merit Awards)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the system of merit awards to consultants.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): The distinction awards system was introduced at the outset of the National Health Service, following the recommendations of the Spens Committee. A small professional committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Platt advises the Secretaries of Stale for Scotland and Wales and myself which consultants should receive awards.
    Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that information. Can he say anything about the merit award which the consultants at Walsgrave Hospital gave themselves by carrying out private practice illegally? Has he received the report from the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, and has he any statement to make further to that report?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think the hon. Gentleman has a Question on the Order Paper on the second part of his supplementary question. It has never been the practice to reveal the names of holders of merit awards.
    Mr. Pavitt: In view of the widespread dissatisfaction over the system of secret awards, will the right hon. Gentleman carry out a thorough review, together with the other things which he is having considered, with the idea of perhaps making these awards applicable to posts rather than persons?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, I am not ready to undertake such a review unless much stronger evidence, and the reasons for it, including the views of the professions concerned, in favour of a review is given to me.

    Welfare Service Charges (Elderly Persons)
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what advice he gives to local authorities who consult him

    1143
    about the desirability of increased charges to old people for local welfare services in order to save fractions of a new penny on their rates.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have not been asked for any advice on this point, which is a matter for the local authority to determine.
    Mr. Deakins: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it should be part of his responsibility to discourage local authorities, like mine in Waltham Forest, from making mean attacks on the living standards of old-age pensioners by, for instance, raising the charges for meals-on-wheels?
    Sir K. Joseph: The charges made by local authorities for services of this sort are entirely within their discretion within the rules laid down. I am aware of a fractional difference caused by decimal conversion by the local authority concerned—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—a matter of 1p a week, a fractional addition, which is entirely a matter for the local authority.

    Useless or Dangerous Drugs
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Social Services in view of the official publication by the United States Food and Drug Administration of a list of products which are useless or dangerous, a copy of which is in his possession, and since many of these products are sold in Great Britain, if he will now issue a similar list as a warning to the public; and if he will introduce legislation restraining manufacturers from marketing such products.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): Adequate powers to control the marketing of medicinal products already exist in the Medicines Act. I hope soon to receive the views of the Committee on Safety of Drugs on the list published by the United States Food and Drug Administration.
    Mr. Driberg: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that that list has been available for some months, I think in his Department as well as elsewhere, and that it contains not only drugs which are harmful but drugs which are useless and cosmetics which are useless—things, like Colgate's toothpaste, which are widely
    1144
    sold in this country? Does he remember that the thalidomide tragedy did not occur in the United States because they take more care about these things?
    Mr. Alison: The Committee on Safety of Drugs has so far identified 90 of the 369 products listed in the American list, not all of which, as far as we can see, are sold or retailed in this country. I hope that it will be in a position to make a recommendation to us by the end of May.

    Lethal Diseases
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the latest statistics of deaths resulting from the five most lethal diseases.
    Mr. Alison: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Eadie: The hon. Gentleman has not been very helpful. Is he aware that there is a feeling in the country, which is documented in various ways, that the disease of alcoholism is rapidly mounting to the top in the league of lethal diseases? Will he consider doing something about this matter, particularly as the Government have introduced legislation to sell State pubs?
    Mr. Alison: I can anticipate the view which the hon. Gentleman will presently get of the list by telling him that alcoholism is not in the list of the first five killers. We do, however, take an extremely serious view of the health hazard of alcoholism, and the hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend has made special financial provisions to pursue remedies in this direction.
    Following is the information:

    THE FIVE MOST COMMON OF DEATH IN GREAT BRITAIN IN 1969

    Cause

    Deaths

    Death rate per million

    Males

    1 Ischaemic heart disease (ICD 410–414)

    90,894

    3,463

    2 Malignant neoplasms (ICD 140–209)

    68,739

    2,619

    3 Cerebrovascular disease (ICD 430–438)

    35,178

    1,340

    4 Bronchitis, emphysema and asthma (ICD 490–493)

    27,235

    1,038

    5 Pneumonia (ICD 480–486)

    20,062

    764

    Cause

    Deaths

    Death rate per million

    Females

    1 Ischaemic heart disease (ICD 410–414)

    66,357

    2,389

    2 Malignant neoplasms (ICD 140–209)

    58,541

    2,108

    3 Cerebrovascular disease (ICD 430–438)

    54,650

    1,968

    4 Pneumonia (ICD 480–486)

    23,805

    857

    5 Other forms of heart disease (ICD 420–429)

    20,203

    727

    Family Allowances
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he next proposes to increase family allowances.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to similar Questions on 2nd November, 1970.—[Vol. 805, c. 269–70.]
    Mr. Ashley: Instead of hiding behind his right hon. Friend's unsatisfactory reply, why does not the Minister frankly admit that the Conservative electoral promise of adequate family allowances has been broken and that the mystical £8 million spent on family income supplements by his right hon. Friend is peanuts compared with the millions of £s distributed to surtax payers? Will he give a straight answer to a straight question? Are the Government going to increase family allowances, or not?
    Mr. Dean: On the contrary, the Govment have made a good start by introducing the family income supplement scheme and by announcing in the Budget substantial increases in child tax allowances. Neither of these rules out further changes in family allowances.

    Supplementary Benefit
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he has to reduce the number of persons dependent on supplementary benefits.
    Mr. Dean: Our proposals for the reconstruction of the national insurance scheme will he announced in due course.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister accept that all the Government's policy initiatives so far have been essentially short-term and tactical reactions, and that what is needed for the future is a radical and major
    1146
    shift from means-tested awards, which nobody wants or likes, to benefit as of right in each category of social need? Will he also confirm that in increasing, as his policies will, the present 4 million who are subject to supplementary benefit he is consolidating two nations divided between stigma on one side and self-respect on the other?
    Mr. Dean: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that we are bringing speedy help to those most in need, we gladly plead guilty. In the long term, the intention is that the national insurance scheme plus occupational schemes over and above that, in which people are encouraged to save for their retirement, will progressively over the years reduce the number of people who have to rely on supplementary benefit.
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average supplementary benefit paid to retirement pensioners to cover extra heating that, because of age or illness, they may require.
    Mr. Dean: I regret that this information is not available. The basic scale-rate covers normal heating needs. All supplementary pensioners receive the long-term addition of 50p a week which provides a margin for such things as extra heating. It is when this addition is insufficient to meet special heating needs that the Supplementary Benefits Commission allows extra benefit specifically for this purpose.
    Mr. Cox: While I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, is not it a fact that even when supplementary benefits are paid they are invariably totally inadequate to meet the extra heating costs that many elderly people face? The hon. Gentleman must know, as most hon. Members on both sides of the House do, many constituents who have to turn off their heating because they cannot afford to pay for it. Will not the hon. Gentleman, as a matter of urgency, ask his Department to look at this state of affairs again in the coming months so that a substantial increase can be made before the winter months commence?
    Mr. Dean: The extra allowances for special needs have been improved recently, and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the supplementary benefits rates are going up in September.

    Prescriptions
    Dr. Summerskillasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what plans he now has for further increases in prescription charges or for charging the patient a proportion of the cost of a drug.
    Mrs. Doris Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he intends to introduce a cost-related system for prescriptions under the National Health Service.
    Mr. John D. Grantasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the Pharmaceutical Society and/or other interested organisations concerning the introduction of cost-related prescription charges; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is now in a position to make a statement arising from representations made to him by the pharmaceutical industry arising out of proposed changes in prescription charges.
    Sir K. Joseph: Preliminary proposals have been put to the medical and pharmaceutical professions as a basis for discussion, and I propose to discuss with their representatives the objections which they see. The pharmaceutical industry has been assured that I will inform it of any firm proposals which emerge.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman in his discussions bear in mind that the professional bodies of the doctors and the pharmacists have strongly and publicly expressed their opposition to cost-related charges, in view of the fact that such charges would mean that the amount a person had to pay would depend on the nature of his illness and might affect the doctor's prescription.
    Sir K. Joseph: It is because I want to understand fully their objections that I am seeking meetings with both professions.
    Mrs. Fisher: Under the cost-related system the chemist must assess the price of the prescription before he dispenses it. Has the Minister considered the ethical question that will arise if a patient is short of money? When the patient is told what the charge will be he will ask the chemist which part of the prescription he
    1148
    ought to take. Thus an ethical question will arise between the medical profession and the chemist who dispenses the prescription.
    Sir K. Joseph: The House will be aware that all those who suffer from pressure of finance should be relieved by the exemptions provided by the Government, but it is because I want to hear the chemists that I have sought a meeting with them.
    Mr. Grant: Does not independent examination show that the administrative costs of introducing the new system would wipe out any savings? If the Minister will not take back his iniquitous proposals on the basis of ethics or principle, will he take them back on the grounds of efficiency?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. The net saving of £15 million which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated is a saving after allowing for costs.
    Mr. Eadie: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he will consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland? Although there is a split of departmental responsibility, the right hon. Gentleman must know that Scottish pharmacists are indignant at this proposal and have said that it will eventually mean many people not being able to get the medicines they need because they will not be able to pay for them.
    Sir K. Joseph: My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and I will study the objections together very carefully.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are working people who, because of the increased prescription charges, are not taking up their prescriptions, and that what was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher) is already happening? Is it not an absolute disgrace that working people should be put in this position by the policy of the Government?
    Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman knows of such cases, I hope he will advise the people concerned of the immunities available and the help available by means of prepayment certificates.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to reconsider

    1149
    this scheme. He will know that those who are suffering, for example, from chronic mental illness may face additional charges of as much as £1 to 30s. a week. He will also know that doctors are concerned about the "blunderbuss" principle—that is to say, putting several medicines together into one—and about the cost of a prescription for what might be described as black market, low-quality medicines. In the interests of the National Health Service I ask him to take back what seems to be an utterly destructive and misconceived scheme.
    Sir K. Joseph: I must explain to the House that the scheme which my right hon. Friend and I propose to discuss with the professions is parallel with schemes already in operation in such countries as Sweden. It is not identical but it is parallel. The hon. Lady is quite wrong to talk of people having to pay £1 or more a week. A prepayment certificate limits the cost of all drugs that may be prescribed to 1p a day, and for that figure any citizen can get complete exemption from all future drug charges.
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Social Services why the total cost of National Health Service prescriptions has more than doubled in the last 10 years.
    Sir K. Joseph: Factors include the changed value of money; an increase in the number of prescriptions; and changes in the pattern of treatment involving the use of more effective and more costly drugs.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are still spending only 8 per cent. of our total budget on our general practitioner service, whereas we are spending 12 per cent. on pharmaceutical products? Is he also aware that for every eight general practitioners there is one commercial traveller from drug firms calling upon them? Is he further aware that each time the Government have put a charge on prescriptions, in 1956, 1961 and 1966, the drugs bill has risen? Last time it rose by £7 million. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake a complete overhaul of his voluntary price regulation?
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. The country has benefited from the increased range and effectiveness of drugs, and this has
    1150
    contributed enormously to the relief of suffering.
    Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a great deal of medicine is wasted and that we are a nation whose bedroom and bathroom cupboards bulge with half-used bottles of medicine? Would not it be a good idea if people were encouraged more to use the medicine that they are prescribed?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. I agree with each of those propositions. But what a Government should do about it defeats me.
    Dr. Summerskill: In view of the escalation in drug prices, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the medical profession the advantage of prescribing national formulary drugs, which are often just as effective as proprietary ones and a good deal cheaper?
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept that the price of drugs in real terms has moved faster than the price of other commodities; on the contrary. As for the hon. Lady's suggestion, that should be addressed to her own profession as much as to the Government. Certainly I shall consider whether anything more can be done.

    Abortion Facilities
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if, in view of the shortage of facilities within the National Health Service for carrying out terminations of pregnancy, indicated by the recent case dealt with by the General Medical Council, he will take steps to provide additional facilities within the National Health Service in cities such as Birmingham, Sheffield and Liverpool, where women are not being given the same advantages as women in those parts of the country providing a better service.
    Sir K. Joseph: I am aware that there are regional differences in the number of abortions performed under the National Health Service, and I expect that the inquiry I announced on 23rd February will consider the reasons for them. These differences are not necessarily associated with a lack of facilities.—[Vol. 812, c. 313–18.]
    Mrs. Short: Does not the number of women living in these regional hospital

    1151
    board areas who have to go out of their regions to get the service which is provided for them by Act of Parliament lead the right hon. Gentleman to conclude that these women are compelled to go into the private sector—about which there has been complaint recently—and to pay about £150 for the abortion to be carried out? Is there not a danger that we shall be back where we were before the Act was introduced, in that many women will be compelled to seek illegal terminations simply because they cannot get the facilities under the National Health Service? Will the Minister look at this again?
    Sir K. Joseph: The decision whether to recommend or carry out an abortion in a particular case is a matter for the professional judgment of the doctor concerned, and is not necessarily related to facilities. All these questions will be within the remit of Mrs. Justice Lane's Committee, the membership of which I hope to announce shortly.
    Mrs. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Registrar-General's statistical review, published last Thursday, indicated that hundreds more abortions were carried out in Birmingham than in any other city of comparable size? Will he take no notice whatever of the request of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) as far as Birmingham is concerned?
    Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend's supplementary question shows that this is a complicated matter with deep implications. That is why I look forward to the review by Mrs. Justice Lane's Committee.

    Disabled Persons (Financial Assistance)
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what he estimates will be the total public expenditure for the benefit of disabled people in 1972–73, compared with 1969–70, taking into account the further proposals in his statement on 31st March.
    Mr. Dean: No comprehensive figures are available, but the expenditure in 1972–73 on social security invalidity pensions and allowances, attendance allowance, war and industrial disablement pensions and allowances is estimated at £378 mil-
    1152
    lion. The comparable expenditure in 1969–70 was £271 million.
    Mr. Lane: Is it not a fact that these encouraging figures reflect among other things, the first steps which the Government have taken to help disabled people? Can my hon. Friend confirm that before long the Government will disclose more of their plans, particularly in the light of the desperate needs revealed by the Survey of the Disabled, published today?
    Mr. Dean: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The answer to both supplementary questions is "Yes".
    Mr. Carter-Jones: While welcoming the increased assistance for disabled persons, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back to certain questions, which I put to him and which he answered in some detail in February and March last, regarding the number of disabled people not receiving help from various local authorities? Is not today's report a further indication of the amount of help still required? No matter how much the hon. Gentleman has announced today, are we not still only tinkering with the problem?
    Mr. Dean: Yes, Sir. This is a joint effort, on the part of the central Government, local government and voluntary bodies, which is going to be necessary in order to deal with what in the past has been a big gap in our social service arrangements.

    Homelessness (London)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to receive the report of his working party on homelessness in London.
    Mr. Dean: I cannot yet say.
    Mr. Spearing: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the working party will analyse the housing market in London? Does not he agree that, whatever the merits or demerits of competition in other activities, greater competition for housing in London will only increase the number of homeless, particularly among lower-paid workers with families?
    Mr. Dean: The working party has wide terms of reference. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is proceeding

    1153
    with its work as quickly as possible. It had its first meeting on 11th March, and has already met six times.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the problem of homelessness in London is approaching disastrous dimensions? Will he bear in mind, for example, that the number of homeless persons in the borough of Lambeth who had to be given temporary accommodation went up from 1,001 in 1967 to 1,213 in 1970? If further evidence is required of the urgency of the problem, those figures alone should ginger up the Government into taking speedy action.
    Mr. Dean: There is no complacency on the Government's part. There is a serious problem here, and it is being tackled both by my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is primarily responsible here.

    Supplementary Benefit (Strikers)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what was the total cost to public funds of payments of supplementary benefit to strikers and their dependants during the first four months of 1971; and what estimate he has made of the change in that total resulting from the Social Security Bill.
    Sir K. Joseph: The provisional figures to 20th April show payments of about £3¾ million to strikers' dependants and about £3,500 to strikers themselves. Tiding-over payments after return to work totalled approximately £450,000. Had the Social Security Bill been in force this total of roughly £4¼ million would have been reduced by about £1 million; this figure would have been considerably larger—perhaps £2¼ million—if strike pay or tax refunds had been available in the postal dispute.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does it not show that even if the Bill had been in operation during this period the total level of this form of strike subsidy would have been running at about 30 times or more the level for the whole year in any year prior to the passage of the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966? Does this not suggest that there is a case for reverting to the element of dis-
    1154
    cretion which was previously enjoyed by the National Assistance Board, set up by the Attlee Government, and by my right hon. Friend's Department?
    Sir K. Joseph: I think we should try the system proposed by the Government in the new Bill. I have made it plain that the Government will have to keep the position under review.
    Mr. Orme: I wonder how many times the right hon. Gentleman is going to answer the same question from the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)—
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It is not the same.
    Mr. Orme:—with a slight variation. Does not the Secretary of State feel that, in introducing the Social Security Bill, the Government now intend to intervene directly on one side in an industrial dispute? Does he think this is going to help industrial relations?
    Sir K. Joseph: All the Government are doing is removing an abuse of Parliament's intention, expressed in the Ministry of Social Security Act, 1966.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will delay the implementation of his proposals relating to reduced benefits for strikers and their families until proportionate income tax increases for the managers and directors of companies whose employees go on strike have been imposed.
    Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir.
    Mr. Jenkins: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that what is happening is an abuse. Is not he aware that all the examinations which have been made of strike causation have suggested that in at least half the cases the immediate cause is delinquent action on the part of managements? Is he not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said, making it clear that the Government are for management even when management is wrong, and against the striker even when the striker is right?
    Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman will not draw me into questions outside my departmental responsibility. All we

    1155
    are doing with the Social Security Bill is carrying out the intention of Parliament, as I have just explained.

    National Insurance Advisory Committee
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services who are now the members of the National Insurance Advisory Committee; and what interests they represent.
    Sir K. Joseph: Members of the National Insurance Advisory Committee are not appointed as representatives. Of the chairman and eight members, however, four are required to be appointed after consulting certain organisations. I will, if I may, circulate the names and the organisations consulted, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Would my right hon. Friend ensure in future that the Advisory Committee includes someone who is an expert on modern methods of handling data, including electronic data processing?
    Sir K. Joseph: I would not like to give that commitment because my Department disposes of ample advice on that subject and the National Insurance Advisory Committee itself relates more to the substance of the insurance scheme.
    Following is the information:
    Membership of the National Insurance Advisory Committee is as follows:

    The Lord Evans (Chairman).

    *Mr. W. C. Anderson, C.B.E.

    †Professor J. A. Fairs.

    Mrs. I. M. Howell, C.B.E., J.P.

    ‡Mr. L. E. Kenyon, C.B.E.

    Miss A. M. Patrick.

    §Mr. D. H. Roper, O.B.E.

    Professor R. M. Titmuss, C.B.E.

    Mr. N. C. Turner.

    *Appointed after consultation with organisations representing workers.

    †Appointed after consultation with the Ministry of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland.

    ‡Appointed after consultation with organisations representing employers.

    §Appointed after consultation with organisations representing Friendly Societies.

    Earnings-Related Pension Scheme
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is now able to state his policy towards an earnings-related pension scheme.
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further progress has been made since 1st April in the Government's consideration of the reconstruction of the national insurance scheme, particularly as regards the earnings rule for retirement pensioners.
    Mr. Dean: I would refer the hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on 27th April.—[Vol. 816, c. 73.]
    Mr. Dalyell: What is the delay?
    Mr. Dean: There is no delay. The Government are pressing ahead with great speed with their plans, and they will be announced substantially earlier than was the case with the scheme of the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that letters I receive from my constituents urge upon me that the recent relaxation of the earnings rule on retirement pensions is tinkering with the problem, which can only be effectively solved by the abolition of the earnings rule? Can he assure us that the review announced by his right hon. Friend will include the abolition of the earnings rule for pensioners?
    Mr. Dean: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the review. I am sorry he feels that an increase of no less than £2 in the earnings rule is mere tinkering with the problem. It is a substantial increase.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Can my hon. Friend assure us that the plans will include clear provision for the protection of pension rights on change of employment?
    Mr. Dean: I am glad to assure my hon. Friend of that. The Government are as keen on this matter as he is.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will not the hon. Gentleman go a stage further and assure the House that there will be transferability of pension rights, which has been the objective of all Governments?
    Mr. Dean: We should like to see that done where it is possible. At present it is probably not possible to go further in legislation than to provide for

    1157
    preservation, but also to ensure that no bars are put in the way of transferability where that can be effected.

    Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry (Patient Costs)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the average weekly cost of keeping a patient in Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry; and what is the national average.
    Mr. Alison: In 1969–70 the average cost per in-patient week for Walsgrave General Hospital (Phase II) was £76·21. The national average for all hospitals similarly classified as "acute" and with more than 100 beds was £55·70. Figures for 1970–71 are not yet available. The General Hospital, with 614 acute beds, did not open until 18th May, 1969, and the average number of beds available in 1969–70 was only 396. The in-patient costs in that year are not, therefore, representative of the comparative position expected when the hospital has been working to full capacity for 12 months.
    Mr. Price: Mr. Speaker, am I entitled to draw the conclusion from the length of that answer that the Minister is on the defensive?
    Mr. Speaker: All that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to do is to ask a supplementary question.
    Mr. Price: I regarded that as my supplementary question. In view of the fact that it is out of order, I shall move on to my next one. Is the Minister as committed as his predecessors were to the concept of great new district hospitals, or will he reverse the trend of creating size for the sake of size and closing down or running down other hospitals in the area to pay for it?
    Mr. Alison: It all depends what the hon. Gentleman means by "great". We believe that there is a future for local hospitals, especially in association with the needs of general practitioners.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: In view of the alarming cost of full-time medical care in hospitals, will my hon. Friend consider schemes for helping institutions, particularly in the private sector, which give after-care facilities?
    Mr. Alison: That is a general question. If my hon. Friend cares to pose a specific request, we shall consider it sympathetically.

    Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act
    Mr. Alfred Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultation he has had with the Central Council for the Disabled concerning the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend is in touch with the Council with a view to arranging an early meeting.
    Mr. Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the long awaited report published today by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys contains some really shocking findings emphasising the need for urgent further consultation with the Central Council about the implementation of the Act? Will his right hon. Friend be making a statement in this House today or tomorrow about the report, and can he say when the report is likely to be debated?
    Mr. Alison: The report is being studied. We shall hope to discuss it with the Central Council when its representatives come to see us. There is a great deal of material in it which needs full appraisal and digestion.

    Nurses (Accommodation Charges)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received from the Royal College of Nurses about circular HM71(12) relating to charges for residential accommodation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Alison: None, Sir.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the circular has aroused considerable anger among nurses because of the unevenness of residential charges to nurses and medical staff? A senior nurse earning £2,880 is charged £485, whereas a consultant who may be earning more than £12,000 a year is charged only £420, and, when his accommodation does not

    1159
    come up to a general standard, he may be given an abatement. Are not these considerable discrepancies? Cannot my hon. Friend think of some means by which we can get more evenness into the accommodation charges for nurses and doctors?
    Mr. Alison: It is very difficult to make meaningful comparisons between the charges made to doctors and nurses, having regard to the differences between their terms and conditions of service.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, even if he has received no representations, there is strong feeling about this among nurses and that they feel that what they were given with one hand in the form of an increase in pay has been taken away with the other?
    Mr. Alison: I think the hon. Lady knows that the Royal College of Nursing is represented on the Nurses and Midwives' Whitley Council which has full responsibility for considering the appropriate charges.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Kenneth Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration he has given to the European Economic Community's draft directives on the harmonisation and mutual acceptability of qualifications for the health professions between member countries; what estimate he has made as to whether such directives would be acceptable to the United Kingdom; and what effect he estimates such harmonisation and mutual acceptability of qualifications would have on the potential supply of doctors for the National Health Service if accepted by the United Kingdom upon entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Alison: We are considering with the appropriate registering bodies and professional associations the possible implications for the health professions in this country, if we join the Community, of the directives in accordance with the drafts so far published. It is too soon to make a full assessment, but no substantial change in the supply of doctors for the National Health Service seems likely.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the consideration
    1160
    which, clearly, he has given to the matter. Will he accept that if we can get terms and conditions for members of our medical profession comparable with those of European countries, it is possible that the mutual acceptability of quafications may lead to a valuable source of additional medical personnel in this country, bearing in mind the time which must elapse before we can have an adequate supply of doctors trained here?
    Mr. Alison: I accept the broad outline contained in my hon. Friend's suggestion. However, the language barrier will still represent a severe impediment to any cross-movement.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the failure rates in comparable examinations was 6 per cent. in Great Britain compared with 71 per cent. in Italy? If we have harmonisation, there is the possibility of consultants on this side who at the moment are nine-elevenths engaged in the Health Service spending a great deal of time performing operations on the Continent, to the detriment of the manpower position in our hospitals.
    Mr. Alison: I take note of that, but I think we should get closer to the Community before pondering these imponderables.

    Vacant Hospital Sites, Keighley
    Miss Joan Hallasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he has reached a conclusion about the disposal of vacant hospital sites in Keighley of Morton Banks, Victoria and St. Johns.
    Mr. Alison: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend intends to offer the major parts of these properties for sale by public auction as soon as arrangements currently in hand are completed.
    Miss Hall: I hope these arrangements will be made quickly, because the property in the land is deteriorating meanwhile, and the three hospitals have to be guarded at night from vandals and thieves at a cost of £350 a week, which could be better spent on the National Health Service.
    Mr. Alison: I have noted my hon. Friend's comment carefully. We shall pursue these sales as expeditiously as possible.

    Royal Northern Hospital, Holloway (Beds)
    Mr. O'Halloranasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he can now make a detailed statement on his plans to increase the number of beds at the Royal Northern Hospital, Holloway, N.19.
    Mr. Alison: The North-West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board proposes to convert accommodation no longer required for radiotherapy to provide 18 additional beds for surgical cases. The work will start as soon as possible and should be completed in about six months.
    Mr. O'Halloran: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there are more than 1,000 people on the list of the Royal Northern Hospital waiting for operations to be carried out? Some have been waiting for as long as three years. His answer will be cold comfort to those people in Islington waiting for operations to be carried out.
    Mr. Alison: The regional board is under no illusion about the pressure on beds, and it is willing to consider any proposals for bed availability which the management committee may submit.

    Long Grove Hospital (Unqualified Doctor)
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services wheher his attention has been called to a recent case in which an unqualified man was permitted to act as a doctor at Long Grove Hospital; and whether he will order a full inquiry into the circumstances.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have only recently become aware of all the details of this case and am making urgent inquiries to see what further guidance I might give to hospital authorities.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern locally that patients can be treated in a State hospital by a man who is not a doctor? Will he give careful consideration to the proposals put forward by the chairman of the local management committee as to a system under which doctors from
    1162
    overseas will be able to identify themselves as such?
    Sir K. Joseph: Yes, certainly; but my right hon. Friend may not fully realise that the imposter used forged documents identifying him as a genuine doctor whose name appeared in the medical directory. I am having to study the implications very carefully.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless bear in mind that without immigrant doctors our National Health Service could not survive? Apart from this particular case, it is essential that people coming to this country should have their qualifications carefully checked, particularly with regard to forgery.
    Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that either my right hon. Friend or anybody in the neighbourhood was making any point about immigrant doctors as such. The point is that this man was not a doctor.

    Don Valley (Hospital Accommodation)
    Mr. Kelleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he intends to take to ensure that suitable hospital accommodation is found for the mentally unstable girl, about whom the hon. Member for Don Valley wrote to him on 28th April, 1971.
    Mr. Alison: I am making inquiries to determine the most suitable accommodation for this girl and will write to the hon. Member when these are completed.
    Mr. Kelley: Is the Minister aware that this situation discloses a rather lamentable lapse in the arrangements made under the National Health Service to deal with cases of this kind? Is he aware that this girl of 14 years of age, who is capable of extreme physical violence, was asked to be returned to her home because the staff at the hospital were not prepared to take care of her and there was no suitable institution available? The medical people at the hospital made extensive inquiries throughout the country and suitable accommodation could not be found for her, so they asked for her to be returned to her home, an ordinary council house, where she could not be looked after and where she would have been a disruptive influence in the domestic circle.
    Mr. Alison: This is a tragic and complicated personal case, and I should prefer to pursue it with the hon. Gentleman in correspondence.

    Health Ombudsman
    Mr. Goldingasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will now announce the appointment of a health ombudsman.
    Sir K. Joseph: I have nothing further to add at present to my reply to the hon. Member on 2nd February.—[Vol. 810, c. 309.]
    Mr. Golding: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing concern throughout the country about the lack of an effective complaints procedure where there have been abuses in the National Health Service? Is he also aware that even the medical profession is coming round to the view that there ought to be an ombudsman for the National Health Service?
    Sir K. Joseph: The issues are nevertheless fairly complex, and I want to discuss them with the representatives of the medical profession before finally making up my mind.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least give the House some hope that he will favourably view the appointment of an ombudsman? As the Farleigh Hospital inquiry strongly recommended an ombudsman and there are now extremely disturbing revelations coming out about another mental sub-normality hospital, will he at least consider other safeguards for patients who are unable to protect themselves?
    Sir K. Joseph: I shall certainly give full weight to the Farleigh recommendation, but I must hear arguments on the other side as well before coming to a final conclusion.

    Social Service Benefits and National Insurance Contributions
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the net redistributive effect to a married man with three children earning £20 a week as a result of the extra social service benefits and extra National Insurance contributions he has so far announced.
    Sir K. Joseph: From 21st September such a man will pay no more than 3p a week extra in national insurance contributions when working. In return he will receive an extra £2·50 a week in flat-rate benefit for himself and his dependants if he falls sick or becomes unemployed or, alternatively, up to £6·80 more if he becomes chronically sick. Also, considerably higher benefits will be payable to him and his wife when he retires, or to his widow in the event of his death. This takes no account of the extra 97p a week he will gain with effect from 6th April as a result of the recent income tax changes. Assuming he pays a fairly typical rent, he and his dependants are already entitled to free prescriptions and dental and optical treatment, and his children are entitled to free welfare milk and school meals.
    Mr. Meacher: Despite this list of exceptional circumstances, will the right hon. Gentleman nevertheless confirm that even this low-paid £20 a week man with three children, because he is excluded from the family income supplement scheme and, therefore, ineligible for the passport system, will, net of price rises since June, 1970, and net of the Government's proposed rent increases, make a net loss from the Government's total fiscal and welfare policies whilst the man paid at 20 times that level will make a huge net gain of over £2,000 a year?
    Sir K. Joseph: No. The hon. Gentleman chose the figure, and at that figure there are considerable net advantages to the particular family; and, of course, earnings have gone up since last June, as we all know.

    NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Prime Minister when he will next take the Chair at the National Economic Development Council.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath)—
    Mr. Onslow: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to

    1165
    the fact that a week ago the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) asked my right hon. Friend a virtually identical Question in the following terms:
    "when he next intends to take the chair"—
    [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think it would be better, if possible, for the hon. Member to raise this point at the end of Question Time.
    Mr. Onslow: I am aware that it is possible for me to do so, Mr. Speaker, but when the House is confronted with an abuse of this kind I think it is right to raise the matter during Question Time.
    Mr. Speaker:Order. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is on a point of order at all. This Question has been passed by the Table. It must be put.
    Mr. Onslow: Further to that point of order. I wish to ask how it is that the Table now seems to be passing identical Questions at intervals which are so close together that there can scarcely be any reasonable supposition that new matter arises which could lead my right hon. Friend to give a different answer.
    Mr. Speaker: I shall consider that matter and rule upon it at a future date, if necessary. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to an identical Question from the same hon. Gentleman last Tuesday.—[Vol. 816, c. 228–30.]
    Mr. Sheldon: But is the Prime Minister aware that he gave no answer on that occasion? When the Prime Minister sees the N.E.D.C., will he take up with it his constant refusal to give details of the maximum figure of unemployment which he is prepared to accept? Is this refusal the result of some doubt which he may have about the nature of the connection between unemployment and inflation, which he confidently asserts on many occasions, or is it because he is not sure at what point in time the Government's nerve will break?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman does me wrong. I replied to his Question a week ago saying:
    1166
    "I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 20th April to a similar Question from the hon. Member from Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett)."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th April, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 228.]
    The point about the N.E.D.C. is that the three parties to the Council settle their own agenda and discuss subjects which they think are important at the moment. Tomorrow, when they meet, they will be discussing monetary policy and action taken to combat inflation in other countries. This will allow discussion about unemployment and the means of bringing it down.

    PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech which he made at Cardiff on Saturday, 3rd April, on Government policy.
    Mr. Douglasasked the Prime Minister if he will place a copy of his public speech at Cardiff on Saturday, 3rd April, 1971, concerning Government policy, in the Library.
    Mr. Barnettasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in Cardiff on 3rd April on Economic policy.
    The Prime Minister: I did so on 6th April.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in that speech he referred to the Budget as allowing people to earn more and to keep more of what they earned? Was he referring to the unemployed, or even to the worker on £30 to £35 a week? Is it not the case that a worker like that, if one takes into account all the so-called tax concessions and all the charges which the Government have inflicted and will inflict in the next few months, will be considerably worse off than he was before the Budget?
    The Prime Minister: In that speech I was, I should have thought, stating a fact—that the reductions in taxation give people greater freedom in their expenditure. If the hon. Gentleman wants to deal with any particular case, I will gladly send him the overall accounting for it.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that passage in the

    1167
    speech in which he referred to restraining price increases by nationalised industries? Will he not concede that determining a nationalised industry's price policy is tantamount to determining its investment policy? Will he now take full responsibility for the confusion which has arisen in relation to the British Steel Corporation's future investment policy?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's conclusion. There are a number of actions which a nationalised industry, as any other firm, can take if it cannot increase its prices. The pressure on the private sector is always there, and it is pressure to greater efficiency and greater and better utilisation of manpower—
    Mr. Hamilton: Why?
    The Prime Minister: Because it operates in a competitive climate. If the hon. Gentleman does not realise that, he had better go to Scotland and see.
    As for steel, the British Steel Corporation is still dealing with its investment programmes, and the Government are awaiting its final proposals. But hon. Gentlemen opposite have asked me constantly to carry out what we said we would do at the General Election, which was to intervene where we thought a nationalised industry was unjustifiably putting up its prices. That is precisely what we have done with the British Steel Corporation—at a stroke.
    Mr. Barnett: Reverting to unemployment, since there must be a level beyond which even this Government are prepared to prevent it rising even further, is the righ hon. Gentleman's persistent refusal to give us such a level due to the fact that he prefers the fear of uncertainty, in the hope that it will depress wage claims?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained that he had taken measures in his Budget to hold back the rise in unemployment, and he has explained constantly what the reasons are for the increase in unemployment.
    Sir E. Bullus: Would my right hon. Friend place 290 copies of his speech in the Library so that every hon. Member of the Opposition can read and study it with profit?
    The Prime Minister: It was well reported in the Press, but if any of those hon. Gentlemen had taken the trouble to make the usual inquiries in the Library they would have been told that the speech was there weeks ago.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), that, in his view, all private firms are operating in a competitive market, and that, therefore, there is no need for any further action to restrain their prices?
    The Prime Minister: They are certainly operating in a competitive market, and, where they are not, it is possible for the Government to take—[Interruption.] They are operating generally in a competitive market, and if hon. Members were to study the figures of consumer expenditure over the past quarter they would see what is happening in a competitive market. Moreover, if there are examples of cases in which competition is not being maintained, the matter can be dealt with by the Monopolies Commission.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Does the Prime Minister recognise that he has been completely misinformed about the situation in the steel industry, that it is not the case that the Government are waiting for the investment programme from the Steel Corporation but that the Corporation is, unfortunately, having to wait for the decisions of the Government? Does he understand that the Steel Corporation has to compete with Japanese steel and that, if the Government go on holding up the investment programme, it will not be able to compete?
    The Prime Minister: I realise also that it will not compete if it follows the hon. Gentleman's advice of pushing up prices far further than British industry can cope with.
    Mr. Foot: Would the right hon. Gentleman now take the trouble to find out the real facts about the situation of the Steel Corporation? Would he come to the House next week and state whether it is not the case, as I have said, that the Corporation is awaiting the Government's decisions on this matter? Does he think it right that the Corporation should have

    1169
    the power to go ahead with its £3,000 million investment programme? Does he think that interference with its prices will assist the Corporation in carrying out that essential investment programme? Or is it the case that this Government do not give a fig for the steel industry?
    The Prime Minister: What I do know is that the interference with those prices will give the whole of British industry a better opportunity of competing in world markets. What I also know is that no one has done more than the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to incite both wage increases and price rises against the national interest.
    Mr. Foot—
    Hon. Members: No!
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Dr. Gilbert, next Question.

    BANKING INDUSTRY
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from the public that he set up a department with exclusive jurisdiction over the affairs of the banking industry.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
    Dr. Gilbert: Is the Prime Minister aware that the paragons of competition that he has been talking about—the banks—have four distinguishing characteristics in common—first, that they indulge in misleading advertising, since they do not give their true interest rates; second, that they are notorious for their collusive practices; third, that no fewer than 91 of them do not publish full and honest accounts, according to a Parliamentary Answer given to me yesterday; and, fourth, that they are a repository for those Tory Cabinet Ministers whose incompetence he can no longer bear? Now—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is enough to be going on with.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has given me no question to answer. But if he wishes to refer to what is commonly called the cartel within a section of the banking industry, it was his right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) who, when Chan-
    1170
    cellor of the Exchequer, refused to change the arrangements. It is this Government which are now examining them afresh.

    PRESIDENT YAHYA KHAN (MEETING)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to seek an official meeting with President Yahya Khan.
    The Prime Minister: I met President Yahya Khan in Islamabad in January. There are at present no plans for a further meeting, but I have since kept in touch with the President through diplomatic channels. In addition, I had a meeting a week ago with Mr. Arshad Husain, the President's special envoy.
    Mr. Barnes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if a country is involved with another country's affairs, either by supplying arms or by supplying aid, that gives that country the right to speak up when events happen as they did in Pakistan? Is the Prime Minister prepared to say to President Yahya Khan that Britain will not enter into any new aid commitments for Pakistan so long as East Bengal is held down by military oppression?
    The Prime Minister: There are two aspects to this very difficult question. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right that we should use all our influence in these circumstances to secure what the President himself has publicly said is his objective, and that is a political solution to the difficulties confronting Pakistan. But the hon. Gentleman will recall, on further reflection, that British policy on aid has on the whole been to proceed regardless of certain political aspects of a country's national life. I would not, on this occasion, like to say that that is a principle which should immediately be overthrown.
    Mr. Braine: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said about aid, is he aware that there are now over 1 million refugees from East Pakistan in West Bengal, Tripura and Assam, and that the Indian authorities are encountering increasing difficulty in providing food, shelter and medical supplies? Is there any step he can take to speed international

    1171
    relief to deal with what appears to be an increasingly tragic situation?
    The Prime Minister: There are, alas, many hundreds of thousands of refugees in West Bengal. The last figure we were given was 600,000 but it may well now be more. We understood that the numbers were increasing at the rate of about 20,000 a day. As to the specific point raised by my hon. Friend, we are in contact with the private charitable organisations which are arranging the transport of relief supplies to West Bengal to help the refugees from East Pakistan. Our understanding is that they are hoping to get the first flight-loads away in two days' time.
    Mr. Shore: In view of the many allegations of very brutal repression in East Bengal, has the right hon. Gentleman pressed upon the Pakistan President or the Government the desirability of introducing observers into that country to see whether these grave allegations are correct, and, if they are, to exercise a restraining influence?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to reveal the contents of confidential exchanges that we have had. I would agree with him that where there are allegations and misrepresentations of a situation the healthiest way of dealing with it is to have observers, under an international organisation or from certain countries or from the Press, who can see the situation for themselves.
    Mr. Hugh Fraser: While I am sure the House is grateful to my right hon. Friend for the action that he has taken, may I ask him whether there is any chance of getting international relief organisations to operate in East Pakistan? Up till now, although many are waiting to go, none has been allowed to get in. This is a very urgent matter, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can tell us anything about the talks that he is having with the Pakistan Government on this point?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the international relief organisations are in many cases prepared to help in this very difficult situation. We are in contact with those organisations which have approached us in this country. I hope
    1172
    that in the course of the next 48 hours they will be able to render help. There have also been talks with the international organisations, but I cannot at this moment give my right hon. Friend any firm details as to when it will be possible for them to render assistance.
    Mr. John Mendelson: In view of this serious situation, would the Prime Minister agree that it might be time to use the medium of the Commonwealth or perhaps a group of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to make a joint approach? Would it not also have the advantage of avoiding any further sharpening of the disagreement between India and Pakistan?
    The Prime Minister: If I thought there was any reasonable prospect at all of that being a helpful move I would not hesitate for one moment to take it, but the hon. Gentleman and the House will realise that certain frictions exist between Commonwealth countries over this problem and I am not sure that it would be helpful at this moment to bring them together about it.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Do not some of the questions asked by hon. Gentlemen opposite on this question reveal the impression that some of them have not got used to the idea that Britain is no longer the imperial Power in the Indo-Pakistan sub-continent?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to respect the territorial integrity of Pakistan and its sovereignty as a State. I have always made absolutely plain to the President of Pakistan that this is the position of the British Government. At the same time, there is deep feeling in this country and the House about the problems which exist. This was shown in the different situation which arose when part of East Pakistan was hit by the hurricane and there was an upsurge of voluntary effort which amazed the world, as I know from my own contacts. There is similarly today a very deep feeling about the situation. I think it is quite natural that many in this country and the House would want to help.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is it not a cause of some concern that many of the weapons that have been used in East Bengal were provided for very different purposes by

    1173
    members of CENTO, including this country?
    The Prime Minister: It is always a difficult circumstance when there is internal strife in a country which is a member of an alliance. On the other hand, many of the weapons which the Pakistan Government had at their disposal were secured from sources quite other than CENTO and the British Government.

TULKETH GROUP (INSURANCE COMPANIES)
Mr. Ford Mr. Ford (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department was kept informed of the situation regarding the Tulketh Group, if he was asked for guidance, and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): My Department has had the insurance interests of this Group under careful scrutiny and the conclusion was reached last week that the companies did not have the solvency margins required by the Insurance Companies Acts. Notice was issued last Friday under Section 68 that I was considering making a restriction under Section 68(1) which would have the effect of prohibiting the companies from taking on any new business or renewing existing business.
Close contact has been maintained by my Department both with these companies and with the insurance industry and I was fully aware of the intention of the Phoenix Assurance Company to negotiate to acquire the Bradford and Pennine Insurance Companies.
I am sure the House will be glad that as a result of the efforts of all concerned the interests of the policyholders should be protected in full.
Mr. Ford: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that vaguely reassuring statement about motorists, may I ask whether he is aware that the people of Bradford will not be at all reassured in other directions? Is he aware that precipitate action by the banks in putting in a receiver for this group has caused grave concern in
1174
Bradford and will possibly cause declining confidence in the trade? Does he realise that this adds to the concern of the people of Bradford over mounting unemployment in their area? As he has destroyed many of the instruments which can deal with these matters, what does he and his Department intend to do to direct employment to Bradford and the surrounding areas?
Mr. Davies: The action of the banks in appointing a receiver has nothing whatever to do with the action taken by my Department in relation to the insurance interests concerned. The remainder of the question is not therefore germane to the Private Notice Question.
Mr. Darling: In view of the fact that the insurance companies were only a small part of this group in relation to the assets, could I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider inquiring further into the ownership of insurance companies of this kind? Does he think it desirable that small companies should be part of large conglomerations when the conglomeration can go bankrupt without any reference to the insurance companies and drag the insurance companies and their policyholders into difficulties? In this not something which his Department should be examining?
Mr. Davies: I have no evidence to support the belief that the other activities of this particular group did draw the insurance companies into difficulties, so it will be difficult on this premise to start investigations of the kind the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not a fact that it was merely the textile part of this commercial activity that was in difficulty and that my right hon. Friend's wise and timely action has put the affairs of those insured in good secure hands? Does he realise that the allegations of hon. Gentlemen opposite are quite beyond any reasonable degree of anxiety?
Mr. Davies: I am glad that the interests of the policy-holders are likely to be protected. The situation of the two insurance companies was not sound, which was the cause of my making a warning under Section 68.
Mr. Ford: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that the terms of the Question do not mention insurance companies?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is a point of order.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Minister aware of the fact that last week I put Questions on the Order Paper—which are still there—about this and that there is correspondence in his Department relating to this? Will he explain why it is that as far back as 4th and 5th March the Press knew all about this but his Department appeared to know nothing and took no action until, as he said, last Friday? Then, strangely enough, everything he now says was reported in the Press. Can we have another investigation into how these leaks took place?
Mr. Davies: I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises that the action taken last Friday did not suddenly arise in the course of 24 hours. It came as the result of prolonged study.
Mr. Carter: When did the Department first suspect the affairs of this insurance company?
Mr. Davies: It is impossible to be precise about the date when one becomes suspicious, but the date on which it seemed necessary to take positive action was as recent as within the last six weeks.

OFFICIAL REPORT (CORRECTION)
Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your ruling on a matter arising out of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Questions yesterday, at col. 996? The Secretary of State for Wales was answering my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) and said clearly in the hearing of the House that part of the population of the proposed new town at Llantrisant would come from the valley communities. There followed a number of supplementary questions from this side of the House. Unfortunately, the OFFICIAL REPORT has omitted that part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply.
While we are all deeply grateful to the Official Reporters for the care with which they report our sayings in the House, I
1176
hope that some correction will be possible in this case.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Neither I nor any of my officials sought to alter the OFFICIAL REPORT in this respect. My recollection of the exact words which I used is not certain, but, to the best of my recollection, the OFFICIAL REPORT reflects what I said. My intention emerges clearly from the report, which was to stress the benefit which the new town of Llantrisant would give to the valley communities. I believe that the words "the fact that" may have been added to the report, but apart from that, according to my recollection, Mr. Speaker, the OFFICIAL REPORT accurately reflects what I said.
Mr. Speaker: I have been in consultation with the Editor of the OFFICIAL REPORT regarding this matter. There was a certain amount of noise after the Secretary of State's reply, and I think it probable that the words should read:
"…and also from the valley communities, which should benefit greatly from industry on this ideal site at Llantrisant".
The bound volume of the OFFICIAL REPORT will be correspondingly amended. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas) for raising the matter.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Sir F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A little earlier you admonished one of my hon. Friends for raising a point of order during Questions—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not admonish the hon. Gentleman. I suggested that it might be raised later.
Sir F. Bennett: In that case I feel heartened in continuing, for that is what I wish to do now. Exactly a week ago, a great deal of indignation was expressed on the Opposition benches because one or two of my hon. Friends and I had put down on the Order Paper identical or closely similar Questions, and great suggestions were made about plots, conspiracies and the rest. I wonder whether today, Mr. Speaker, when you are considering what the Table Office should do,

1177
you would take into account that no fewer than three identical Questions were put down to the Prime Minister for today, and no similar indignation was expressed from the same benches.
Mr. Ashton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are aware, I have on previous occasions raised the matter of transfer of Questions by the Prime Minister's office. It has now reached the stage when there are literally only four or five categories of Question which the Prime Minister's office will accept, and hon. Members on this side have to resort to putting down Questions to ask the Prime Minister to pay visits to various places or put copies of speeches in the Library simply because there are no other Questions which his office will accept.
Mr. Speaker: There are difficulties in these matters, but I do not think that they are for the Chair. Perhaps other important people who are present might consider them.
Mr. Onslow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) wishes the House to take his point of order seriously, perhaps he will explain why one of his hon. Friends, the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who, he says, was forced to adopt this footling device, put down Question No. Q4 and then did not turn up to ask it.

Ordered,
That the Pool Competitions Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

CARE OF THE ELDERLY
3.45 p.m.
Mr. Robert Edwards: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create a public department with special responsibilities for advising and assisting elderly persons; to extend and improve the services provided by local authorities for elderly persons; to amend the law regarding the age of retirement from employment; and to make other provisions for the care of the elderly.
Seventy years ago, 6 per cent. of the population of this country were of retirement age. In 1956, 15 per cent. of the population were of retirement age. Last year, 20 per cent. of the population were of retirement age. It is estimated that by 1981 40 per cent. of the population of this country will be of retirement age. These developments create a problem which will put a great strain on our economy and unprecedented claims on our medical and hospital services. There is urgent need for a special Government Department to deal with these new problems which are constantly arising, and will always be with us, due to the increase in the expectation of life.
Every day, 1,000 additional elderly people reach retirement age. It is essential that we look at this problem in depth. We must have a good look at the whole question of the age of retirement. In some cases, it will be necessary to lower the retirement age, and in others, to raise it. In industries like steel, coal mining and heavy chemicals it will, I suggest, be important to lower the age of retirement. In light industries and in clerical activities, the retirement age could well be raised. There is no medical ground for the present arbitrary retirement age.
Bearing in mind that it is likely that 40 per cent. of our population will be of retirement age by 1981, we have to consider the massive drain on our labour force which this will entail. Often enough, arbitrary retirement leads to arbitrary death. We are losing the talent, craftsmanship, skills and wisdom of hundreds of thousands of good people who have no need to retire and who want to continue to do useful work for the community. A growing proportion of our national wealth will have to be allocated to deal with the problem of retirement.

1179
We need new facilities for training retired people so that they may still, in a part-time capacity, do useful work. A lot of this kind of advice is being given on a voluntary basis in many localities. Many progressive authorities have established amenities and facilities for elderly people, but many more do very little for them.
There is the problem of illnesses which arise from old age—near deafness, difficulty with eyes and feet, diabetes, arthritis, and rheumatism. We do not do enough research into the illnesses of old age. We tend to treat the problem as a social nuisance rather than as one which must be considered in depth to see how we can help older people to enjoy a happy and secure evening of life. Far too often hundreds of thousands of old people retire unwillingly. They suffer from loneliness and often go into the wilderness of poverty and ill health. The miserable lives which they lead can be avoided by proper planning and an extension of local authority services. If necessary, mandatory legislation should be introduced to make the best services the average in local authorities.
My proposed Bill covers many aspects of the problem of retirement and old age, and I hope that the House, which is always generous in these matters, will grant me leave to introduce it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Edwards, Miss Lestor, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Ashley, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Prescott, Mr. Milne, Mr. W. T. Williams, and Mr. Leonard.

CARE OF THE ELDERLY
Bill to create a public department with special responsibilities for advising and assisting elderly persons; to extend and improve the services provided by local authorities for elderly persons; to amend the law regarding the age of retirement from employment; and to make other provisions for the care of the elderly, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 163.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [17TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

  ROYAL NAVY
  3.54 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): It might be appropriate to start our annual debate on the Royal Navy by reminding hon. Members that this year they have already approved
  "that 87,000 officers, ratings and Royal Marines be maintained for naval service for the year ending on 31st March 1972."
  It might be thought in some quarters that the debate will serve very little useful purpose, but I believe there are advantages in having a debate slightly outside the restrictions of an Estimates debate.
  The figure of 87,000 is 3,000 fewer than the previous year. However—and I should like to lay particular stress on this point—hon. Members should be aware that this does not indicate any easing of our requirements for recruits. Manpower is the major problem we face today, and I intend to devote much of my speech to this aspect.
  The Royal Navy has its own particular difficulties to overcome in competing for recruits, with the arduous conditions afloat and the effect of sea-going service on home life. Demographic trends will make the position more difficult and so will the desire for further education and the raising of the school leaving age to 16. Some 65 per cent. of naval recruits come in at present at this age or earlier.
  There has been much talk recently about manpower shortages and the inability to meet commitments with the consequent stretch on both ships and personnel. I would not pretend that we have all the resources we need. That is no new factor. There is some degree of undermanning in the Navy as in the other Services and the steaming time for destroyers and frigates has steadily increased in recent years from 19,000 miles

  1181
  per year per ship in 1955 to 39,000 in 1970.
  But we must keep this in perspective. The fact is that the Navy—after the disastrous shortfalls to recruitment in 1967 to 1969 under the previous Administration—now appears to be improving its position in the manpower market and there has been an encouraging upturn of just over 20 per cent. in recruiting in the last 12 months. But we shall need to go on doing as well for several years before the lost ground is made up.
  However, we believe it can be done. The Government clearly stated their intention to remove the uncertainty of earlier years to give proper priority to defence needs, and to afford proper recognition of the part that the Services play in the general life of the community. This, I am sure, will prove an important factor to recruitment.
  The various decisions on defence policy and equipment made by this Government have had a particular impact on the Royal Navy. I believe their effect has been to enhance the future rôle of the Service, restore a sense of purpose and increase the opportunities available to the personnel on which so much depends. Together with the liberalised engagement structures and improvements in conditions to which I shall refer later, the foundations are being laid for a lasting recovery such as we need to ensure that the Royal Navy will be adequately manned in the future and continue to meet its commitments.
  Perhaps the most significant of the changes in defence policy welcomed by the Navy has been the decision to retain a number of ships east of Suez. As a seafaring nation, we have traditionally looked to the Senior Service to play its major part in the protection of our trade. This calls for a worldwide capability which was implicit even in the policy of the previous Administration to concentrate resources towards N.A.T.O. We think it realistic to recognise this commitment in concrete terms.
  In addition to providing a valuable component of the five-Power naval forces in the Singapore and Malaya area, they will be able to exercise with the Commonwealth and other navies and visit many areas of the Indian and Western Pacific
  1182
  Oceans. The operational benefits of such training go without saying. But the political influence that such ship visits could bring should not be underrated. These demonstrate our concern in matters outside our own waters. A good ship visit can also bring home the high standards of equipment and professionalism in the British Navy. It is not out of place to mention the secondary benefits in respect of naval sales for which orders were received each year since 1969 to the tune of over £100 million pounds; and future prospects are as good.
  The general political influence that can be brought to bear in an area by even a relatively small naval presence is well illustrated by the increased Soviet naval activity world wide. This relatively new feature of Soviet strength is not by chance. They have learned the lesson from experience in Mediterranean waters and as far off as Cuba that without naval power freedom of action at long distance is necessarily limited. It is perhaps a little sad with our great traditions that we were in some danger of forgetting the lessons that we have brought home to others.
  The maintenance of the Polaris force as a fully effective and powerful contribution to the Western nuclear strategic deterrent is of first importance. The presence of this force represents a magnificent industrial and Service achievement, and the contribution by its crews and support personnel, cannot be over emphasised.
  The Government have also made it clear that we shall continue to attach paramount importance to our contribution of our forces with the N.A.T.O. alliance. Among the Western European nations, the Royal Navy has a unique contribution to make to the force and thinking of the alliance. This is not diminished by the decision to retain a number of ships east of Suez which will still be earmarked for N.A.T.O. They will, of course, be under the operational command of the Commander-in-Chief, Western Fleet who has now assumed—earlier this month—responsibility for the Far East Fleet command in anticipation of the end of the rundown in the area. The decision to retain "Ark Royal" will add significantly to our N.A.T.O. capabilities, and the future cruisers are expected to have a vital rôle in the

  1183
  command and control of N.A.T.O. maritime forces.
  It is important to realise, however—and this is the essential difference between this Government's thinking and that of the previous administration—that there is no magic dividing line north of which a threat to our security can come and south of which it can be disregarded. I am glad to say that there is evidence that these views too are beginning to be recognised by our allies.
  It is essential, in our view, to have the capability with our allies to meet at all levels—and world wide if necessary—any threat to our trade highways. That is not to say that such a positive military threat exists at present but it is perfectly possible that one could arise and it would be foolhardy not to provide for the future should, for example, the Suez Canal be opened or the Soviets manage to establish permanent bases in the Indian Ocean and elsewhere.
  I suggest that it is as much for the latter purpose as any other that the increasing presence in the Indian Ocean of Russian ships is taking place, and the battle is really one—at the moment—for general political influence of the countries concerned. But this is not the end of it—the military advantages that can be gained through such influence, of course, will be significant. We must be equally ready to demonstrate our presence and ability to defend with our allies our rights of free passage, and to provide assistance to our friends, if necessary. They, of course, have welcomed our decision.
  Nearer home, the rôle of the Royal Navy is always easier to see. In home waters the Navy continues to protect British shipping and fishing interests. The Royal Navy has also made a contribution in its own way to keeping the peace in the tragic situation that we are faced with in Northern Ireland by the maintenance of patrols against gun running. The Royal Marines have, of course, performed valuable infantry tasks in the Province.
  In peacetime it is not all a question of maintaining patrols and training for situations which we hope will never arise. The Royal Navy also gets involved in a wide variety of humanitarian and other tasks. Hon. Members will recall the major tragedy of last year in East Pakistan where the Navy was able to assist in a
  1184
  major way in providing some relief. The "Triumph" and "Intrepid", with the survey ship "Hydra", helicopters of No. 847 Squadron, and the L.S.L. "Sir Galahad", played a significant part in bringing relief to some of the more remote areas affected by this catastrophe. To quote rather an unusual source, an Army captain who gave up some leave to assist with the relief work mounted from "Intrepid", he said:
  "The L.C.M.s, captained by R.M. Colour Sergeants, carried about 70 tons of stores and provisions wherever they were required to go. Their crews worked seemingly non-stop throughout the whole operation and probably contributed more to its success than any other single body. The responsibility accepted by the Skippers and the way they lived up to it, deserved the highest praise."
  Hon. Members will be aware that this is praise indeed from a member of another Service.
  One more outstanding example of the Navy's contribution in peacetime was the surveying of an alternative route in the English Channel last month so as to allow ships to avoid the hazards caused by the wrecks off Folkestone. This is perhaps the right juncture to pay tribute to the work of the Hydrographer and the Survey Fleet for the huge contribution that they make for the safe passage at sea of British ships and those of other countries.
  There is, therefore, no question of the vital part that the Navy has, and will continue to have, in the security of this country and its many interests overseas.
  I would now like to turn to the means that we have of fulfilling our commitments. I have earlier referred to the criticism there has been of stretch in the Royal Navy and an inability to meet our commitments. There is no doubt of the impression that has been left by cuts and reduced manning levels in recent years—so vividly reflected in the bad recruiting years of 1967 to 1969. All this, of course, is quite wrong; we are still very much a major naval power—indeed the largest naval power in Western Europe. The strength of the Fleet today comprises over 200 vessels, the majority of which are significant fighting units; and five times this number in ancillary craft. Apart from the United States and the Soviet Union, it is unmatched.
  It is always true, of course, that we could use more ships if we had them,

  1185
  and we are keeping in commission a number of frigates which were due to be phased out in the next year or so. This will add to our total declaration of ships to N.A.T.O. in a category where the AD70 studies are showing a particularly significant shortage; and it will also help towards maintaining our enhanced presence east of Suez. Furthermore, our new construction and future fleet plans will bring into service ships with new weapons. with greater firing power than we have ever possessed before, and, as important, the need for less men to man them. The Type 42, for example, will only require approximately 60 per cent. of the complement of the present county class destroyer and the new frigates and cruisers some 80 per cent. of former equivalent types.
  However, there are deficiencies in our naval equipment. There is a difficulty about the Fleet's surface to surface capability which we plan to overcome by running on "Ark Royal" so that her aircraft may complement the support provided by shore based aircraft to naval forces at sea. There have also been problems in torpedo development.
  The House has been informed on several occasions—most recently by my noble Friend in the course of the Defence debate in March, of the future fleet package and weapon programmes, and I shall not elaborate on these further now although I shall be happy to do so if hon. Members wish in the course of winding up. But briefly, the main components will be the new frigates—the general purpose work horses who will succeed the Leanders in the building programme. They will be complemented with the Type 42 guided missile destroyers with their Sea Dart surface-to-air missile.
  The third vital component will be the through deck cruiser which will provide a significant increase in our antisubmarine capability with Sea Kings embarked, command and control facilities for major naval forces and area air defence with Sea Dart. This will also be the means of providing organic V/STOL air support to the Fleet if a decision is taken to deploy aircraft of this type at sea.
  At this stage I should like to make special mention of the Sea King helicopter. I have flown several times in this aircraft and can vouch for its remarkable qualities. The Fleet Air Arm
  1186
  have nothing but praise for its effective and relatively maintenance-free operation.
  We shall see the results of this programme beginning to emerge fairly soon. Four Type 21s are already under construction—the first, H.M.S. "Amazon", was launched by Her Royal Highness Princess Anne last week and tenders for two more are being invited. The first Type 42 Guided Missile Destroyer, H.M.S. "Sheffield", is being built by Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness, and Hon. Members will have heard about the fatal explosion aboard this ship last Friday and will wish to join me in extending sympathy to the relatives of the two workmen who were killed. An investigation into the cause of the incident is taking place, and I hope that the completion date of the ship will not be affected. The indications at present are that the launching by Her Majesty The Queen next month will go ahead as planned. Tenders for four more Type 42s are being examined.
  Design work on the new frigate is continuing, and as we have already announced, the sketch design for the cruiser has been agreed and design contracts will be placed shortly.
  Design work is also in hand on the new class of mine counter-measure vessels which will use glass reinforced plastic in their hull construction.
  Mr. John Morris: The hon. Gentleman is obviously going over very familiar ground. All these matters were planned during the course of the Administration of which I was a member. Why has there been this increase in the Type 21 frigate? Is it because of a delay in the completion of the design of the new type frigate?
  Mr. Kirk: No, it is merely to get the balance right. If the right hon. Gentleman had waited a little longer, I should have come to the passage in my speech in which I pay tribute to him for what he has done. Perhaps I had better omit that passage.
  A prototype of existing design but using the new material, glass reinforced plastic, is already under construction—H.M.S. "Wilton". This new technique will be of great significance for this type of vessel and has attracted a deal of foreign attention.

  1187
  In all, there are at present 19 vessels under construction in British yards for the Royal Navy, which, with two just delivered, total £180 million in value of which some £20 million is in Scottish yards. In addition to those I have already mentioned, this work includes five nuclear powered fleet submarines and completion of H.M.S. "Bristol".
  The dockyards too have a formidable programme of work, including the highly specialised nuclear submarine refits, the conversion of H.M.S. "Hermes" for the amphibious rôle, and the adaptation of a number of Leanders to use Ikara.
  A significant feature of the new construction programme is the closer involvement of shipbuilders at the early planning and design stages. The Type 21 is the first commercially designed fighting ship taken into service in the Royal Navy since the 1930s. But also much of the design work on the Type 42 and the cruiser to come will be carried out by industry. I am sure that the House will acknowledge that this is a healthy trend to spread the expertise necessary for the sophisticated weapon ship systems of the future across industry and Government establishments.
  Mr. John Cronin: Hon. Members will have been interested to hear the Minister's account of the construction of the Type 42 and the Type 21. They can undoubtedly fight aircraft and submarines. Can they fight other ships of the same size or smaller ships—in other words, have they got ship-to-ship missile equipment?
  Mr. Kirk: They are perfectly capable of taking on other ships of the same size or smaller. I was saying that we are spreading the expertise necessary for this type of system across industry as well as Government establishments. This places greater demands on the shipbuilders than hitherto, but they have begun to meet the challenge well.
  This imaginative shipbuilding programme is being matched by the development of new sophisticated weapons—Sea Wolf to succeed Sea Cat in close air defence for example; Sea Dart, the medium range ship launched surface to air guided missile, with some surface-to-surface capability, to succeed Seaslug for
  1188
  area air defence; Ikara, an all-weather quick reaction weapon system capable of engaging all types of submarines with a torpedo at long ranges. Work on equipments such as improved sonars, radar, tactical data handling and improved communications facilities is also continuing.
  The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) has reminded me that much of this equipment was put in hand before June of last year. If hon. Members opposite claim credit for that, they must also accept responsibility for a legacy of a serious gap left in our surface-to-surface capability, now met by the decision to retain "Ark Royal" and undertake negotiations for the French Exocet surface-to-surface guided weapon; and with a torpedo programme which it would be kinder not to refer to, though I fear I must.
  Mr. Maurice Foley: What was done about introducing new torpedoes between 1951 and 1964?
  Mr. Kirk: I am talking about what was done between 1964 and 1970, when the gap in our torpedo defence became a yawning one and when a series of mistakes was made of which hon. Members opposite are only too well aware.
  Increased resources have been allocated to the Mk. 24 torpedo programme, both in terms of money and men; industry is being more deeply involved, and I am glad to say that development is now going well. There is every reason to believe that a successful weapon will emerge in the forefront of contemporary developments elsewhere. Advance modifications are already under study to increase its capability to match submarine development expected within the next decade.
  Hon. Members will also be aware from my hon. Friend the Minister of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 8th April, 1971 that we have had to cancel the Mark 31 light weight torpedo development.. This was to have replaced the Mark 44 on an interim basis pending the development of a longer term weapon. The story was very much the same as in the Mk 24 programme, of inadequate appreciation of the difficulties involved in the development of torpedoes today, which are as much guided weapons as

  1189
  their more celebrated contemporaries in other environments. Development had taken so long that the Mark 31 would not have been adequate to meet the threat when it was eventually brought into service. It has been decided, therefore, to concentrate our resources on the longer term project which should adequately match the threat of the 1980s. We shall also consider the possibility of acquiring the American Mark 46 torpedo in the interim, but this will depend on whether appropriate arrangements can be made.
  I would agree, if hon. Members opposite wish me to, that the difficulties in keeping pace with technology and looking a decade ahead in order to meet the threat with the right results in time, is an enormous one, but we hope to learn from past mistakes. My right hon. Friend has already mentioned that we have set up an internal enquiry into the history of the Mark 31 torpedo project to see what lessons can be drawn for the future. Moreover, it is relevant to note that some £50 million will be spent by the Navy Department in 1971–72 on research and development, a substantial part of which will be allocated to underwater R. & D.
  I turn now to less glamorous but none less essential area of support for the Fleet. It is a truism that the fighting arm of any Service is only as good as its support and base facilities will allow. For the Navy this primarily means the Royal dockyards and fleet maintenance bases. The modernisation programme is continuing and improvements are being made in all levels of management to ensure that these facilities are more capital intensive in the future.
  A major step forward was taken in this last year with the signing of productivity agreements in all four home dockyards, and here I would like to pay tribute to the constructive way in which both local management and the trade unions got together to negotiate the terms of these agreements.
  A word about the Royal Marines. The 3rd Commando Brigade, which has been overseas continuously since the last war, is being withdrawn from the Far East this year, and its primary task in future will, like the amphibious ships, be the support of N.A.T.O. By the end of this year the Commando forces will be
  1190
  concentrated in the South-West of England, except for 45 Commando Group now stationed in Arbroath where they are able to undertake mountain and arctic warfare training for their primary role in the Northern flank of N.A.T.O.; and 41 Commando Group which will be deployed in Malta.
  I have recently had the pleasure of visiting several of the Royal Marine establishments and can testify to their high degree of training and enthusiasm for the varied and specialised tasks that make up their rôle.
  I turn now to personnel. It is no good having the best material means if we cannot find the men to match them. I have earlier referred to the welcome upturn in recruitment this year. If we are to maintain this improvement, increased attention is necessary to ensure that we are competitive as regards pay and that our engagement structures and conditions of service also keep pace.
  As regards pay, the military salary introduced last year has removed many of the old grievances in this respect and established an important and relevant comparison with working standards. My own observations in going around the Fleet have borne out that the Services have welcomed the new pay code. The process of job evaluation continues, in preparation for the next substantive review.
  But pay is not enough. If we are to achieve our object of a truly voluntary and highly professional force, we must also ensure that the engagement structures and conditions of service are right. These are interdependent to a great degree.
  I would not wish to disguise the fact that Naval service afloat is arduous and at times uncomfortable. It also involves long periods of separation at times, although these are less now than in previous years. These create problems both for the married and unmarried man, although the married man's problems are undoubtedly greater. This has tended in the past perhaps to give rise to the criticism that those who enter the naval service find it more difficult than perhaps those in the other two Services to get out when their enthusiasm wanes. But we have been faced with the dilemma of

  1191
  keeping men in Service for a greater part of their engagement than we would like or letting them go at the expense of being unable to man our commitments.
  This is no new situation. The other day I came across a letter which in 1745 Thomas Corbett, the then Secretary of the Admiralty, wrote to Admiral Vernon saying:
  "Their Lordships command me to acquaint you that They are as much averse to the present method of pressing as any man can be and wish some better method was established to man His Majesty's ships. But till the legislature has done so, Their Lordships think it Their duty and also of all His Majesty's officers to exert Their utmost diligence to procure men to serve His Majesty at sea, according to the present methods, how disagreeable soever they may be, and not to expose the nation to danger for reasons of private tenderness."
  The method of recruitment is different these days but the predicament is the same.
  Undoubtedly the situation has changed tremendously over the years and it is continuing to change, but I must emphasise—indeed, I do not think I can over-emphasise—that the impetus for this change comes from within the Service itself just as much as from outside influences. It is generally recognised within the Navy that the best interest of the Service itself will be served by a much more liberal attitude towards the "reluctant sailor". I have been much impressed and greatly heartened since I have been in this office by the extent to which I have found that senior Naval officers and staff within the Admiralty are resolved to press ahead with improvements in this field.
  One of our major sources of concern has been the boy entrant. I, like Labour right hon. and hon. Members when they were responsible have never been able to take the view that our policy was morally right. Over the years a number of working parties and committees have studied the position, and these culminated in the Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Donaldson, appointed by the previous Administration, which reported last autumn. As the House will know, the recommendations of the Committee were accepted almost entirely by the Government. The only significant exceptions were that we could not reasonably adopt different principles for boys who joined
  1192
  as apprentices from those applicable to the remainder.
  Under the new arrangements from 1st April this year a boy who joins the Navy before the age of 17½ may, when he reaches the age of 18, opt either to confirm his original engagement or to serve for three years from the age of 18 or from the end of his training, whichever is the later. Thus, all new boy entrants will, if they wish, be able to leave the Service in their early twenties. This should largely resolve the problems experienced in the past.
  Changes are also being made in respect of adult entry. We have extended the scheme for a four-year engagement from the Seaman and Electrical Mechanical Branches, where it was being tried as an experiment, to all the non-technician branches of the Navy and Royal Marines, and all adult entrants—other than technicians—who join the Service after the age of 17½ are now able to choose an engagement with an option point after four years if they so wish. The number of adults entering the technician branches is not very great, and we shall be examining ways in which we can adjust their minimum length of engagement.
  We also intend, as hon. Members are aware, to implement the Donaldson Committee's recommendations regarding discharge by purchase for the Royal Navy. Unfortunately, as the Committee itself recognised, it will be necessary to phase the application of this recommendation over a period, and we have decided to reduce the length of service qualification for approval of discharge by purchase by some six months every year to bring the Royal Navy and Royal Marines into line with the other Services not later than 1977. The Navy has been criticised for not coming into line straight away; but we have to face the facts of the situation. We are moving fast—very fast—in the direction of a truly voluntary force, but it would be foolish to risk our aims by pushing this to extremes. We must ensure that all the various planned improvements are kept in step, but I can undertake that if the manpower position proves to be such that we can advance on 1977 we shall do so—and no one will be happier, than the Navy itself. Indeed, for some time now the minimum length of service necessary to qualify for discharge has been gradually brought

  1193
  down when the position has been brought under quarterly review. Just over 2,000 discharges have been allowed in the last year.
  I have dwelt on the special demands that service in the Royal Navy can make on a man, and some of the measures being taken to remove past criticisms. But there is another side to the coin. Life may be a little hard at times, but the Navy has tremendous opportunities to offer, including first-class training, a responsible and challenging job and all that life at sea around the world can offer.
  I announced on 3rd March two new measures by which we hone to attract more young men of good degree potential as officer entrants. The first was to extend the existing university cadet scheme into a major source of entry; the second was to make full use of the new degree course in systems and management recently announced by the City University, to offer young seamen and supply and secretariat officers the opportunity at the end of their midshipman training to take a vocationally-slanted degree course. The course, which is due to start in the autumn of 1972, will also be open to those who apply for university cadetships. By this means we hope that all young men of degree ability who are attracted to the Royal Navy as a career will be encouraged to satisfy both their educational and vocational ambitions.
  These new measures are somewhat different from those envisaged by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) in the last year's Navy Estimates debate. The decision to increase the U.C.E. entry altered the scale of the previous concept and we no longer thought it necessary or appropriate to try to evolve a degree course which all naval students attended in the foundation year irrespective of whether they intended to complete the full course or not. We have, however, continued to be closely associated with the City University over the syllabus for its new degree which will cover decision-making and organisation in the fields of Government, technology and elsewhere in the modern society. This will suit our purposes very well.
  Notwithstanding these added inducements to recruitment we cannot afford to be complacent. With shorter engage-
  1194
  ments we must continue to improve relationships and conditions within the Service and induce men to stay. This is the essence of the concept of a voluntary service. The long-serving men provide the backbone of the Service from which we take the petty officers, chief petty officers and warrant officers who play such an important part in the management of the Service.
  The sailor is prepared to accept the discomforts that are part and parcel of his chosen way of life—so long as he feels that they are recognised and understood. This is certainly the case now. Constant efforts are made to improve habitability, and the aim is to increase living space by 20 per cent. in the new ships, but inevitably there are limits to what can be done in a fighting ship. Financial rewards or benefits, even though modest, do demonstrate to the sailor that discomfort has been recognised. Such recognition has been given. For example, men who have to pay for their food and accommodation ashore are not required to pay when on board. Hard-lying money is paid in recognition of particularly adverse conditions in the older or smaller ships.
  Minor irritations and menial tasks can play an undue part in influencing a man against staying on. These, too, are being looked at. Rules and regulations are necessary to any disciplined service—as are the duties essential to the good housekeeping of a ship—but we want to cut out those which are unnecessary. We are, for example, reducing menial tasks to the minimum by the use of mechanical aids, and at shore establishments by the increased employment of civilians as in the other two Services. We are also seeking to improve communications up and down the chain of command so that management is more readily aware of those items which the ratings consider to be irritating trivia, and particular emphasis has been placed on the Divisional System.
  Additionally, a new publication, the Board Bulletin, has been produced and will be used to keep the Fleet informed of the Admiralty Board's thinking on important topics. I should also mention here the Navy News, the Navy's own, very well-produced newspaper, which provides a valuable independent news source to both men and families.

  1195
  The problems of the married man and his family figure largely in the attention we are giving to re-engagements. These are brought about by separation, the uncertainty caused by frequent postings, and the unsettled service life with no opportunity to put down roots into a community. These cannot, of course, be overcome completely, but much has been done and is being done to make life more acceptable. Adequate housing must be high on the list so that families are not unnecessarily separated while the sailor is not actually serving at sea. We are increasing the number of married quarters by 3,000 by 1975, and our ultimate objective will be to ensure that families may move direct from one quarter to another when a sailor is drafted from one United Kingdom station to another, although it will be some considerable time before this objective is achieved. Long-service ratings are also assisted in the purchase of their own houses if they wish to establish their families, and both officers and ratings can obtain help with house purchase as an aid to resettlement.
  We are also currently examining leave allowances in the Royal Navy, to see whether it will be possible, by making adjustments within the total entitlement, to provide the sailor with more time to spend with his family, and entitlement to separation allowances has been extended recently to a greater number of men, including those serving ashore in the United Kingdom.
  However, the basic problem of the day-to-day uncertainty felt by both officers and ratings about future movements is more difficult to tackle. Unfortunately, changes in ships' programmes are frequently necessary to meet operational requirements or particular maintenance problems, and even a small change can have repercussions for several ships, which will ultimately affect a large number of men. We are looking at a number of points which may reduce this uncertainty without affecting the overall operational capability of the Fleet. The introduction of the continuous commission will also help in reducing turbulence in drafting.
  Lastly on this score, one further item is essential in our efforts to look after the families: the provision of an effective welfare service. The Navy has now had
  1196
  a welfare service for many years. In recent years the preventive aspects of this welfare work have expanded and it has been our intention to try and catch potential welfare problems before they develop rather than to try to clear them up afterwards. To this end community centres and creches have been and are being provided on naval married quarters estates and community officers and other staffs appointed to assist in their running. In a number of cases experienced welfare workers have been appointed as preventive welfare officers. In this work the staff are always in close touch with the local authorities concerned.
  Despite these advances, however, we do not wish to find ourselves left behind by the general advances of welfare in the United Kingdom as a whole. We have, therefore, decided that the time is ripe for a detailed study of our welfare organisation by an outside expert. Arrangements are being made for such a study and I hope that the report will indicate those areas in which we can make some improvement in the service we offer. I am not able to give the name of the person who is doing that today. I hope to be able to announce it fairly shortly.
  For those who do stay in the Service the opportunities for advancement have been increased. Perhaps the biggest change is the introduction of the warrant officer into the Navy. The first selection of nearly 400 ratings has already been made and it is gratifying to see some C.P.O's. as young as 34 being successful. These men will be known as fleet chief petty officers, and be analogous to warrant officers Class I in the Army with equivalent pay and status—a step long overdue for those posts which carry responsibilities in excess of the average C.P.O. posts.
  A number of other changes are being introduced to improve the selection for advancement at all levels with greater weight being attached to merit. The increasing sophistication of shin equipment places greater call for higher education and expertise not only in management but at the work face, reflecting an increasing demand for senior ratings of the right calibre.
  An example of this is in the submarine service. The 25 per cent. of ratings, which used to be the usual ratio as senior ratings in conventional submarines, has

  1197
  risen to 40 per cent. in the nuclear submaries. There has been an increase in surface ships but to a less marked extent.
  For the ambitious young sailor, therefore, there is increasing opportunity to get to the top of his branch and reasonably quickly. The most able ratings of course can be recommended for promotion to officer rank under the Upper Yardman Scheme, or in later years to the Special Duties List. A total of 32 ratings were promoted in this way in 1970–71 and the number of recommendations is rising.
  For all this, however, I am under no illusion that we have an easy task ahead. The risks we face in reforming the engagement structure are well appreciated. These risks will be specially marked in the short term and, if we are unsuccessful in our aim to make it attractive for men to continue in service by the improvement of conditions of service I have described, we shall undoubtedly see the effects of this failure accruing progressively throughout the mid and late 1970s.
  Having sounded this warning, I am clear that the path we have chosen to follow is the right one. A mere continuation of the previous policies will do nothing to solve the long term problems of the Service and would ultimately result in problems which would be more rather than less intractable than those we foresee arising from our present course.
  Against this there can be no doubt that if we achieve our ultimate objective of a truly voluntary force which is widely recognised as one which is hard to enter but few wish to leave, we shall have achieved something that is really worthwhile and which well may be self perpetuating. Forces of this nature would be the envy of most other countries of the world.
  To my mind the choice before us is to continue as we have done in the past, recognising that this could ultimately lead to a failure of the voluntary concept or to strike out now, to take the steps necessary to establish the basis of a truly voluntary force and to do everything that can reasonably be done to minimise the attendant risks. I am sure we will have the full support of both sides of the House in following the choice we have made.
  1198
  I have dealt at length with the Naval manpower situation. It would be appropriate to end with a statement on our reserves. A thorough review of our reserve requirements has shown that apart from some small additions to improve the effectiveness of the Royal Marine Commando forces committed to N.A.T.O., the Navy's reserves are adequate under full mobilisation conditions.
  We are having to give attention, however, to making arrangements for the early selective recall of some reservists during a period of tension when warlike operations are in preparation or progress. This will include the activation of a "special class" with this liability within the Royal fleet Reserve formed from men who recently have completed their active service. Some formal amendment to existing legislation for other classes of Reserve may be required as our planning develops.
  The Guardian in a leading article headed
  "Where is the Navy going?"
  suggests that the House ought to make today's debate on the Navy into:
  "…a searching test of the wakefulness of admirals."
  The dealings that I have had with admirals over the last ten months suggests that they are very wide-awake indeed. In the course of the last ten months I have visited virtually all the shore establishments in the United Kingdom and most of them overseas, over 40 ships and nearly all the Royal Marine establishments. As a result I am convinced that despite our problems we have in the Royal Navy an effective if small force of which this House and the country has every reason to be proud.
  4.35 p.m.
  Dr. David Owen: The Navy Estimates debates have changed their form this year, but traditionally this debate is one in which the differences between the two parties tend to be put aside and we speak more about what unites us. It is also an occasion when we can be rather more thoughtful about the rôle and possible future role of the Navy. Listening to the Under-Secretary dealing with the slow but steady measures of reform which he is undertaking—and which I like to think were

  1199
  undertaken when I was in his office—to ensure that the Service man's life in the Navy is made as tolerable as is possible within the obvious limits, which we understand have to be accepted in a life afloat. I am sure that the whole House would agree that his remarks are only to be welcomed.
  Over the years there has been a definite need to be more receptive to the needs of the man who is a volunteer in the Services. The voluntary spirit has to be ensured, and that means taking risks, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. We on this side established the Donaldson Committee and were extremely pleased that the Government accepted most of the major recommendations. It is not just quibbling when we criticise the decision not to give to the Navy the right to purchase discharge equivalent to that which operates in the Air Force and Army. We understand the difficulties.
  The argument which moved the Donaldson Committee to make that recommendation was that the reluctant Service man is a bad recruiter. The reluctant Service man inside the Service can be a focus of discontent. We often hear too much of the reluctant Service man and not enough of the happy Service man. I take what the Minister has said, that he intends wherever possible to hurry up the process, but 1977 is a long time before the Royal Navy comes into line with the other two Services.
  Quite rightly the Minister concentrated on the problems of manpower. When I held his office I never hid from the House my own concern about matching available manpower in the Navy to the existing fleet and the situation is now worse. This is not an occasion to dwell on the differences, which have been discussed on numerous occasions in this House, in the policies of the present Government over arms to South Africa nor the quite extraordinary stress they seem to place on the Indian Ocean. It is time that the House, the country and the Navy internally looked a little more honestly at the Navy's manpower situation.
  The Navy is unique in that, unlike any other Service, it is able, with a poor manpower situation, by changing its shape, still to retain an effective fighting force. Its options in improving the power and strength of the Navy with
  1200
  limited manpower are far greater than is available to the other two Services. When we were in Government it was clear to us that there had to be a substantial increase in recruitment if we were to maintain the existing establishment of the Fleet. The figures have been given in various White Papers. It is sufficient to say that we reckoned that the Navy would have to dramatically increase recruiting trends and we all welcome the increase that has taken place over the last two and a half years. We recognised that there had to be a marked increase in recruitment.
  The Navy traditionally has been extremely reluctant to take any measures to change the shape of the Fleet. The Minister mentioned that there were 200 vessels in the Navy. How many of them are operational? It is the operational figure which is important. I do not wish to continue the sterile debate about the number of hulls that there might be in the Navy. I argued when I was Minister, and I argue now that I am in opposition, that the effectiveness of the Navy cannot be judged by the number of hulls. It is the shape and overall coherence of the structure of the Navy which is important.
  When the "Ark Royal" was to be phased out of fixed wing flying in the middle of 1972, we believed that the manpower gap would have been temporarily closed. The present Government have adopted policies which have actively increased the manpower commitment. Although they postponed the second phase of redundancies in the Fleet Air Arm, at best, and for a fairly short time, it made available only about 1,600 extra men. The Government have undertaken a commitment to man "Ark Royal" until the end of this decade. I believe, and have said so on a number of occasions, that it is a mistaken decision militarily. It is, however, an impossible decision to achieve on current manpower projections.
  The Minister said that some frigates, previously to be scrapped, were being kept in service. It was about the only new factor which he announced. We should like to know the number of frigates, their names, and the total extra manpower commitment which they will involve. With these frigates having to

  1201
  be manned, plus the "Ark Royal" manpower commitment, I do not believe this can be done without changes elsewhere.
  Historically, Conservative Governments and the Navy have been reluctant to change the shape of the Navy. The House will remember that, after the refit of H.M.S. "Blake" she was commissioned, and then she was promptly put in mothballs within a week. The Minister's difficulty is that he must take a realistic view of future manpower trends and anticipate them. It will be no good his complaining in three years' time that he has not the manpower to man the ships for which the House has voted considerable sums of money for refitting, new equipment and overall effort. It is therefore time for the Minister and his colleagues on the Admiralty Board to consider the Navy's structure, shape and size.
  The prime need for the Navy is to shift the emphasis of the shape and structure of the Fleet towards submarines. I have said this before in Navy debates, but now that I have the greater freedom of speaking in opposition I can be much more categoric. Jackie Fisher tried to achieve this shift of emphasis many decades ago. It has always been resisted by a very strong and powerful section in the Navy which sees the structure of the Navy as being far too dependent on surface ships.
  The most urgent decision which needs to be reassessed is the present building rate of hunter-killer submarines. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite may truly say that when in office we reduced the hunter-killer building rate as part of the post-devaluation cuts. But many of us saw it only as a temporary reduction. The problem was then and is now to convince the Navy that if there is a shift in emphasis towards submarines economies will have to be made elsewhere. We are debating the Senior Service, or the Navy as I prefer to call it, at a time when it has almost exactly the same amount of financial resources allocated to it as was made available by the previous Administration. The Minister said nothing new either on equipment, ships building or ships planned. The reality of coming to power has convinced the Conservatives that they must live within the same financial restrictions as we did.
  1202
  The Minister made something of the problems of torpedoes. I doubt whether much is to be gained by carrying on a political argument on this matter. We are faced with a very serious situation. The Mark 24 torpedo ran into severe difficulties when we were in office. We instigated an investigation under Sir Roland Baker, and the information which it divulged is available to the Minister. He will be aware that at the time Ministers expressed considerable concern about the Mark 31. It therefore comes as a great surprise and causes us great concern to learn that the Mark 31 has been in difficulties and that the Government have felt it necessary to cancel it.
  There is something seriously wrong with the way in which we have approached the question of under-water weapons systems over the last decade. The lesson to be learned is that neither the Labour Government nor the Conservative Government allocated enough financial resources towards developing these extremely complicated weapons systems. I believe that it will be necessary to consider submarine armament in a completely new perspective. The concept of the guided weapon and the submarine-launched air flight missile will have to be given much higher priority. But that will take resources, and the Navy will be faced with the need to make a choice. It is no good arguing that the new hunter-killer submarines will be the capital ships of the future unless the Government are prepared to make available the resources necessary to equip them with an effective missile system. I believe the highest priority should be given to this matter.
  The relevance of this subject to manpower will not have escaped the attention of hon. Members. It is clear that by expending more on submarines we can make do with much smaller manpower resources. This is the great advantage offered in making such a shift. It is necessary in terms not only of maritime strategy, but of the manpower which will be available in future. A decision on this matter will need to be made in the next few years. I do not say that it is the most immediate problem. Probably the most immediate problem is to sort out the question of submarine armament.

  1203
  Where else can the Navy look at its existing spending priorities? Given limited financial resources, the Navy will have to balance the priorities between the development of V/STOL aircraft at sea—and it is interesting to note that the Government have not made any decision on that matter—the development of surface-to-surface guided weapons, the development of under-water guided weapons systems and the development of an advanced helicopter-launched guided weapon. I am dubious about whether it will be possible for the Navy to have all four systems.
  The Government made the decision on Exocet too quickly. They announced it almost as if they were to purchase Exocet in a few months, but we have heard no more about it. Has there been a delay? Has the cost turned out to be greater than initially thought? Is there any doubt about its effectiveness? Are the Government satisfied that they have looked deeply enough at the question of British equivalents? Are they satisfied that spending money on it is the right priority?
  I was a strong believer in the application of V/STOL aircraft at sea. I do not believe that it is a justification for what has been called the "through deck cruiser", but it is a powerful addition to the armament of the through deck cruiser. The justification for building such a large ship—and I remind the House that large ships are becoming increasingly vulnerable—was the deployment of Sea King helicopters, to which the Minister paid tribute. This is an extremely effective anti-submarine weapons system and, some would believe, the most advanced of such systems in the world. There is clearly a need to have a number of helicopters on station at any one given moment. In the arguments for a ship of this size we looked carefully at the possibility of deploying Sea King helicopters across a number of hulls so as to avoid having to build one large ship. All the studies came out convincingly in favour of putting them on to one ship.
  The Minister will be faced with the necessity of increasing capital costs for the through-deck cruiser and also with the problem of how many he needs to build. The lesson of aircraft carriers is
  1204
  that three is a minimum to ensure at all times one on deployment. If two are needed it is necessary to build four. This again will pose problems for the Navy.
  I am a fervent admirer of the Royal Marines, not just because they are situated in my constituency, although that influences me, but because their standard of equipment, their prowess and their skill are legendary. They also have good recruitment. I believe, however, that the Royal Marines should be prepared to diversify out, as they have diversified, for example, into Arctic warfare and mountain warfare. They should be careful about tying their future solely and completely to the Navy.
  I must raise the question of how we can continue to justify permanently embarked maritime marine forces. There is a need for an amphibious force and for an amphibious lift capability. I am less convinced of the need for permanently embarking a whole commando on ships, particularly when it means embarking them on large ships, usually converted aircraft carriers, so that this is their prime and often sole rôle and when the manpower needed to man those ships is almost equivalent to a one-to-one ratio, one sailor for one marine. In terms of an urgent manpower problem this is an area which will have to be looked at.
  I have always been attracted to the idea that if we are to build a large ship which is vulnerable unless it has adequate anti-submarine defences, which means an adequate number of Sea King helicopters, that ship should as far as possible have a multi-purpose rôle. There are always critics of the multi-purpose ship because it is believed that this will mean we get the worst of all worlds, but it is possible for those ships to carry a commando on overload conditions for at least six weeks. Looking at any credible scenarios of the need for an amphibious lift in the future, this could be maintained by such a flexible multi-purpose ship, and the Government will have to look into this.
  I believe that the Government will find that they cannot man H.M.S. "Ark Royal" throughout the 1970s and I hope that they will come to the House in two or three years' time, preferably before the next refit of H.M.S. "Ark Royal", which will cost a considerable sum, and

  1205
  say that they have decided it is better to forsake one carrier, which not even Government supporters believe is a credible force, and return the Phantoms to their previously assigned rôle, and save manpower there.
  Mention has been made of Type 42 H.M.S. "Sheffield", which is an extremely effective ship. Its effectiveness comes from the Sea Dart missile system which has an air defence capability as well as a limited surface-to-surface guided weapon capability. I have never been convinced that the wider application of the Sea Dart in a mini-version to the frigate has been looked at seriously enough. The Sea Wolf costs move upwards, and the demand for a new frigate has not yet been totally made out. The extremely effective Amazone Type 21 frigate is already in existence. This is an area where economies need to be looked for and I hope that the logistic advantages of having the same missile system will be looked at more seriously than hitherto.
  I am tending to look at the future of the Navy, but if these debates are to have meaning and are to be read and respected in the Fleet we must move away from party polemics and look to the future and raise issues in the Chamber which it is often difficult for a Minister to raise. Hon. Gentlemen opposite after their six years of instant Opposition now have to face reality in defence. This may mean that we shall move into an area where there is far more agreement than division on defence between the two sides of the House, and I do not object to that at all. We must make clear to the Services that the overall amount that we are prepared to spend means that they will have to choose. The problem with the Services is that they want a little of everything, and this danger may come up again with VSTOL aircraft. If they want the Harrier in its uprated version they must be careful not to price themselves out of the market, as they priced themselves out of the market in aircraft carriers. They may want ever-increasing sophistication and insist on a maritime version, but they will have to make do with the essentially land-based Harrier version with some minor changes.
  Looking to the future of the Fleet and its relationship to Europe, we have heard nothing more of the Anglo-Dutch frigate. This was an exciting concept
  1206
  where two Navies were to combine together to have a frigate identical in form. Two N.A.T.O. allies would have had a work-horse weapons system that had a major degree of commonality. I know the problems which are posed, but I hope that the Government will pursue, with the same political commitments as their predecessors, the objectives of such collaboration. The Dutch Navy is clearly the navy that offers the most opportunity for such European collaboration. It is extremely keen to collaborate and, almost without exception, its officers speak fluent English. There is a need for us to get together at the very early stages of the design of future warships in order to develop an Anglo-Dutch naval concept.
  The Americans must look at their present attitude to nuclear propulsion. I know that this is a sensitive subject, but I have a greater freedom in Opposition. The case for the Dutch Navy having some access to nuclear propulsion knowledge from its main N.A.T.O. ally the United States is overwhelming. For the Dutch to have hunter-killer submarines, even if they could afford only three or four, would be a valuable addition to the total number of N.A.T.O.'s hunter-killer submarines.
  I understand that the Government have maintained the capital modernisation programme for all four dockyards. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that there is no question of rephasing that capital expenditure. If the dockyards are to maintain their prime rôle as an efficient industry they must have the capital injection of which they have been deprived for decades. The need is urgent, particularly if they are to refit the new nuclear-powered submarines on time. This applies both to hunter-killers and, most importantly, to the Polaris submarines. If we are to advance the hunter-killer submarine building rate we shall need to bring forward the two-stream refitting nuclear submarine date for Devonport Dockyard, and this should be looked at and planned for now. The Minister knows that there is concern that the new shipbuilding slip at Devonport Dockyard is now empty. I hope that he will confirm that it is not the Government's intention to stop future new frigate construction in our dockyards.
  It is difficult without more details to comment on the Government's plan to

  1207
  change the in-service degree which it was announced to the House on two occasions would take place at Greenwich. I am glad that there will be a degree opportunity for all naval officers who wish to take it up. I believe that this is extremely important and not just in recruitment terms. It is important in relation to the wider exposure of Naval officers at a formative part of their careers.
  I think that a lot of the small measures which the hon. Gentleman spoke about relating to rating recruitment will greatly help. But I must come back to the fact that I think that the hon. Gentleman should look very carefully at the possibility of relaxing even further the ability for someone who is unhappy in the Service to get out. The Donaldson Report was extremely good, and I am glad that he has now followed it up with an investigation into Naval welfare.
  The key issue which faces the Royal Navy for the 1970s is to understand the essential element that manpower restraint need not be for the Royal Navy the restraint that it could be, and would be, for other Services, particularly the Army. The Navy can reshape; it can spend its money in a different fashion and one which has far less manpower commitment than hitherto. The Navy must avoid the problem it got into over the aircraft carriers during the 1950s and 1960s. This House has enjoyed itself in debates about aircraft carriers, which were turned into a party political issue, but the Conservative Party knows as well as we do that, when in office last, right hon. Members opposite had grave doubts about the carriers. Hon. Members opposite know that certain Service Ministers and others in the last Conservative Government opposed the carrier build and the continuation of the carriers. They did so because the Navy had priced itself out of the market and because this was affecting the whole shape and structure of the Navy.
  The difficulty in arguing for the shift of emphasis for which I have asked is that there are deep-seated vested interests which find it difficult to change the shape of the Navy, which has remained remarkably similar now over a couple of centuries. I believe that such a change is going to have to come about and that it is better that it should come at a time
  1208
  of the Government's own choosing, when they can make a realistic assessment of manpower, rather than in an emergency situation, when the Government may realise that they no longer have the men to man the Navy.
  The hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the Navy and its activities over the last year. We on this side echo his congratulations to the Navy on its service in many parts of the world in many types of arduous conditions. He referred to the Navy's role in East Pakistan. We saw there the effective contribution that our amphibious forces and vessels were able to make. It is in these sort of circumstances that a worldwide maritime rôle can be most effective.
  The hon. Gentleman would be in grave danger if he tried to project the Labour Party as not believing in a worldwide maritime rôle. Time and again, when in Government, we made it clear that we did see a worldwide rôle for the Navy, but our main emphasis has been to move away from fixed maritime bases towards relying on a float support, retaining at all times the greatest flexibility, whereby the Navy would be able to operate worldwide relying on its own resources. This is the unique contribution which the Navy can make, unlike any other Service. The Navy has that ability to sustain itself and the Government will give up that ability at their peril. In my view, the danger to the Navy has always arisen when it has become land-locked, when it has had to support vast ashore establishments, such as the one built up in Singapore throughout the 1950s and the early 1960s. The Navy has a contribution to make primarily, of course, to N.A.T.O. but also worldwide.
  The Polaris force has often been controversial but one should point out that the men who serve in it are at instant readiness for long periods of the year. They serve in arduous conditions and we on this side do not forget the contribution they make.
  We on this side cannot fail to remind the Government in this debate, as we have reminded them in the main defence debates, of the rôle they played in Opposition, when they indulged in destructive and often hysterical criticism, which was launched in defence debate after defence debate. This can never be the

  1209
  same again. The one thing which has occurred over the past year and the people who will gain most by this will be the three Services. Never again can the Conservative Party in opposition preach the same sort of doctrines of irresponsibility that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite preached day after day during the period of office of the last Government. Never again can they make attacks on the honour and integrity of right hon. and hon. Members on this side and be believed.
  One thing is clear to every defence correspondent. The humbug preached by the Conservative Party for the last six years is over. Right hon. and hon. Members now know the facts of life of defence. We all know that they are going to have to live within a restricted budget, and I believe that it is still possible to make some minor defence savings in the present defence budget. I believe that this House should be vigilant about defence matters and defence control but always be generous to the fighting Services for the arduous duties which they undertake on our behalf, worldwide.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Apart from the closing passage, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) remained fairly nonparty throughout his speech. He spoke with the advantage of recent office and with the perspective of Opposition. Once one gets away from these problems, there is no doubt that they appear a little different. He was much more interesting today than I used to find him when he spoke as a member of the Government. I am very glad that he has been converted to the idea of the hunter-killer submarines. I suppose that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over 99 just persons who need no repentance.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to talk of money limitations and the need for the Services to choose. I agree wholeheartedly. I go further. Having chosen, the Services must stick to their opinions. I remember visiting an aircraft carrier while it was being built—I believe that it was H.M.S. "Ark Royal". One gun mounting had been moved three times to slightly different positions and was
  1210
  about to be moved for the fourth time. That kind of thing exasperates the builders, and naval staff branches should not be allowed their will indefinitely.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he was an advocate of floating support. I was surprised, because that is by far the most expensive form of support. A system of fixed bases, which we have, unhappily, lost throughout the world, is much more efficient and very much cheaper. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on that.
  We shall read with interest my hon. Friend's detailed speech. I am sorry that, in the Defence White Paper, we were not given more detailed knowledge of the Royal Navy, and that makes our speeches today a little more difficult to make. For that reason, I want to deal more with the general strategic outlook than with the details of the naval programme. The first and salient point is the rundown of the Royal Navy. Those of us who have spoken in these debates over a score of years have found it noticeable. We have reached a manpower figure in the Royal Navy of 87,000, including 3,500 women, compared with 153,000 on Vote A in 1952–53. These figures give some idea of what has been lost. My hon. Friend said that this strength was still much more than that of other navies. But the French Navy has 72,000 men, so we are not very much ahead of France.
  I was glad to hear about the new ships being built, and when we come to consider the fleet of 1971 one or two things stand out. The first is that, for the purpose of showing the flag, the small ship fleet that we possess is very much less impressive than that of the Soviet Union or the United States, or of a great many other countries. From that point of view, we have to accept that it is not a very impressive force.
  When we come to hitting power, I am rather more alarmed about the absence of surface-to-surface weapons, especially when I read about the new type of Soviet missile, the Shaddock. It is extremely impressive, and it worries me that we cannot match it. I am also not sure about our surface-to-air missile, Sea Dart. A year ago, I visited the Sixth Fleet. I was shown a surface-to-air missile which had an enormous capacity and a very long range. It strikes me that

  1211
  here again there is a very serious gap in the hitting power of our fleet.
  When we come to the Polaris submarine, I should like to ask about the future position and whether there is a chance of our going on to Poseidon. But a very high priority should be given to providing a fifth Polaris submarine. With five, it must be possible always to have one or two on station. Four is not a very satisfactory number, nor is it the number that originally was intended.
  The dominant feature in the naval world today is the vast expansion of the Soviet Navy. Very few of us thought originally that it was likely to go as far as it has. When we remember that against our naval manpower of 87,000 the Russians have no fewer than 475,000 men, we get some idea of what a very effective naval power they have become. They have 80 nuclear submarines, 15 cruisers and two helicopter carriers built on the most modern lines. Then they have their Shaddock. Already, the United States Navy is no longer able effectively to cover our merchant shipping in all parts of the world, as was the case ten years ago.
  At one time, there was doubt about the role of the Royal Navy. I believe that it is very much easier to define it today than it was in the 1950s. It has to provide the deterrent. It has to protect our merchant fleet which, happily, in the last year or two has increased greatly. It has to provide a contribution to N.A.T.O.
  We cannot help being struck with the vulnerability of the N.A.T.O. forces to one kind of attack or another, from the North Cape up in the north, the outlet into the Atlantic, down to the Mediterranean in the south. When we look at the land position, N.A.T.O. forces are vulnerable in the North German plain and in the good tank country of the Danube Basin. In the time at our disposal today, it is impossible to consider all these places, but I hope that my hon. Friend will look at the position of Norway and the importance of a N.A.T.O. aircraft carrier being present in those waters.
  I want to devote the main part of my speech to the Mediterranean, as I have just returned from a visit to Turkey. We
  1212
  have to face the fact that the American Sixth Fleet was formidable in its time but is now an ageing fleet, and it is faced with a Soviet fleet which has more modern weapons systems.
  Although the Suez Canal is of less interest to Great Britain, it still remains of considerable interest to the Powers in the Mediterranean, especially Italy and France. What surprises me is the extent of the power of the Soviet Black Sea Fleet. It is true that the Russians have three other fleets, but the build-up of the Black Sea Fleet, according to the figures that we have been given, is quite remarkable. It cannot possibly be related to the naval problems of the Black Sea itself, nor to those of the Mediterranean. The only deduction possible is that it is there for some other purpose, possibly oil, and here we are very much affected. Alternatively, it may be because of the Russians' interest in the Indian Ocean, or possibly the hostility that they feel at times towards China. Probably it is a combination of all three factors.
  It should not be forgotten that in 1945 Stalin tried to get control of the Straits, and the Montreux Convention must still be an embarrassment to the Russians. It is true that they observe it very well, despite a little of the modern tendency to "go slow" in the Straits. But it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that it is the Indian Ocean with the reopening of the Suez Canal to Russian warships that is really their interest, which is leading to the build-up in the Black Sea and which, in turn, must make the Straits an added embarrassment to them.
  The hinge of N.A.T.O. and C.E.N.T.O. has become a more important place than it was. Although the Turks keep a very large army, it is not a very sophisticated one, and this is an area where we are extremely vulnerable. The Straits cannot be defended easily, and there are the North-East Provinces, which again the Russians demanded in 1945. The biggest obstacle of all in this area to the Russians' plans for oil is the absence of over-flying rights so that they can reinforce Egypt and their new Arab allies in the area. Once those over-flying rights were present, the whole situation in the Middle East would alter.
  In the light of these events, we have to look again at the role of the Royal

  1213
  Navy. I am the last to advocate that it can assume a very large rôle in the Mediterranean at present. That has to be left to the Americans and the Italians. But when we come to the Indian Ocean, whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may think, we have to consider the position more seriously, especially that of the Cape route which has been adopted so successfully by our merchant shipping and that of other nations which trade with Europe. There is no agreement to cover that part of the world. There is no means of dealing with the Soviet nuclear submarines in the area. Presumably there are no British hunter-killers there, and certainly the South African Navy has none. The N.A.T.O. forces refuse to accept any responsibility.
  We have to accept the altered balance. Our Navy has perforce been reduced very much in numbers. At the same time, for some reason or other, the power of the Soviet Navy has increased enormously. Regardless of whether we go into the Common Market, we have a huge merchant fleet, and we remain dependent for our food and raw materials on the fleet being able to operate. There are certain voids in present circumstances. But I hope that my hon. Friend will give priority to the hunter-killers, above all to the fifth Polaris submarine and, last but not least, try to rectify the gap in our surface-to-surface weapons.
  5.18 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: One of the several points on which I agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) was his plea for rather more detailed information about the Royal Navy than we have been given this year. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I how incredibly difficult it is to keep up to date on the details of the Navy when one is no longer in the centre of it. I remember as a Minister going back to the Navy after 19 years. Whenever I went round ships and looked at the weaponry, if I saw anything at all that I recognised, I used to stroke it with great affection and tell the authorities to have it scrapped.
  It is five years since I was the Minister responsible for this great service. I am certain that I am now totally out of date. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will think seriously about providing
  1214
  more detailed and accurate information than we are now getting from, say, the Navy League on occasions, or Jane's Fighting Ships.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Dorset, West and with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen)—I congratulate him on a very good opening speech for the Opposition—about the glaring gap in the weaponry of submarines. I shall not go back into inter-party recrimination. This has been going on not just for a decade, but since the war. We really have not got down to the problem of providing our submarines with effective weapons.
  As to the boats themselves, the O class is one of the best conventional submarines ever designed, and the hunter-killers, which had slight structural defects at one stage, are first-class boats or ships. I think that they are probably large enough to be called ships. But time and again submariners have said, "We have beautiful boats and ships, but nothing worth firing from them." They were referring, first, to torpedoes and, secondly, to the surface-to-surface weapons which the Russians have.
  The Minister told us what the Government are hoping to do to remedy these defects. However, I thought that he was a little vague. I understand that there is a possibility of something interim being done. The only interim things I remember with which we toyed were quite useless—a Scandinavian weapon, and a French weapon about which I am not very happy. I wish that we could buy the Russian surface-to-surface missile. That is very good indeed. Will the Minister go into more detail about the plans for improving the weaponry of our submarines, both surface-to-surface missiles and torpedoes?
  I remember that great efforts were made over the years to try to get right the shape of the Navy so that it could be expanded easily and conveniently whenever the need arose. But it seemed that one area where we were seriously defective was in terms of shins and boats equivalent to the fast patrol boats of wartime use. I think that we have only four fast patrol boats left, two of which are in moth balls.
  Partly as a result of this defect, in the confrontation in Indonesia the Navy had

  1215
  to rely to a considerable extent on coastal mine sweepers. Though not fitted particularly for this rôle, those ships did the job adequately and their crews behaved magnificently in a political military operation for which neither the Navy nor the Government of the day have yet received sufficient credit. It was one of the greatest political military operations in the history of the world. But we were handicapped by not having ships which could be effectively used for coastal forces.
  It seemed to me then, as now, that the ideal craft for that kind of job in the modern world was not the conventional fast patrol boat, but the hovercraft. Potentially it was ideal. It has tremendous speed—far quicker than anything else which moves over the surface of the water. I though that hovercraft would not only have a rôle in fast patrol, but possibly in mine sweeping with less danger, in landing troops on mined beaches and, indeed, in just the kind of operation which was recently carried out in East Pakistan by the L.C.Ms. I think that hovercraft would have been invaluable in that instance.
  I know that certain studies have been, made, and perhaps still are being made, by the Navy into the possibilities of using hovercraft. I should like to know how far those studies have gone, what is naval thinking about the use of hovercraft, and whether they will have a rôle to play in the Navy in the foreseeable future.
  Another gap which existed five years ago—I should like to know whether it still exists today—concerned fishery protection. When I was responsible for these matters I found that we were hopelessly short of vessels for this job. The few vessels which we had were being run so hard that they were continually breaking down. I wonder whether there has been any change in that sphere and whether the fishery protection squadron has been increased to do the very important job with which it is entrusted.
  The bulk of the Minister's speech was about manpower. This is a problem which the Navy and, indeed, all the other Services have had for a very long time. There was a tremendous setback after the 1957 White Paper and during our time in the middle 1960s. Since the war
  1216
  there have been setbacks and difficulties in getting recruits.
  Tremendous changes have been made in the attractiveness of naval life since the war. Generally speaking, living conditions both at sea and ashore used to be loathsome. They are now much better ashore and, especially in the new ships, they are becoming less vile than before.
  One of the biggest improvements since the war has been the quality of the food which sailors get. It is now first class. Many things have been done to make the Service more attractive—better living conditions, married quarters, and increasing possibilities of accompanied service.
  In my view, the problem is not only getting new recruits, but re-engagement. I am glad that that has increased, but it varies tremendously. Sometimes it is pressure from a wife which persuades a man not to re-engage. Sometimes they find that they simply cannot stand the Service. In such cases, I agree that, if possible, they should be let out. But often it is the feeling which we all have—that the grass is a bit greener on the other side of the hedge. Therefore, after nine years in the Service, a man will say to himself, "I am going to have a go at civilian life". It is perfectly understandable, especially when they are so highly trained. Employers queue up outside the depots to sign them on whenever possible because they are among the best trained men in the country.
  I think that having gone into civil life after nine years service in the Royal Navy a substantial proportion of these men are finding that life is not quite what they thought it might be. I had a long discussion with my opposite number in Holland on this subject and I found that the Dutch had a plan that was working remarkably well. When a man left the Service after his first engagement he received a polite letter from the Minister, or from the equivalent of the Second Sea Lord, thanking him for his services to the Netherlands Navy and saying that if there was anything the Navy could do to help him to get used to civilian life, he should just let the Navy know.
  That letter was followed a few months later by another letter saying, "We hope that you have settled down and got a nice job, a house, and so on, but remember, if there are any problems at all, come

  1217
  back to us". There was then a third letter about a month later saying, "By now you have seen what civilian life is like. We very much hope that you are enjoying it, but if by any chance you are not, please come back to us at your old rate". It meant losing seniority, but the man could go back at his old rate. The response to that was a 40 per cent. return by those who had gone out of the Service after nine years.
  I passed that information on to our Second Sea Lord's Department just before, with immense regret, I left the Admiralty. I hope that idea is being seriously considered and followed up because, having seen a bit of naval life, having seen a lot of civilian life, and having seen life—perhaps I should not say this—in the other Services, too, I am convinced that for a large number of people life in the Royal Navy is a good one, that it is a worth-while Service, and that it is a service which many people find satisfying. I hope that nothing will happen that will stop the Navy from doing its job properly. I wish it God speed.
  5.32 p.m.
  Dame Joan Vickers: I feel a little apprehensive about following the Minister and ex-Ministers in the debate, but I agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) about what happened in the Far East. I spent one or two days on a minesweeper going round the coast of Sarawak.
  One attends these Navy debates, with a feeling of frustration. Indeed, they are becoming rather a farce. One can always be proud of the Royal Navy, but we have to listen to the Minister saying what he is permitted to reveal. We have listened, too, to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) who spoke with his past knowledge of the Department, but there is little realistic that shadow Ministers or back benchers can say. Either we have heard everything of major interest through the newspapers, or the Minister places before us a few matters which he could have explained before the debate.
  I consider that these debates will not be realistic until we have a Defence Committee—about which hon. Members will recall there was an Early Day Motion—the members of which can be sworn to
  1218
  secrecy, by means of which hon. Members can get all the necessary information to enable us to have discussions with our allies in W.E.U. and elsewhere the real details of our defence policy.
  If we are going to spend 5·4 per cent. of our gross national product on defence it seems to me that we must decide which Service we require to build up. I suggest, not because I come from Devonport, that it should be the Royal Navy, and I should like to know whether the Ministry is investing public money wisely.
  We need a Navy in peace, as in war, to keep the sea lanes open and to be ready to help in bush fires and disasters, such as the floods in East Pakistan. I read in the Sunday Telegraph that the Navy is planning new classes of warships, including one of 40 ships to be made of glass reinforced plastic. I should like to know how far the planning stage has progressed.
  The article said that the building of these ships might provide work for the smaller shipyards. I hope they will include the Royal dockyards. I hope that the Minister will remember that recently in Devonport H.M.S. "Crystal" was built. She is a survey ship which will be of great benefit to the Royal Navy, and she was the first ship to be designed and built in a Royal dockyard.
  I have been adding up the strength of the various navies of the world. I am not sure whether the figures are completely accurate, but I understand that the Soviet Navy has about 350 conventionally-powered, submarines, compared with 82 between the United States and ourselves. Why cannot we build more diesel electrically powered submarines, which cost one-tenth of what it costs to build a nuclear-powered submarine? It is essential to have submarines in large numbers. I am not saying that we should not go on with the hunter-killer submarine, but they cost about £50 million each, and for that price we could have many more conventionally-powered submarines. The Soviet Navy has this type of vessel.
  The Soviet Navy also has 300 torpedo boats. The combined strength of the United States and this country is two. Are they considered to be useful in peace or war? If the Soviet Navy consider

  1219
  it necessary to have 300 boats, it must be realised that they do not build them for fun, and I should like to know what we are doing to combat that strength. In approximate numbers, the Soviet Navy can put 1,612 ships to sea. The United States can put 490 vessels to sea, including Polaris submarines, we can put about 115 ships to sea.
  In view of the recent demonstrations in the United States, does the Minister consider that when America eventually pulls out of Vietnam she will feel that she can support either N.A.T.O. or S.E.A.T.O.? Public opinion may be against her doing this, and we have to be prepared for that eventuality. The 6,000 arrests have shown the power of the demonstrations in America.
  Europe has had to rely on America for about 25 years. This situation cannot continue, and I therefore stress the role of the Navy, first because we are an island, and second because of our commitment to South-East Asia and to N.A.T.O. We are now in third place as regard the number of merchant ships. In any future war we would have to play a major part through N.A.T.O. to protect Europe and also to stop the people of this country from starving. It is therefore no good having a Navy with no teeth; it must have teeth which can bite if necessary.
  Mobile bases are needed for stopping submarines. Shore bases, if one can get them, are expensive. Is there any possibility of keeping H.M.S. "Eagle" in action until we have some more helicopter carriers, such as H.M.S. "Tiger", which is now being converted? Four Amazon Class frigates are under construction, and we are told that two more may be ordered, I should like the Minister to tell us whether they will be ordered and, if so, when.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East praised the Dutch Navy, and I agree with what he said, but I should like to know how many ships our allies are able to contribute to N.A.T.O. The same question arises in respect of CENTO and S.E.A.T.O. I should be ungrateful if I were not to acknowledge the excellent hospitality that I received last week, but I must say that I agree with the article in yesterday's Glasgow Herald that S.E.A.T.O. is a relic of the Dulles era.
  1220
  We now have an agreement with Australia, Malaysia, Singapore and New Zealand, and I therefore ask whether S.E.A.T.O. is necessary. It is fairly expensive, and I cannot see that it contributes much to the defence of the Far East. If the Philippines feel left out, perhaps they could join Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore in this pact.
  As there are excellent relations between Pakistan and China, and given the unfortunate financial position of Pakistan at the moment, I cannot think that she will be of any help in a pact like S.E.A.T.O. So if we are not to get together in the Far East, we will still have to rely on the United States Seventh Fleet. Since 1969, Britain has had no forces committed outside N.A.T.O., none to S.E.A.T.O. and nothing in the CENTO areas.
  My hon. Friend particularly mentioned the difficulties in the Indian Ocean. It is now time we decided into which Service we need to put the 5·4 per cent. of our gross national product which we intend to spend on defence services.
  For the first time for a hundred years, the Royal Navy is to have a Commander-in-Chief, I gather from the newspapers. I hope that this will work, but I should have thought that the Commander of the Far East Fleet should be left completely independent. In Plymouth now, we have a flag officer who is responsible not only for the local command but also for the dockyard. This is far too much for one man, but until the general manager is given his rightful position, until he takes the chair at the Whitley Council, he will never get control of the dockyard. In view of the recent changes it should not be necessary for the admiral to undertake this extra work in future.
  We have been told that there is ample work for the dockyards, but the numbers working there have been reduced, recruiting has practically stopped, and there are fewer apprentices. One of the difficulties is that the people who work in the dockyard are classed as industrial and non-industrial civil servants. As the Government are committed—although they have not yet been successful, I regret to say—to cutting down the numbers of civil servants, it is wrong to call these people civil servants in future. There must be a distinction between the Whitehall type and the industrial workers.

  1221
  I suggest that, in future the staffs working in the dockyards should be classified as staff "servicing ships" or "staff employed at dockyards". My reason for being keen on this is that in the drawing department for example, in Devonport Dockyard, there is a shortage of personnel because they are classified as civil servants.
  I regret the closing of the Dockyard Technical College. I should like to place on record my profound sorrow—and perhaps anger—at this move, after my fight to keep it open. It has done 125 years of excellent work, and I was fortified by the previous Government, who, on 14th May last year, sent me a letter saying that Chatham, Rossyth and Devonport should not be closed. I am, therefore, all the more grieved that this should have been done by my own Government. I believe that they will regret this. They must also see that the future of the instructors is safeguarded. My hon. Friend has had a petition from them, they are uneasy about their future, and many of them do not have a job which they considered the Ministry would guarantee.
  Command Paper 4506 said that the integration of all defence research projects would be headed by Mr. Derek Rayner, and that the dockyards would have an overall manager, Mr. Norfolk, both these chaps seem to have sunk without trace. I should like to know what they have done and whether they should be kept on the strength.
  I have always been interested in hydrography and I pay a tribute to the excellent work of H.M.S. "Fawn" and H.M.S. "Fox". I hope that their estimates will not be cut down in future. This work can be done in peacetime and it is very advantageous, particularly to our shipping lines.
  Hon. Members can put forward much better ideas than I on recruiting, but I pay a tribute to the Royal Marines and the women's Service, whose recruiting has risen considerably.
  I hope that it will not be necessary, when men go overseas to a place like Gan and others where wives cannot accompany them that wives will not be forced to leave their present accommodation. This is always an anxiety.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will pass on to the Secretary of State the desire
  1222
  of many hon. Members for a Defence Committee on the lines of those of so many of our European allies. We then have some knowledge of the matter we are debating. We shall not then have to put forward our personal ideas and wishes with no background knowledge as to whether they are practicable or feasible
  5.46 p.m.
  Mr. John Cronin: I will not follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) in the wide range of subjects which she covered so admirably, except to agree that it is time that the House had some effective Defence Committee which would conform with the Official Secrets Act. It would take some of the politics out of defence and put much more efficiency into it.
  I want to confine myself to a narrower subject, the fighting equipment supplied to the ships of the Royal Navy—which I consider to be inadequate and unsatisfactory. Throughout this century, there has been a tradition of supplying the Royal Navy with inadequate fighting equipment. Hon. Members will know from their reading of history that, in the First World War, we had shells which did not explode and capital ships which exploded too easily. They will also know—perhaps from personal experience—that we entered the Second World War with completely obsolete aircraft, quite the reverse of the excellent aircraft provided by the Royal Air Force for their Service, and with no proper measures for aircraft cover.
  Already in this debate serious deficiencies have been mentioned with regard to the fighting equipment of the Royal Navy. My hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) and Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) mentioned the inadequacy of the Mark 24 and Mark 31 torpedoes supplied in recent years to Royal Naval submarines. The House must regard it as a terrible reflectiton on itself that the Navy should be supplied with weapons so ludicrously ineffective as those torpedoes have proved to be in the last few years. We have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the people whom we send out to sea are properly equipped.
  I want to deal exclusively in my speech with ship-to-ship missiles, anti-ship guided

  1223
  weapons. Ministers of Defence of both parties have for many years been questioned about when the Navy will develop these weapons. Ships of the Royal Navy can cope quite well with air attack, through their surface-to-air guided weapons, and to some extent can cope with submarines although with what efficiency has to be discovered by practical experience. What ships of the Royal Navy cannot do at present is to fight, on the surface, ships of the same size or even smaller. The Under-Secretary talked about new construction and I asked if these ships could fight ships of the same or a smaller size. The hon. Gentle-main said "Yes", but did not go any further. I suggest that most of these ships of new construction could be quite easily destroyed by small patrol boats belonging to foreign Governments because those small boats are fitted with anti-ship guided weapons while the ships under new construction for the Royal Navy are fitted with ludicrously inadequate weapons for surface action.
  Most hon. Gentlemen would agree that the gun is becoming more and more obsolete as a weapon. The reason is obvious—a guided missile has a much greater range, it can fire far beyond the horizon and can be carried by very small ships. Furthermore, a missile is much more accurate because it actively homes on to its target with radar. The position of the target does not have to be worked out roughly by range finders. The anti-ship guided missile is now the decisive weapon for surface action. It has been suggested by Ministers of Defence of both parties that the answer to the anti-ship guided weapon is the carrier or shore-based aircraft.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Cronin: Is it really suggested, and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not suggesting this, that the Navy can operate only under the protection of carriers or shore-based aircraft? Is the Navy not to operate in the Atlantic, the Indian Ocean or Northern Norway? Unless it has ship-to-ship guided weapons it certainly cannot operate without the fear of being sunk by small ships.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point
  1224
  with which many agree. This was considered 15 years ago by the Navy Staff. It was known that the Soviets and others were developing these missiles. The decision was taken then not to go down that expensive road because we had aircraft which could positively identify and if necessary sink any hostile forces. It was one or the other and it seems now that we are falling between two stools if we follow the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Mr. Cronin: I do not think so. The Under-Secretary said that we are shortly to have only one carrier. Therefore surface ships can operate only under the cover of the solitary carrier to obtain air protection or else operate close to an air base. Otherwise they are defenceless against ship-to-ship guided missiles.
  The decisive moment in naval history was 21st October, 1967 when the Israeli destroyer "Eilat" was sunk by six anti-ship guided missiles fired by some Egyptians from some patrol boats in Port Said from a range of 131 miles. The "Eilat" could not even fire a gun in reply. That incident was the death-knell of the gun as a serious weapon in modern naval warfare. The Under-Secretary will I think, agree that at present not a single ship of the Royal Navy is equipped with an anti-ship guided weapon.
  All these splendid ships, manned with their excellent officers and crews, are liable to receive exactly the same treatment as the "Eilat" if they come within range of a small patrol boat fitted with an efficient anti-ship guided weapon system. This can hardly be a source of satisfaction when we look at what other navies have.
  The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) spoke about what the Soviet Navy has. He mentioned the Shaddock missile which has a range of 200 miles. A ship equipped with the Shaddock missile can sink another ship 200 miles away. The Soviet Navy also has these small Styx missiles which have a range of little over 13 miles. The Soviet Navy has four Kresta class cruisers equipped with these Shaddock missiles and four Kynda class cruisers equipped with these Shaddock missiles, all of which can destroy ships 200 miles away. In addition it has 100 Osa class patrol boats and 50 Komar class patrol boats all equipped with these small Styx missiles

  1225
  such as destroyed the Israeli ship "Eilat" in October, 1967.
  Not only does the Soviet Navy have these formidable missiles but the Cuban Navy, the Indonesian Navy, the Polish Navy and the Egyptian Navy have them. Yet the Royal Navy has not. All of those navies are superior to the Royal Navy in fighting capacity in surface action. If anyone can tell me that is not the case I shall be happy to hear his reasons to the contrary. The only exception to what I have said is that our ships have protection if they are under the umbrella of carriers—or rather our solitary carrier, the "Ark Royal"—or are under the protection of shore-based aircraft. That excludes, in the absence of "Ark Royal", all the oceans of the world except a few limited areas close to air bases, as the site of the Royal Navy's operations.
  The Under-Secretary talked about type 42, the Sheffield class ships, the type 82, the Bristol class. Every one of those ships has only one weapon to use against other ships on the surface and that is a solitary, miserable 4·5 gun. They can be sunk with ease by any of these small ships manned by Indonesians or Arabs which has an effective anti-ship guided weapon aboard. These pictures we see in the advertisements for recruiting, showing these beautiful ships, may attract recruits, but the House ought to be aware of how impotent these ships are against anti-ship guided weapons.
  I hope that in replying the Under-Secretary will not introduce an element of political recrimination. It may well be that the Labour Government did not put enough effort into surface-to-surface guided missile weapons research; it may well be that the previous Conservative Government did not put enough effort into it. What we are really concerned about is what will happen in the future, and I suggest that the future does not look particularly bright with regard to anti-ship guided weapons.
  The Minister of State for Defence gave us a glimmer of hope when he made his statement on 28th October, 1970. For the first time we heard that the Royal Navy was to be fitted with ship-to-ship guided weapons, the Exocet. I have made some investigations as to the nature of Exocet and it seems to be a matter of doubt whether it is really the best anti-ship
  1226
  guided weapon which can be obtained for the money spent. The Americans are developing an anti-ship guided weapon called Harpoon, the French and Italians are developing an anti-ship guided weapon called Otomat. Both of these are greatly superior to Exocet. I should like hon. Members to consider a few technical points.
  The Under-Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the figures are these. Exocet has a range of about 23 miles, and that range cannot be increased by development because Exocet is dependent upon solid fuel and the weight-range ratio of solid fuel reaches its optimum in a missile like the Exocet. On the other hand, Otomat has a range of 43 miles and, having liquid fuel, can be developed to a range of 125 miles. Exocet has a warhead of 43 kilogrammes. Otomat has a warhead of 210 kilogrammes. Otomat can be fired at any angle whatever, whereas Exocet is subject to considerable restriction in this respect. Furthermore, Exocet when fired, cruises only at a very low level over the sea and is, therefore, vulnerable to rough seas, vulnerable to curtain fire, and could well go completely over a small ship in a rough sea without touching it. Otomat cruises at a higher altitude before homing on its target.
  It is important that the House should realise that Otomat costs the same as Exocet. Why do the Government propose to purchase a weapon which is much inferior in capability to the other weapons which are available for the same money?
  Harpoon, the United States weapon, is almost a copy of Otomat. There is little to choose between them, except that Harpoon probably costs much more as it is based upon United States production methods. It will also be developed more slowly.
  The Under-Secretary of State may say that Otomat is not immediately available. But the Italian Navy has ordered eight for delivery in July, 1973. Can Exocet be obtained earlier'? It may be said also that the keeping of "Ark Royal" until the late 1970s will make a ship-to-ship guided weapon less important, and one can accept that, provided

  1227
  that no ship ever goes beyond the range of "Ark Royals" air support. What happens if "Ark Royal" is in port or out of action? The hon. Gentleman may say, further, that the Royal Navy is at the moment interested only in missiles with a range to the horizon because there is not yet the radar available to guide them beyond the horizon. But that, too, is a somewhat fallacious argument because, if one can have a weapon which covers not only the range to the horizon but beyond for the same money, one cannot really lose on the deal, especially as it is probable that radar will be able to increase its range with the progress of development.
  I want the Under-Secretary of State to give an assurance that he is seriously considering improving the anti-ship guided weapon systems of the Navy. In particular, I should like to know whether he is pursuing the possibility of the Otomat, the alternative which I have suggested. There is to be a complete firing of the Otomat system in October this year in Sardinia. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to send out observers, or is he convinced that he already has exactly the right weapon irrespective of the facts and figures I have given?
  I feel disposed to apologise to the House for the somewhat technical nature of my observations, but war is fought now on the outermost frontiers of technology. Until we have some sort of defence committee in the House, all of us who take an interest in defence matters have to familiarise ourselves with some rather abstruse technical details.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will not rely entirely—with due respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester—upon the advice of admirals or entirely upon the advice of scientists. They have a remarkable capacity for being wrong. It was a committee of admirals between the world wars which said that protecting merchant ships would not be a serious part of the next war. It was a committee of scientists between the two world wars which said that radar would serve no useful purpose in the next war. I suggest, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman should regard this as a matter for which he must take full technical and moral responsibility personally.
  1228
  He must arrive at the truth by asking his scientists and admirals some really searching questions. He must take steps to ensure that he can report to the House at some early time in the future, with his hand on his heart, that the Royal Navy is being provided as soon as possible with the best anti-ship guided weapon available.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. R. Bonner Pink: I find it difficult to follow the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) because he went into a great deal of technical detail, and I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) when he says that the technical changes have been so rapid that it is difficult for us to keep abreast. When I went over one of the latest American guided missile ships ten years or more ago, I felt then that the development of that ship from the wartime cruiser in which I served was probably as great as had been the development from the "Victory" to that cruiser.
  I feel a little diffidence, also, in taking up the hon. Gentleman's comments about the exploits of the small patrol vessel, for Vosper and Thorneycroft in my constituency build quite a number of these vessels. Perhaps the Minister would like to avail himself of that company's services in building some for the Royal Navy.
  As regards the fleet itself, I agree with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) that we need more hunter-killers, and—although he did not say it—I consider that we need more Polaris submarines. Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) reminded us, we need more small, comparatively cheap and comparatively simple ships for the brush-fire operations in which we may be involved. Above all, we should have a balanced fleet, not a fleet of all submarines or a fleet of all surface vessels.
  The debate so far has emphasised the manpower problem. Both the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Sutton emphasised that manpower is at present the greatest problem in the Navy. Traditionally, it has not always been so. Perhaps because the public has had a rather higher opinion of the Navy or more love for the Navy than for the

  1229
  other two Services, or perhaps because the Navy is a rather smaller Service, it has, on the whole, in past years not had the difficulty in obtaining recruits which it is having today.
  The Under-Secretary reminded us that the Navy's establishment is down for next year. I wonder whether this has been done to cover the needs or whether it merely reflects a realistic appraisal of the establishment which the Navy can fill—in other words, whether it is, in effect, a question of the likely number of recruits.
  The problem of manpower has two aspects, recruiting and re-engagement. On re-engagement, I feel that great regard must be paid to the feelings of wives and girl friends. The biggest worry for wives is whether they will have flats, which they do not like, or houses, and what amenities will be offered to them. In addition, there is the whole question of unaccompanied tours. These are questions of real concern to wives and to girl friends, and they are of vital importance in the re-engagement problem.
  Recruiting as such is a problem for all three Services. I do not want to be party-political, but the Opposition must bear their responsibility for the constant changes which they brought about by their policies, which made a career in the Services a very doubtful proposition from a long-term recruiting point of view. The problem also arises partly because of conditions and pay. Both sides of the House would agree that the proposals which have been implemented are playing a great part in obtaining recruits for all the Services. The Government have already made a great contribution to the recruiting problem by making their policies clear and by making it clear that they will stick to them.
  The fleet has changed enormously technically, and that means that the requirements of the men who man it have changed, too. At Trafalgar what was needed was brawn today it is brain. But seamanship is still essential. There is all the difference in the world between carrying out duties ashore on a stable platform and carrying them out at sea on a ship that is rolling and pitching. Not only must the men have technical ability and knowledge, but they must also possess seamanship, and the two must progress together. For that reason it is preferable
  1230
  that recruits to the Navy should enter the Service when they are young.
  The problem is also a long-term one. A ship takes only a year or two to build, but the men to man that ship take many years to train so that when the time comes to commission her they are ready. It is not only a question of manpower, but one of skilled and balanced manpower. A balance of all the many skills required is needed to operate the complex machines which ships are today.
  For many years the Navy has recruited boys, and many of them have not been too happy. Some have left after a very short time. As has been said, it is probably a good thing that if a man or a boy is unhappy in the career which he has chosen, he should leave early. But although many have left or have wanted to leave soon after joining, a great number have eventually re-engaged for pension. Obviously many of them have found, and still find, a very worthwhile career in the Navy.
  We ought to look ahead to the time—probably not very far ahead—when the school-leaving age is raised, because at that time the Navy will find additional difficulty in recruiting boys. Even now, when boys aged 15 can stay on for another year at school, many do not do so. When the leaving age is raised, many will still want to leave at 15 but will be unable to do so. They will be unwilling scholars and I am sure that many would like to join the Navy, as they do today.
  A solution could be found if the Navy and the Department of Education got together to solve the problem. They could surely work out a scheme of full-time education within the Navy. It would obviously need a special syllabus, with special subjects and studies. For example, the recruits would possibly study naval history rather than general history. But the recreation could be of the naval-type to a large extent, sailing, boating and seamanship, so that there would be an integrated education between the ordinary general education of school and the specialised education which they receive at present in the Navy. It is merely a matter of coordinating those two into one form of education rather than, as would be the case, the boy finishing his general education and then joining the Navy and having his naval education.

  1231
  Obviously there would be financial repercussions, and the Navy could not be expected to pay all the costs involved. But the Department of Education would gain in respect of accommodation and staffing problems. This proposal is well worthwhile and merits study. I hope that both the Navy and the Department of Education will support it and bring forward a combined scheme before the school-leaving age is raised.
  Without doubt, the naval manning problem is the most vital that we have to face today. It will not get much easier in many ways in the future. I hope that this suggestion will receive sympathetic consideration because, in a small way, it could be of value to the Navy in the future.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Foley: I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) in his detailed comments on manpower. However, I want to refer to it briefly.
  The frustrations expressed and the requests for a defence committee reflect a feeling that the experiment on which we are embarking as a new method of treating the Navy Estimates has not fully worked out. It has not fully worked out, not because of anything that the Minister said today—on the contrary, in terms of the genuine problems of manpower and recruitment, he fulfilled his role very well—but because of all the things that he did not say, which one expected to hear on an occasion such as this. We should have had some statement of the overall strategy of the Navy and its planning. If we want to do a serious job, we have to examine our commitments around the world and our capability for meeting them. Manpower and the shape or the balance within the fleet relate not to themselves but to the job which the Navy has to do. Therefore, we have first to define that job.
  It is the absence of this statement which can lead us to argue about brush fires, without trying to indicate the nature or to draw a scenario of what we mean by that, or to argue about the fifth Polaris submarine, or aircraft carriers, or even, with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), about taking on the Cuban Navy in their waters. We have to realise that our mare nostrum
  1232
  is not around Cuba; if it is anywhere, it is in the Mediterranean. That is where our clear and firm commitments must be made.
  In a debate on the Navy, one would expect that the Minister would state that our greatest commitment is in the Mediterranean, that the role of our Navy, with our allies, is primarily in that area, and that the balance and the shape of our fleet is to complement those of other nations. We do not exist on our own. We do not have aircraft carriers as a phallic symbol. We do not have guided missiles for the sake of rattling them against the Cubans and the Indonesians. But we have a job to do with our allies, and, over and above that, we have something else to do on our own.
  Reference has been made to our worldwide capability. But we need to be honest and to say what that capability is and what we have with which to meet it. We have two frigates permanently on station in the Caribbean and we are able to place there once a year, or every two years, something more for visits to Latin America. They are important—politically important and important from the point of view of our economy and relationships with the countries concerned. But we must not exaggerate what it means.
  Equally, when we refer to our strategy and to the Far East commitments, let us not give the fleet an impossible task and let us not deceive ourselves or try to deceive our allies about what we can do either with their help or on our own. I had expected that in a debate on strategy the Minister would say that we are not equipped to engage in, nor could he draw a scenario of events in which Britain would be committed to, a conflict with a major Power without the assistance of our United States allies.
  If these things were said we should see our role in its proper context. Let the White Ensign be shown around the world, but let there be no delusions of grandeur or nostalgia for a past that cannot be repeated. We must be honest with ourselves and with the nation. Questions of manpower, of balance, and of shape must be discussed within the context of a conflict within which we would operate.
  I ask the Minister to explain in a little more detail our presence in the Indian

  1233
  Ocean and the nature of the demand or challenge there. He said that there was a Soviet naval presence but he thought that the real threat at present was a political one. This is a major advance on what has been said from the Government Front Bench, because in the defence debate the threat was said to be a military one. When we on this side argued that the threat was a political one, the counter argument was that we must sell arms to South Africa because it was a military threat.
  In terms of defining the threat in this part of the world and our response to it, will the Minister explain what has happened to the eight-Power talks which did not start after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference? Has the threat diminished? Do we still need to explain to our allies why we want to assist in rearming South Africa, or has the threat diminished and shall we quietly rearm the South Africans because we committed ourselves to it long before the elaborate facade of consulting the Commonwealth countries? In fairness to the role of the Navy and to the Service he represents, the Minister should explain a little more fully the nature of the Navy's rôle in this part of the world.
  Mr. John Wilkinson: The hon. Member said that the Soviet Navy poses essentially a political threat. The contention that it is a military threat was backed up by Admiral Gorshkov as long ago as 1963 when he said:
  "Now we must be prepared through broad offensive operations to deliver crushing strikes against sea and ground targets of the imperialists at any point of the world's seas and adjacent territories."
  These are hardly quiet political sentiments. Surely they are military sentiments which are deserving of a military response.
  Mr. Foley: The hon. Gentleman will find that in the last defence debate I quoted that worthy admiral as saying that the military presence in the Indian Ocean was in support of the Soviet political ambition, namely, the conquest of the world in the political sense.
  The Minister muffed this point, too: he said that there was no dividing line, that the North was involved but the South was not involved. I cannot recall N.A.T.O. ever having said that it would
  1234
  have a rôle outside a dividing line which it determined for itself. It may well be that the Minister and his colleagues would like N.A.T.O. to extend its rôle—presumably Portugal would be happy to go along with it—around the Indian Ocean, and certainly around the Cape. If that is the Minister's intention, he should explain to the House exactly what he means, because N.A.T.O. has established for itself a dividing line.
  The sea routes are often drawn into the argument. Other nations in Europe and elsewhere depend on the freedom of the sea routes. Japan is as dependent as we are—perhaps even more dependent—on the sea routes, yet she is not establishing a Navy with aircraft carriers and missiles with far greater range than that possessed by the Russians. The Scandinavian countries and West Germany do not send ships showing the flag round the Cape. In essence the sea routes are in the charge of all the nations of the world. If there is any conflict over the sea routes, a world response and not a British response will be necessary.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I know that the hon. Gentleman has the good of the Navy at heart, but he deploys a very facile and wrong-headed argument when he says that because other countries are not there we should drop all our responsibilities, go away and hope that the markets of the world will not dissolve into chaos.
  Mr. Foley: I have the good of the Navy at heart. I wish that the hon. and gallant Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends had the good of the Navy at heart and did not seek to give it a rôle that it cannot fulfil; because the money is not there, the ships are not there, the weapons are not there, and Britain cannot afford this nostalgia about its imperial past. It just is not on. We have a Navy. We must equip it as best we can. We must give it its role. It will respond. This is no disrespect to any serving officers or men. They will do their best. We do them a disservice if we arrogate to them a rôle around the world that they cannot fulfil.
  Now that we have a presence in the Far East, do we still have access to and use of a dockyard in Singapore? Is this now in military hands? Have we a

  1235
  priority, if it is needed, over and above the commercial considerations?
  Is the Minister satisfied that he has in each of the home dockyards a balanced labour force, that he can offer security of jobs to those working there, and above all, that he can offer them the possibility once every so many years of being involved in new construction? It can be frustrating to a worker who spends all his time de-gutting a ship and rewiring it and never impressing his personality on something new. How many of the 19 vessels under construction are in the dockyards? How many does he expect will be built in the dockyards? Will the dockyards be tendering for the Type 21?
  We are all concerned about the question of manpower and recruitment. How do we get, keep and maintain morale and enthusiasm in the Navy? Will those who serve for nine years acquire a qualification which is recognised in civilian life? If the Navy made this a target in all branches, not just in the technical branches, it would be an incentive to recruitment, because men could return to civilian life in their late 30s or early 40s with a qualification which assures them of a job.
  My last point relates to my experience in my days at the Admiralty of the way in which other N.A.T.O. countries sent their ships for working up at Portland. Does this continue? It was the greatest compliment paid to the British Navy since our membership of N.A.T.O. that other N.A.T.O. countries sent their ships and men to do their working up at Portland. It was a recognition of the standards of seamanship, navigation, weaponry and all-round soundness of our ships and men.
  I would add my tribute to those already paid to those serving in the fleet, the uniformed men and women and all those civilians who back them up.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I make no com-plaint at all of the length of speeches so far, but I already know of about 12 other hon. Members who want to speak in the debate, apart from Front Bench speakers. I hope that hon. Members who catch my eye will remember that.
  6.31 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I very much welcome the constructive tone of the debate so far, so I will not rise to the taunts of the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley).
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) made an extremely interesting suggestion about inviting ex-Navy personnel to return to the Service. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will adopt this idea forthwith, and I ask him to make sure that it applies also to retired admirals!
  I thought that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) was at fault in only one respect, when he accused the Conservatives of irresponsible opposition. In fact, he should have thanked us for keeping the pressure on as we did during our years of Opposition, for without this he and any other Socialist Defence Minister would have been utterly vulnerable to enfilading fire from the left wing of their own party.
  There is some pungency in the Opposition's taunt that the Conservative Government, for all their huffing and puffing, have not increased defence spending to any noticeable extent. On the naval side I believe that the Government are not paying enough attention to the surveillance of the trade routes which, through the centuries, has been the Royal Navy's primary task. To prevent war it is essential to have information about what any possible foe is doing, and surveillance is the key word. For example, at the time of Cuba the late President Kennedy was able to avert a war by hot line diplomacy, but he could do it only because he had available minute-by-minute information about what the Russian ships were doing, whether approaching, stopping, turning round, or whatever it was.
  If this need for surveillance is recogised and agreed, that means that there must be shipborne aircraft. There is a number of things that the Defence Department should do now. First, it should keep the "Ark Royal" indefinitely, and not in the slightly half-hearted way that it is talking about so far. That is the complete answer to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), who made a most interesting case about the value of surface-to-surface missiles. We do not

  1237
  want to follow along that very expensive path now, because we have, if we will only keep them, the carriers and particularly the Harrier aircraft which can do for us everything that those guided missiles can do. Guided missiles can be fired only to start a war or continue a war, whereas an aircraft with a man in it can fly over and positively identify whatever the target may be, and can be used for preventing a war. This is a key issue with regard to the surface-to-surface missile. Without air surveillance, some day a young Commander, perhaps newly in command of a frigate, will have to take an impossibly difficult decision whether to release his missile at something over the horizon that he cannot positively identify. We come back to what is often described in naval circles as the Mark I Eyeball.
  Second, the Government should not scrap H.M.S. "Eagle" but should keep her at least as a first-line reserve. After all, she can fly Jaguars even if she cannot fly Phantoms.
  The Government should also hurry on with the through-deck cruiser, which is given only one half-sentence in the White Paper. They should get a real move on with the Harrier aircraft, conceived by Hawker Siddeley in 1957. In the recent debate I spoke about seeing it at Farnborough in its early stages 10 years ago, yet my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in a recent debate that he was hoping to attend trials—trials, 13 years after the concept of this aircraft! The United States Marine Corps, I am glad to say, is sufficiently satisfied with the aircraft and its performance to place a firm order for a large number already. Why is the Royal Navy still messing about doing trials? I have here a picture taken two years ago of a Harrier landing on the flight deck of an Italian cruiser, but still we seem to have to go on doing trials. To coin a phrase, the Government should get their finger out about this.
  I very much agree with the hon. Member for Sutton that we should not over-sophisticate the aircraft. We should go for a marinised version, because we do not want it to corrode, but it is an admirable concept as it is, and the Navy should not press only for the ultimate, which I agree Naval Staffs always tend to want to do.
  1238
  We should also pay off now H.M.S. "Blake", which is a monstrosity, and stop work on H.M.S. "Tiger", which will apparently be a similar monstrosity. I was on board both ships recently and found that the living conditions, with no air-conditioning for the ship's company, are intolerable. The ships, for all the tremendous amount spent on them, are not cost-effective, because they will not carry enough helicopters, or enough Harriers eventually.
  It would be worth while investigating the conversion of the County class D.L.G.s to carry Harrier aircraft and helicopters. If the prehistoric Seaslug, its delivery system and its stowage were ripped out, they would be admirable ships for carrying Harriers and Sea Kings. I feel that the Seaslug represents only the summit of a gunnery officer's dreams at the time of the Kamikaze attacks at the end of World War II.
  Next, the Government should sort out the problem of how the aircrew and the maintenance crew in ships carrying aircraft are to be found. We have not yet had a straight answer whether they are to be R.A.F. aircrew and naval maintenance crew, or whether the maintenance crew will also be Royal Air Force. This is a fundamental issue. It may be one of the muddles the Government inherited, but they ought to sort it out very quickly.
  I believe that all these measures will help the fleet to keep its own organic air support. I leave this question by saying that a naval task force without its own air support is not only emasculated but blind. An emasculated man with his eyes can at least look after himself, but without them he is in a pretty hopeless situation.
  The measures I have suggested would also help in anti-submarine warfare, the importance of which has been emphasised by many hon. Members. The point about organic air support with any naval task force is well understood by the Australians, who are keeping their carrier. The Americans know it very well. The French know it, and are keeping theirs, and the Russians are learning it very fast.
  I am sure that I shall be told from both sides that we cannot do all this, and the two reasons given will be money and manpower. As to money, any Government facing the difficulties that we face

  1239
  must have the gumption to tell the country, "We need more money for defence". I am not proud of a Government that merely brag that they have not put up defence spending, if the necessity for putting it up is apparent.
  Many hon. Members have spoken about manpower and recruiting difficulties. The first thing to remember is that we must not have sailors living on board Her Majesty's ships under refit. This is a lesson which has been learned in the past, but, for reasons of economy, the practice continues. I was recently on hoard H.M.S. "Blake", where the conditions of the mess decks have to be seen to be believed. This is one area in which money must be spent so that there are convenient barracks in the dockyard where men may live when their ships are refitting.
  I believe that lack of foreign service in the future is to some extent a bar to recruiting, but we cannot have forces overseas just in order to be able to recruit them. But nor is it reasonable to plead lack of manpower as an excuse for not having forces overseas.
  In the map on page 65 the White Paper gives an interesting illustration of shore-to-sea strengths ratio. There are 50,800 personnel in the United Kingdom ashore and only 20,000 at sea. This is a fantastic ratio. I am well aware of the difficulties, for I have commanded a training establishment and I well understand how many men have to be in the pipeline; but a cold look at that ratio will show that it is fantastic and that there should be more training on the job.
  More attention should be paid to the problem of the unhappy sailor. Which of us has not at some time said to himself in the middle watch, "Why did I ever leave the farm?".
  I should like here to grind one tiny axe. I have others which I should like to grind, but I will not do so now because of the lack of time. There is a reference in the White Paper to contact with the universities and other higher centres of education about defence matters. The Royal United Services Institution down the road in Whitehall is an admirable place where seminars are attended by many hon. Members. At the moment, the Government are raising its rent from
  1240
  £850 to £12,000 a year on the one hand and, on the other, trying to encourage it. I know that representations have been made to the Government by the Director-General of this admirable institution, but I believe that they are stuck. I hope that the Minister will look favourably at the predicament of this valuable institution.
  I should like finally to refer to recruiting and advertising for recruiting. In the last week we have seen a perfect example of how not to do it, namely, the Granada film shown last week and entitled, "Sailors' Gaol", which was about the Portsmouth Detention Quarters. It was a grossly sensational treatment of the subject. There was no statement whatever in the film of the main aim and objective of detention in the Services. Instead, there was nothing but emotional talk of suicides, interviews with drug addicts and an endless carping about the solitary confinement cell and so on. The producer scraped up every drop-out, and one can attack any organisation if only one scrapes up and interviews on the screen all the drop-outs.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will recall that at the end of that programme there was a fairly lengthy interview with the Minister himself, in glowing colours, when the Minister explained exactly what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking for.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am coming to that and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning it.
  I claim that there was gross political bias in that film. There was a long interview with the hon. Member for Sutton, the former Minister, who was shown striding purposefully to and fro and who was interviewed with his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley), and there was an interview with the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), who has never been the friend of any Service. There was an interview with the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) who, of course, will jump on any bandwagon. At the end there was a period of a few scrappy moments for my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) who, after all, is now the Minister responsible.
  Mr. Foley: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House how many times in the totality of his Service career

  1241
  he visited the detention quarters in Portsmouth?
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Yes, I am coming to that, but before I do so I should like to ask why the interview with the present Minister was so short. Is it that my hon. Friend was not interviewed for long enough, or was the interview cut? How long did he give these cameramen?
  The film also cast a grave slur on the staff of the detention quarters, fine, experienced chief petty officers. Here I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Barking. I speak with great feeling, on this subject. As a commanding officer, in my time I have sent several score men to the detention quarters and I have also been a quarterly visitor many times while I have been in the Portsmouth Command. For one period of two years I was a quarterly visitor, and I went around the detention quarters with great care, knowing the importance of this matter. I interviewed the men and I asked them whether they had any complaints and so on. I assert above all that I have great regard for the wisdom and basic decency of the detention quarters staff, whose qualities were not at all fairly brought out by the film.
  There was no interview with any of the successes of the system, no interview with any of the sailors who have gone back to the Navy and served thereafter happily and successfully in their ships. There was nothing about how many ratings served only one sentence and never returned to the detention quarters. Perhaps the Minister will give the House those figures.
  In a matter of this sort, which concerns publicity, Parliament is in a siding and opinion is formed largely by television. This utterly misleading film went out last Monday to about 20 million viewers. I believe that the I.T.A. has a responsibility now to see that a balanced film, free from bias, is made and broadcast at a similar peak viewing time.
  Dr. David Owen: We are interested in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's criticisms. Is he advocating that the existing situation in 1968 was satisfactory, a situation which the House would have found tolerable?
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am not advocating any such thing. I am advocat-
  1242
  ing that the detention quarters, which I have seen for myself in the last few weeks, have been misrepresented to the public by this film and that grave damage has been done to the Service and to the image of the Service and to recruiting. I am advocating that a properly balanced film should now be shown—and perhaps the ex-Minister ought to agree with this—showing the useful and constructive work of the Navy, showing happy, useful, contented and interested sailors, who are the vast majority and who are doing a job infinitely worth doing; and I am saying that such a film should be shown to those 20 million viewers so as to set the record straight.
  In this context and to put the matter into its right perspective, I can do no better than quote the well-known, 300year-old adage:
  "It is on the Royal Navy that the prosperity, happiness and welfare of this nation do most chiefly depend".
  Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. I am not sure whether this is a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to ask for your protection. I do so because the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) made a remark about me which was both extremely offensive and totally untrue. I want to ask whether he can be persuaded not to leave the Chamber until he has withdrawn it.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that the content of a remark made by an hon. Member is not for me, provided that it is in order. I did not hear anything out of order.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Judd: I trust that the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) will forgive me if at the outset I do not deal with the points he made in the last part of his speech. I promise to come to them later.
  In the fair-mindedness which he claims to have, I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise on reflection that many viewers of television constantly see first-rate advertising done in the cause of recruiting by the Ministry of Defence. If he calculates that amount of good advertising with the rest of what appears on T.V. on this subject, he will

  1243
  see the programme "World in Action" in a different perspective.
  The Minister said that a Service was only as good as its support services, and as an hon. Member who represents a dockyard constituency I recognise the force of that observation. I wish, therefore, early in my speech to deal with the organisation of the dockyards and to mention some of the current difficulties as I see them. I wish, first, to pay tribute to the significant reforms and imaginative new attempts at productivity bargaining which have been introduced into the naval dockyards and which give a far greater degree of involvement to the men who work in them.
  Having said that, it must be accepted that difficulties remain, and we must consider them. I will, in the cause of brevity, put a number of questions, which I hope the Minister will answer when he replies to the debate. Is he satisfied that the incentive bonus scheme as extensively applied to the naval dockyards is suitable for the kind of work undertaken in these yards, bearing in mind its variety and unpredictability? On a wider organisational basis, is he satisfied with the continued inclusion of the naval dockyards in the vast Civil Service structure?
  Is there not a need for still more independence of management? Should there not be greater decentralisation, with more scope for responsibility on the part of those in the front line of individual yards? Is it healthy to permit the Treasury what amounts to so much intimate control of yard affairs as it enjoys today? Does not this sort of intimate control inevitably blunt the dynamism of yard management?
  At a time when the Government are subsidising private yards involved in naval construction, how much new construction is planned for the naval yards? It is certain that such construction is absolutely essential for morale and for efficiency of the maintenance work itself.
  I come to the conditions of employment of those who work in the dockyards. Towards the end of the last Labour Government there were notable increases in pay for these workers. There is a danger now that their rates of pay are again falling behind those in outside industry. Those on the lowest wages—there are too many of them in the dockyards—are
  1244
  very hard up indeed. May we be told how the Minister intends to see that the living standards of these people are guaranteed and preserved?
  Does the Minister agree that the men and women who work in these yards deserve more priority, particularly in view of their record of high reliability and low striking? Does not the predicament of this section of the working population, who are doing what we all agree to be vital work, deserve some sort of priority, and is it not a fact that this illustrates almost perfectly the need for a prices and incomes policy for the proper management of the nation's economy?
  The last Labour Government also introduced far-reaching modernisation plans for the yards, but we have heard precious little so far in this debate about how these plans are progressing. The security and well-being of the labour force and the well-being of entire communities which are dependent on the dockyards are very much related to the implementation of the modernisation programme which was planned by the last Government.
  We should also remember that the working conditions in the naval dockyards still do not compare well with those in private industry. One need only see at first hand the work being done in ships and recognise the tremendous noise in which these people work to appreciate the possibility of the lasting physical damage which this noise can do. One need only look at the adverse weather conditions in which they must sometimes work to recognise the problems which are confronting the workers.
  I trust the House will forgive me for mentioning other niceties. For example, there are still many primitive lavatory, washing and rest room facilities in one dockyard, and these inadequacies act to the disadvantage of the men who keep our Navy in operation.
  Recently in the dockyards, and particularly in Portsmouth, which I know best, there were misgivings about the catering facilities. If we are genuinely concerned with the morale of the labour force, we should accept that adequate catering facilities are tremendously important. I trust that the Minister will bear these remarks in mind and will assure us that the Ministry will do something about these conditions.

  1245
  We should not overlook the conditions of employment in smaller naval establishments, such as those run by the Ship Maintenance Authority. I appreciate that the Ministry is concerned about this, but there is need for speedy implementation of the efficiency agreements because the men in these smaller units feel that they are being left behind larger units such as the dockyards. Their sense of injustice must be overcome.
  I must refer briefly to those who made this Service in the past and who helped to make its excellent record possible, namely, the pensioners. We should not forget in this debate the imperative need to give priority to reviewing existing pension rates and increasing their purchasing power to something like their former value. We should particularly remember the hardship of the longer-term pensioners and widowers who were involved in the Service in the days when it was at its toughest and when its conditions were most demanding. It is never too late to remedy their all-too-long endurance in trying to make do with inadequate pensions.
  Hon. Members will readily appreciate that many naval personnel live in an area such as Portsmouth. We should not overlook the excellent record of the Labour Government in looking to the pay of Service personnel, and it is to be hoped that this record will be maintained by the present Administration. Naval and civilian employees face a predicament. They are constantly in danger of being left behind the rates of pay in private industry. This again illustrates the need for a prices and incomes policy in the cause of social justice.
  We must, in a debate of this kind, be concerned not only with pay but also with standards of accommodation. We appreciate the difficulties of cramped conditions at sea, but frequently barracks and housing conditions ashore do not reflect the quality and sophistication of the modern naval equipment with which our sailors and officers are working.
  We welcomed most warmly the comments of the Minister about strengthening the welfare services, and if we are to have effective recruiting we must have adequate welfare services for serving personnel. I have seen at first hand the problems of supporting separated families
  1246
  when the active breadwinner is away from home at sea.
  This brings me to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester about the naval detention quarters which are in my constituency. I must tell him, with respect, that, not for the first time, his remarks on this score were ludicrous, particularly when he suggested that the television programme to which he referred demonstrated political bias. Everyone interviewed in that programme had had direct and personal interest in the problem of the detention quarters. If one watched it carefully and objectively, one noticed the way in which former Labour Ministers were grilled, and nobody could possibly suggest bias in favour of the Labour Party. I emphasise, however, that there is real public concern about the situation there. This commendable film will have drawn increasing attention to these problems. I have seen this concern represented in my mail and in the verbal comments made to me in my constituency.
  I should like to quote one letter I have received which I think demonstrates the degree of concern which we must take seriously. Obviously, I cannot identify the correspondent, but I intend to write to the Minister with full details of the letter. The correspondent wrote as follows:
  "I watched the programme with astonishment and a great deal of interest. As the father of a 15-year old junior seaman, I must say that when my son recently consulted me on the question of remaining in the Service or exercising his final option of discharge I was not unhappy when, following a tripartite meeting with his officers (who I must say seemed helpful and considerate) my son elected to remain in the R.N. But I am bound to say that had I seen the 'World in Action' programme at that time I would have advised him unreservedly to come out of the Service".
  It is a very balanced letter and goes on to say:
  "Obviously, allowances must be made for exaggeration and for an understandable tendency for some former inmates to colour their version of events; equally obviously discipline must be maintained; but equally obviously enough came amross from the programme to indicate that a too frequent use is made of the D.Q.'s as a punishment; that resort to solitary confinement occurs, with an attendant bread and water diet, on an excessive scale; that suicides, or attempts thereat have taken place, even within the last 12 months, when reforms were said to be taking place; and that a strange administrative delay of three

  1247
  months occurred when the former responsible Minister expressed a desire to visit the establishment…I do recall from the programme that men could visit the toilet twice daily and had actually to polish their cell tolet receptacles the following morning if they used them during the night. I am not convinced of the rehabilitative value of 'po-polishing' still less of restricting by regulation the number of times a man may visit the toilet. I readily concede there may well have to he some control of such matters, but the present position seems positively medically dangerous. Incorrigibles will remain unaffected by such treatment, except perhaps to become more resentful and would be better out of the Service."
  I do not believe that that correspondent will have been altogether reassured by the reply to a Question which I received from the Minister yesterday. Following the "World in Action" programme, I asked the Minister
  "how many attempted suicides there have been in Portsmouth naval detention quarters since the introduction of reforms in the administration of the quarters."
  The reply was:
  "None. There have been occasional instances of self injury by men under sentence who are intent on attracting sympathy or attention to themselves, or achieving some other object. In all of these instances the man has ensured that a member of the staff is to hand by ringing his room bell or waiting until an instructor is in sight. Men who are considered likely to attempt self injury are sighted every 10 minutes. There have been 19 such cases of self injury since 1967."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd May, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 281.]
  I do not believe that that reply was couched in the sort of terms which a parent would find reassuring. It smacks of the 18th century language which the Minister quoted earlier today.
  We should not, however, underestimate the recent changes which have taken place in the detention quarters or the degree of commitment among the detention quarters staff to a new approach, with its emphasis on rehabilitation. I record my appreciation of the co-operation of the Minister and the Commander-in-Chief and his staff for facilitating my visit following very detailed complaints which had been put to me. But, as the television programme made plain, there is a great deal to be desired.
  If, paradoxically, the detention quarters are more concerned with rehabilitation, as is claimed, than with punishment, the specialist training of detention quarters
  1248
  staff is more important than the training of staff carrying out the previous rather primitive function. Some steps towards better training of staff have already been undertaken. I should like to encourage them as much as possible and suggest that there should be the maximum possible liaison with the civil prison service so there can be a valuable exchange of ideas. If more were said publicly about what goes on in the detention quarters, then the Navy would have nothing to lose if it has nothing to hide. If we are to do the job properly, we must look at the physical limitations of the ancient and cramped buildings and to the grave handicap which they present to any progressive administration. A bulldozer would be indispensable in reforming the detention quarters system, but perhaps the best solution of all would be for representatives of the Navy Department to sit down with representatives of the other Defence Departments and consider whether, on grounds of economy and effective work in the detention quarters, the time has come to have one combined, purpose-built, purpose-operated detention quarters system for all three Services.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Did the hon. Gentleman describe the television film as commendable? Is the implication that he thinks that the film was a fair representation of conditions at the Royal Navy Detention Quarters at Portsmouth?
  Mr. Judd: I think that the film was commendable and that it attracted attention to a problem which needed much more public airing.
  7.5 p.m.
  Mr. David Lane: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister and to the House that I shall have to leave before the end of the debate.
  I warmly welcome the decisions taken by the Government and the benefits which they will have for the Navy, and the general tone of my hon. Friend's speech. May I make three pleas—one about the past, one about the present and one about the future?
  On the past, I support very much the efforts of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) to get H.M.S. "Belfast" preserved for all time. I

  1249
  hope that the Government will do all they can to give a fair wind to this endeavour.
  On the present, much has been said by the Minister and other speakers about the manpower problem. The greater stability now offered in the Services and the prospect of a rather wider world role should help. I commend the Navy's imaginative effort at recruitment in many places, including my constituency. The figures are better. As the Minister said, they are nearly a quarter up compared with the position a year ago. This is a reward for the great efforts which have been made. I think, for example, of the presentation called "Meet the Navy", which a few of us were able to see in the last Parliament. I remember it particularly because it was the only time that I was privileged to meet Sir Michael Le Fanu, whose tragic early death we all deplore.
  My plea to the Minister is this. The Government should remember all the time the potential of inland towns, such as Cambridge, which have considerable naval traditions and interests, even though they may be some distance from the sea. To repeat what I said in a Navy debate a year or two ago, if ever there were further scope for links between particular ships and particular towns, this could have a good effect.
  Looking to the future, I agree with the emphasis which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence placed on the importance of the Indian Ocean, and I look at this matter from a different standpoint from that of the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley). My plea to the Government is that they make a searching reappraisal of our strategic dispositions in that area. The Navy's rôle will be increasingly important, not least because of the greater versatility of task forces. Although they have taken a long time, let us be thankful that the Harrier trials from "Ark Royal" are under way at this moment. I hope that they will lead to much greater development of the use of the Harrier.
  The Russian threat is real. We are all conscious of the parallel with what has happened in the Mediterranean. I take the threat very seriously and believe that a response is essential, but I wish that
  1250
  there were more indications in the Defence White Paper of the Government's forward thinking in this matter. Paragraph 8 of the White Paper—and I think this is the answer to the criticism of the hon. Member for West Bromwich—distinguishes two aspects of the Russian threat. One is the intention to increase political influence; the other is the strategic menace to the sea routes.
  Our present situation is one of considerable dependence on Simonstown and on defence co-operation with South Africa. I accept absolutely that the use of Simonstown will be indispensable to us for several years at least, but I question whether closer co-operation with South Africa will be in our British national interests in meeting either aspect of the Russian threat.
  We must face the facts of the international situation. The Russian threat is one serious fact. Another, surely, is that unless there is a change in the internal policies of South Africa we may find that our position of defence cooperation with South Africa may prove increasingly embarrassing and uncomfortable in future. We must recognise how much opinion about South Africa at home and overseas has altered even in the 15 years since the Simonstown Agreement. It will be no help in countering Russian political influence if we are seen to be moving much closer to South Africa. As for the strategic threat, although the South African Navy can play a useful part, it has only limited relevance to a worldwide maritime crisis, and there is need for much wider contingency planning in the whole area, involving the United States and other interested maritime countries.
  I do not want to go into the issue of arms for South Africa today, beyond saying that I hope that no question of further sales over and above the helicopters will arise this year. But I make a strong appeal to the Government to widen the basis of our defence arrangements in the Indian Ocean so that in the years ahead we shall have less reliance on Simonstown and on co-operation with the South African Navy.
  As to bases, surely we should intensify our search for additional and varied facilities. Simonstown is far to the south, and in any case it would be useful to

  1251
  develop more facilities and arrangements in the northern part of the Indian Ocean, and all the more important because our foothold in the Persian Gulf will be smaller. I am thinking particularly of Mombasa in Kenya, which we already use to some extent, and also of Mauritius, which was mentioned in the main defence debate. There may even be possibilities in Ceylon and Pakistan. I am only asking that all these possibilities should be carefully examined.
  As to co-operation with other countries, the Commonwealth Study Group will, I hope, soon get going. I hope that this will lead to a better understanding of the problem and even to further possibilities of co-operation with some of the nations in the area. Meanwhile, we have heard reports that the United States of America has been taking a closer interest in the Indian Ocean. I would judge that, once its involvement in Vietnam is lessened, America will be much more likely to bear a greater share of both the political and the strategic response to the Russian threat.
  I end by expressing the hope that the next White Paper in a year's time will give clear evidence of progress by the Government in the direction which I would urge on my hon. and right hon. Friends.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: I hope the House will forgive me if I start by addressing a personal word, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) who referred to me in a way which was extremely offensive and totally untrue. To give one example, entirely for the hon. and gallant Member's information—I dislike appearing to shoot a line—but in the Korean war I was the only correspondent who was allowed to go to sea with 41 (Independent) Royal Marine Commando, and to do landings on the shore with them from rubber dinghies. I then wrote, lectured and broadcast in praise of that Commando and received a letter of personal thanks from the Commandant-General of the Royal Marines. More recently I had the even greater honour of being invited to the only reunion that that Commando has so far had.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point and I am glad to hear of his experiences at that time. I am not trying to be unfair to him, but I was misled by his subsequent views. In a recent debate, I think last year, he used words, with heavy sarcasm, to the effect that he supposed there were some people who actually liked serving in the Armed Forces. That is the sort of remark by which I was apparently misled.
  Mr. Driberg: If I am to take that as a withdrawal, of course I accept it, with a few reservations. I do not remember using the words referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I fear that he thinks that anybody who criticises any aspect of the administration of the Armed Forces, in defence of the rights of soldiers, sailors and airmen, is anti the Armed Forces. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  If I may recall an incident from many Parliaments ago—before you were born, Mr. Speaker, if I may say so with great respect—that was the attitude of Sir James Grigg when he was Secretary of State for War and there was a scandal at Fort Darland Detention Barracks, Chatham. when an unfortunate detainee was beaten up so savagely by a warrant officer and an N.C.O. that he died. This caused great concern on both sides of the House. Dozens of Questions were asked; Grigg brushed them aside casually but eventually had to make a much fuller statement, the result of which was that a judicial committee under Mr. Justice Oliver was appointed. That committee toured all the detention barracks in the country—in wartime, when there were millions more men under arms than in peacetime—without any warning, and talked to detainees and ex-detainees in conditions of secrecy. The committee proposed a number of reforms, many of which were accepted by the wartime Government.
  That is the value of Question Time, and that is the value of exposing in this House, on television or anywhere else anything that we think is wrong with the Services. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to think that it is the duty of the media to act as recruiting advertisers. That is not their duty at all.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I was not for one moment suggesting that what goes on in detention quarters should not be represented to the public. I was only asking that the facts should be put forward fairly and in a balanced way.
  Mr. Driberg: My opinion on this programme is different from that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. As I said when I intervened in his speech, I thought that the Minister had a very fair show at the end. The interview, with the Minister looking very impressive in his office, was a reasonably long one and he was able to make his point about rehabilitation and about the reforms initiated, as he said, by my hon. Friends and continued by him. We gladly concede that to him because we know that he takes a humane and liberal view of these matters.
  I do not think that the programme was unfair. It gave the opinions and the recollections of a number of people who were interviewed because they had served time in those detention quarters. I have made some inquiries about this. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may not know that the transripts of all those interviews with ex-detainees and others were sent to the Ministry of Defence some weeks before the programme was edited with a request for any comments. The Minister or his office could perfectly well have said, "That is unfair", "That is not true", or anything else, but no such comment was made. So I do not think that Granada or the "World in Action" team behaved at all unfairly in that regard.
  I do not want to go on for an unduly long time about that programme, which I think arose originally out of a debate some months ago in this House, when some of us raised the subject of the detention quarters. The only thing I regretted about the programme was that it did not mention that the only task available—it may be better now, but I am not sure—for the inmates of the detention quarters was the archaic one of picking oakum. The only thing I regretted about the Minister's speech in reply to that debate, when I pressed him about this ridiculous job—which presumably could be done by machinery much better—was his reply, "I am afraid that the Navy still needs the matting." That was not a very good answer, I thought. But I have said what I thought about the
  1254
  programme and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman disagrees, it too bad.
  I hope that the Minister will press on with all the reforms that I know have been initiated and which he wants to carry further. I think that the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and others, that there should be just one detention barracks for all three Services, is a very good one. The sooner we can blow up that monstrosity at Portsmouth, the better. It is, of course, clean and hygienic, but it is also an appalling example of civilisation in 1971. It should be done away with as soon as possible.
  I agree strongly with what the Minister said about what is sometimes called "showing the flag" in remote parts of the world—not in an aggressive or imperialist way but simply as a token of good will from Britain to the people of some remote island who may not have seen anybody from Britain for a generation. I was fortunate enough three or four years ago to get a lift on a frigate from Mauritius to a very remote island called Rodrigues, in a distant part of the Indian Ocean. That was extremely illuminating and I found that the inhabitants of the island were refreshed, in every sense of the word, by the visit of the frigate—and the refreshment was, of course, mutual.
  I was told that the people of the island had not seen anyone from Westminster for about 25 years: that is what the senior Roman Catholic priest on the island told me. It was interesting, too, for us to see the agricultural developments, which were being admirably conducted under a British agricultural officer. This was shortly before the independence of Mauritius, of which Rodrigues is a dependency.
  That sort of visit by the fleet, or a single ship such as that frigate, does an enormous amount of good. I certainly would not wish to cut that kind of activity down at all. I hope that the Minister will accept that as an assurance from one, at any rate, who would like to see defence spending in general cut very substantially, but who thinks that such visits are well worth the money spent on them.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Laurance Reed: I first became conversant with the work of the Hydrographic Department when serving with the Royal Navy in the Pacific.

  1255
  and I am pleased that my hon. Friend referred to the importance of this work in his opening speech. I congratulate him on breaking new ground, because it appears, from an examination of the index of 20 years of debating in this House, that the subject of hydrography has been raised only once before.
  The Navy's first hydrographer was appointed in 1795. Survey vessels first appeared on the Navy List as early as 1814. A lot has happened since and today the Department provides a worldwide service. In addition to charting and surveying, there is, of course, the meteorological and oceanographic prediction and other information essential to mariners. In recent years, the Department has been under the very heavy pressure of the move to Taunton, the change to metrication, increasing automation and the arrival of new survey ships. But the greatest demands on the work and time of the Department have not come from the Royal Navy itself but from the mercantile marine.
  As long ago as 1823, Admiralty charts, after some opposition from the Board, were made available for the use of the mercantile marine and the public, and now only half the work of the Department is for defence and the remainder is for civilian use. Yet the entire costs of this service are borne by the Navy Vote. The Supply Estimates reveal that the annual running costs of the Department are about £1½ million. Receipts from the sale of charts and other publications are about £1½ million, so it seems that the service very nearly pays for itself. But these statistics are a little misleading because they do not include the capital costs or the operational costs of the survey fleet itself. If we include these, the true figure is nearer £7 million a year. That is a great deal of money, and it is certainly a significant advance over the £470 allotted to Alexander Dalrymple, the Navy's first hydrographer, 175 years ago. But as large as £7 million is, I am bound to question whether it is anything, like adequate for modern needs and conditions.
  The Report by the Hydrographer of the Navy for 1969 said:
  "The construction of a number of vessels of over 200.000 tons and the expectation of even bigger ships of 500,000 tons and more is
  1256
  creating a major hydrographic problem. These vesels have very deep draughts and are such expensive capital assets that their economic operation leads to their use in ever more marginal and critical navigational conditions. The pressure is therefore on the Hydrographer to provide more detailed and comprehensive surveys.… Tasks of this magnitude cannot be done quickly, are very expensive, and have to be fitted in with other important work.… With the present state of the science of hydro-graphic survey and with the shallow and changeable sea areas around N.W. Europe cluttered with the wrecks of two world wars, anxiety is felt at the minimum below hull clearance accepted by the tanker companies."
  It may interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that the North Sea has never been surveyed and that as much as 40 per cent. of the seas around our coast which have been charted have not been re-surveyed since they were first mapped out between 1840 and 1870 with lead and line, when the deepest draught vessel could safely manoeuvre in about three fathoms. Yet the Hydrographer in the last ten years alone has had to revise the danger line no fewer than three times—first to 48 ft., then to 66 ft., and, more recently, to 90 ft.
  The "Torrey Canyon", which was among the 13 largest vessels in 1967, drew 45 ft. The 200,000 ton tankers—now there are more than 100 of them at sea—draw 65 ft. The "Universe" class draw about 80 ft.—which is twice what the old "Queens", the largest ships afloat in the 1950s, drew—and now we have to face the prospect of the one-million ton tanker with a draught of between 100 and 120 ft. All this means that our old charts are becoming dangerously obsolete and are in urgent need of revision.
  The position is made more critical by unpredictable phenomena like negative surges which can lower predicted tide heights by as much as six feet, and by shifting sand waves on the bottom which can have amplitudes of up to 30 ft. Another hazard is the old war-time wreck, of which there are approximately 7,000 at the bottom of the North Sea. Of these, about 4,000 are marked on Admiralty charts, but for many only a "position approximate" is recorded.
  The time has surely come for the Government to do some radical thinking about the organisation of our hydro-graphic services, especially about how we are to finance them. One possibility is what the Germans have done, which is to leave the Navy with a department large enough to look after its own defence

  1257
  needs and to hive off the remainder to some civilian agency or institute. This would have certain advantages, especially if the venture were to be an international one, and the existing North Sea Hydro-graphic Commission could be converted to this role. But I am opposed to the proliferation of para-State organisations, since they usually mean the unnecessary duplication of effort. It would be a mistake to deprive ourselves of the skill and accumulated experience of the existing Hydrographic Department. In every sense of the word, it is a world-wide centre of excellence. The alternative is to leave the Department as it is, but to free it of its exclusive dependence on the Navy Vote so that it can expand to fulfil civilian requirements.
  I work on the principle that the user should pay. If that is accepted, I suggest that there are four ways in which we could relieve my hon. Friend of the existing burden on the Navy Vote.
  First, the price paid for charts could be increased. A chart is a necessary tool of navigation and a highly sophisticated instrument. The information that it contains must be gathered by highly skilled people using complex and expensive equipment for many man-hours. No chart is allowed to be published until it has undergone the personal examination and scrutiny of the Hydrographer, and, up to 24 hours before the moment of sale, each chart has the latest information inserted on it by hand. I understand that we charge only 75p for a chart. It strikes me that this is the sort of generosity that one encounters only when people are spending money that is not their own.
  Secondly, some form of survey tax could be levied on shipping brokers. Insurance companies have more to gain than anyone else from safe navigation, and they would also be in a position to exact a penalty from those of their clients who failed to utilise the most up-to-date charts. Naturally, they would pass on the cost to their customers, so that the principle that the user should pay would be maintained.
  The third possibility is a system of payments similar to that now used to finance lighthouses and other navigational aids. Light dues are levied on ships according to their size and purpose when entering or leaving ports. The money is paid to the General Lighthouse Fund,
  1258
  and one envisages a comparable hydro-graphic fund. One difficulty about it is that it would penalise port users, since ships in transit would enjoy the benefits of the survey without contributing a penny.
  The fourth and perhaps the best alternative means would be to make pilotage dues high enough to provide a fund for hydrographic surveying. At the moment, pilotage dues are paid by ship owners or their agents for each act of pilotage performed. Such a fund could be administered by Trinity House or by the appropriate Chambers of Shipping. Its success rather depends on whether the Government make pilotage through the Straits of Dover mandatory.
  I intervened in the debate to alert the House to a problem and to expose the anomaly that a civilian requirement is being met almost wholly out of defence funds. I urge the Government to undertake a searching review of our hydro-graphic services against prospective requirements. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have the sympathetic ear of the Prime Minister since, as a mariner, my right hon. Friend will know that, without accurate charts and measurements, even "Morning Cloud" may come to grief.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am most sympathetic to the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed). The hon. Gentleman referred to there being only one other speech on the record about the Department of the Hydrographer. I think that he was referring to my own two years ago.
  I echo what the hon. Gentleman said but, of course, he will agree that there are far bigger questions for the Prime Minister on the allocation of the Vote. This is the nub issue. Some of us would like to see a review of the whole basis on which we have our Service Votes. More and more, if we are to have Op.M.A.C.C. operations by the Army and the R.A.F., it is clearly wrong that they should be paid for out of Service Votes. This is a Cabinet-level question.
  It happens that I had the good fortune on Saturday to be a guest of the captain of the "Ark Royal", and this is one of the points that some of the officers of

  1259
  the "Ark Royal" made. They said that traditionally, 10 years ago, the Navy would have gone to East Pakistan or wherever the problem area was, and given help out of the naval funds Vote—and it would have been taken for granted. Today, everything has to be accounted for, and we as a House should be rethinking the basis of the Navy Vote. For that reason, I was very much in sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said, especially from the Op.M.A.C.C. point of view. Besides, I should like to see any letters that he receives giving the Department's reaction to what he said about pilotage, because we all know how expensive that is, and the licensing of charts.
  I want to raise some detailed points, of which I have given the Department notice. The first is the extent to which, in the design of new ships, account is taken of possible new developments in weapons systems throughout their operational life. I was glad to hear the Minister say that this whole matter was "spread across industry" and the Government establishments. There is a real issue here for the Navy, as there is for the R.A.F., and it raises the argument of quality against quantity. The time has come when we must again rethink the extent to which we go for the best, and we should remember that the best is sometimes the enemy of the good, especially in a post-"Kumar" and post-"Eilat" situation where any ship of size is extremely vulnerable. Therefore, there is a basic philosophy to be worked out here.
  Then there are certain problems for the Navy which arise out of the White Paper on Procurement and the Rayner Committee's Report. Anyone who has seen it must be very impressed by the capability of the Sea King helicopter. It is a magnificent machine, and I want to ask specifically what is being done to interest the Americans in its capability and to what civilian uses it could be put. It strikes us that so much of the development of Boeing, and other American firms, in the past couple of decades, has come from the expenditure of military funds. Here, we have developed the Sea King, and am sure that its uses can be extended to civilian operations. The same goes for the work on fibreglass for minesweepers.
  1260
  When the Department says that it is operating across industry, I am prompted to ask what it has done to sell these techniques to British industry. Perhaps the Minister would write to me on this point.
  Thirdly, I wish to refer to the option for seamen in the electrical and mechanical branches to transfer after four years' service. I understood the Minister to say that this has been extended to all branches but that an adjustment had to be made for the adult length of an engagement. It is important not just to suppose that those who are recruited to the Navy, even for fairly short times, need necessarily be recruited at what we would regard as a young age. If people, after experience in industry, want to go into the Navy, it should be possible for them to do so. Therefore, I welcome what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu). Equally, in relation to the in-service degree, we should welcome the system whereby a supply midshipman can take a degree, and there should be an extension of university cadetships. Perhaps the Department would do well to advertise in industry what it is doing to link and gear the Service expertise of a supply midshipman and his subsequent officer career to civilian life.
  One thing which strikes any M.P. as he goes round is that the Navy in a sense really is very different from the Army and the Air Force. Conditions are different because the conditions of separation are different. It is no use thinking that the Navy's problems are similar to those of the Army and the Air Force. Therefore, because of the alteration in family life which naturally comes with marriage, those of us who have been at sea, albeit in a different capacity on the ship school "Dunera", as bachelors, know and understand that as soon as a man becomes married his attitude to his professional life may necessarily undergo a change. In these circumstances, it is important to look at the question of linking some kind of civilian career with the Service and, indeed, lowering the age of entry into the promotion zones because it helps legitimate career expectations. One can welcome the whole process whereby greater weight has been attached to merit and faster promotion—at the same time, we ought to encourage the experienced

  1261
  man who wants to remain at sea longer than is usual.
  I was also glad to hear about the effects of the new rate for warrant officers and the creation of the Fleet chief petty officer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) and I have a problem in Fife and West Lothian concerning the rationalisation of shore establishments. It ill-behoves those of us who make general sweeping statements about economy, as soon as it affects our own constituencies, to say, "You must not make that cut because it affects us personally." Whatever else I say in defence debates, I shall not get into that position. Therefore, I am not immediately critical about the "Caledonia". All I say is that there is a wide feeling in central Scotland that the standard of training in the "Caledonia" is second to none, as it tends to be throughout the Services. Those of us who go round industry know that Service training is very good indeed. Therefore, if there is to be any move let us think, and think in time, about what can be done to extend the basis of training which is given in the "Caledonia" and make it available to civilian industry. As my hon. Friend will point out, if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye, this is very important to the whole of our area.
  I am also glad about the changes in managerial accountability in the dockyards. Another issue is the rising costs of expenditure on Fleet support and their consequences. Here, again, the one real problem concerns menial tasks. As the standard of technical ability and the demand for it rises in the Services, it is unrealistic to ask highly skilled people to do the traditional menial tasks which they would have done without question certainly before 1939 and, indeed, up to ten years ago.
  The Department kindly arranged for me to visit the "Ark Royal" at short notice on Saturday. Anyone who goes on such a visit is immediately struck by the sheer technical expertise which is now demanded not only of senior officers, but of a large number of ratings and officers on board such a ship.
  Finally, I wish to raise two matters. The first concerns my speech last year. I gave the Department warning, so I can
  1262
  talk in shorthand. Despite scepticism from Ministers and, indeed, a number of my own colleagues, I still feel that if this nation is to have a coherent marine science programme, the best Department to run it is the Admiralty. The Admiralty has the hardware and much of the expertise—and the Navy, the enthusiasm. I know that the Minister denied the practicability of this in answer to a Question which I put to him that the Admiralty should take over more of what is essentially a civilian marine science programme; but the truth is that the Admiralty has the interest in doing so. It is whole-time on this kind of thing and, at a period, we hope, of long-term peace, there is a real problem concerning legitimate career expectations. If we have 'a Navy—we must have a Navy—what is it to do? This is a real issue.
  In these circumstances, rather than loading a marine science programme on to some gigantic department—the Department of the Environment or the Department of Trade and Industry, which have so many other things to do—we should reach the concept reached by many developing countries of a socio-economic function for the Services. Therefore, I suggest in all seriousness that the Admiralty may take on a socio-economic function because it should be responsible for a marine science programme run by this country. My real fear is that unless the Admiralty does it, no other Department will. I think that the Admiralty has the ability to get the money to carry out this programme, but not in the Defence Vote. If there are changes in the Defence Votes, so much the better. This might make it easier. I give notice to the Department that throughout the coming year I shall be plaguing it with Questions on this matter in the hope of persuading some change of attitude on this fundamental problem.
  So far my speech has been concerned simply with praise and, on the whole, good works. But I must come to one point of serious criticism. A number of my hon. Friends—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) and, indeed, two or three hon. Gentlemen opposite—have mentioned the unsatisfactory nature of the torpedo programme—the M 31 and the M 24. Without being immodest, I think that I can supply a partial answer why

  1263
  this has gone wrong. I suggest that the naval establishments, like other Service research establishments—the Admiralty Under-Water Weapons Establishment, the Services Electronics Research Laboratory and the Admiralty Materials Laboratory—are, by their very nature, unsatisfactory institutions. It is difficult, without taking detailed cases, which I am not competent to do, to illustrate the point which I wish to make.
  I think that there is cause for reflection. I do not quarrel with the quality of intake into the great Service research laboratories, nor do I make any specific criticism of any particular directors. All I am saying is that, just as the Robbins Committee argued that in order to be a good and lively university teacher, one one ought to be involved in research, so a researcher past a certain seniority ought really to be involved in teaching.
  One of my worries, having been round some of these institutions—I was received with great hospitality, openness and frankness—is that, after a period, those who work in them get into a rut. They go full of enthusiasm, but then it becomes a routine job. Talented people become sleepy. Research does not lend itself to a routine job. I suspect that we must look at the whole concept of these establishments because the end product, in relation to the money which is spent on and, indeed, the brain power which is diverted into them, is wholly unsatisfactory.
  I should like to see them, their expertise, and the talented people who work there—who often get into a rut—far more bound up with industry at an early stage. I think that research has to be done in industry or at university, and those who have made a study of Japanese industry have no doubt that one of the reasons for the remarkable development of Japanese industry, particularly in electronics—which is very relevant if we are talking about torpedoes—is that the research is done inside industry. If one talks to any Japanese electronics firm and asks what contracts it has with, and how much it depends upon Government research establishments, the people there look astonished and say, "Why should we want to go to Government research establishments?". The research is done in the big Japanese electronic firms.
  1264
  If the Government are worried about having an inquiry into what has gone wrong with regard to torpedoes, I ask them to reflect deeply on the whole system that we have of research establishments and ask whether this is a sensible use of money, whether it is a sensible use of scientific manpower, and whether it ought not to be changed. Heaven knows, the mechanics of shrinkage are difficult enough. But, if there were a change here, I suspect that we would not have the problems to which hon. Gentlemen opposite and my hon. Friends have referred.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box in a Navy Estimates debate. I think that today, from both sides of the House, there has been a varied approach to a number of naval topics, but most of the speakers have concentrated on the lamentable lack of an adequate surface-to-surface weapon, and I hope that this time the reinforced arguments which have been put so ably by hon. Members on both sides of the House will, at long last, persuade the Minister who winds up the debate to do more than pay lip-service to the necessity for such a weapon.
  If my hon. Friend studies the Navy debates in this House over the last eight to 10 years, he will see that the absence of a suitable surface-to-surface weapon by our fleet was raised on every occasion. I remember that about six years ago we were promised that something would be done. We were given a hint, very quietly and very darkly, that something was coming which would do the trick and give us a surface-to-surface capability. After about two or three more debates we found that that something was the dear old Seaslug, which was never in the same class as the sophisticated weapons which the Russians have developed and which they possess on fast patrol boats.
  The type of surface-to-surface weapon which sank the Israeli destroyer in the Mediterranean has been developed so that now, with its homing head, it has a range up to 450 miles, this is a tremendous capability and, as was said earlier, there is not a shadow of doubt that a navy which relies on guns and shells only to

  1265
  defend itself is doomed to a rather sticky future.
  The Royal Navy has about the best anti-submarine system in the world, and probably possesses a fund of knowledge and expertise, in that regard which is beyond comparison, but I wish that instead of concentrating entirely on antisubmarine defence we would look at the offensive weapons a little more seriously and take some action to get a suitable surface-to-surface missile. Initially we may have to borrow a suitable weapon until we can develop one ourselves. The fact remains that in a short time any navy which does not have a surface-to-surface capability will be discarded as valueless.
  Another matter relating to our policy in the South Atlantic is the need for a fifth Polaris submarine. Of the four that we have, the Defence White Paper tells us that H.M.S. "Repulse" is undergoing a long-term refit, which means that we have to manage with three, and I do not believe that three can provide an adequate permanent deterrent for this country, bearing in mind the need to change crews and the replenishments that have to take place all the time.
  One must remember, too, that these vessels are ageing a little. There may be a possibility of their having to be re-equipped and, instead of using Polaris missiles, have to be armed with Poseidons. If that happens, they may be out of service for some time. There is, therefore, a real need for a fifth Polaris submarine. After all, the original fleet, was planned to be five. To provide a balanced Polaris fleet, with adequate resources, and adequate opportunities for refit and replenishment, there should be five of these vessels.
  Hon. Members have called attention to the declining size of our fleet, and how it compares with the fleets of other nations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) said, since 1952 the personnel of the Navy has declined by nearly 50 per cent. If one goes back, not quite as far as 1952, but only to 1964, one finds that the numbers in the fleet have declined considerably, and it is the number of ships that matters. We have considerably fewer aircraft carriers, submarines, frigates and destroyers ready for sea and for use than we had in 1964.
  1266
  What is so significant is that while, all the time, the rôle of the Royal Navy and its capacity seem to be declining, the ships of Russia and the United States are becoming more and more numerous. The ability of the Russian fleet has never been higher than it is today, and the Russians are in a very expansion-minded mood in many parts of the world. One of my hon. Friends said that we ought to concentrate on the Mediterranean, where the Russians are pretty active at the moment, but if one goes into the Indian Ocean, or into the South Atlantic, round the Cape route, one finds evidence that the Russians are by no means inactive in those areas.
  Just before Christmas I went on a three-week visit to Mauritius. One of our trips was to the harbour to look at some of the vessels there. We saw a number of Russian vessels, which of course have a right to replenish and change crews, but in addition, during all the time that we were in the area, there was present what was loosely called a Russian meteorological vessel. We went round the outside of it, and I tried to count the number of its portholes. I stopped when I got to more than 280. The ship looked more like a small liner than anything else. It had a large number of personnel, male and female, who were to be seen shuttling backwards and forwards to town. The Russian Embassy in Port Louis is the biggest there. Obviously, a vessel of this size and with this number of personnel permanently moored in the harbour is not there just to explore the oceanology or the skies of the Southern Indian Ocean.
  Russia has also negotiated landing rights for her aircraft in Mauritius. A little further north, the Russians have been invited by the Ceylon Government to fly aircraft from Ceylon to help them against the insurgents. So gradually, the Russian influence in the Indian Ocean and associated waters is spreading.
  I believe that the Russian policy is to probe and prod gently and gradually until they meet firm resistance. If there is no naval presence and only soft resistance, they will go on probing and prodding until they meet resistance. I greatly welcome the Government's policy of supplying arms to South Africa, particularly naval weapons in accordance

  1267
  with the Simonstown Agreement. I hope that the Royal Navy will be able to make greater use of Simonstown than it has done in the past and that it will have a greater naval presence in that part of the world. I hope that it will make greater use of the wonderful safe anchorage and associated port facilities inside the bluff at Durban.
  Now that the Suez Canal is closed, all our seagoing trade from the Middle East and most of it from the Far East goes around the Southern Cape route. It is not enough for Britain to rely on supplying naval equipment for the South Africans to defend their coast, because their coast is our sea route, our lifeline. The Russians will go on probing and prodding it until they meet firm resistance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) said we should not get too closely associated with the South Africans, for political reasons. In many respects he is right, but we have to look at the map. Geographically, the closest and most suitable harbours for the Royal Navy are within the Republic of South Africa. Mauritius has asked us to go to Port Louis, but that is 2,000 or 3,000 miles from the spot. We have the wonderful natural harbours of South Africa, and we can and must, I hope, make use of Mombasa Harbour and Kilindini, further north, as well as Lagos and Sierra Leone, and Saldanha Bay, on the east coast.
  I should like to see a permanent British naval presence there, not wasting their time shuttling back and forth to Beira looking for non-existent oil tankers but doing some purposeful work looking after the tremendous amount of British shipping which is now using this part of the world.
  I end on a couple of sombre thoughts. Russian fleet activity on the open seas today is five times as great as it was four years ago. They will very soon have more nuclear submarines than the United States, and in three or four years, the power possessing most ballistic missiles at sea will be not the United States but Russia. We cannot compare with the might of either, but we have British interests to preserve. We have the world's largest merchant fleet and we need a reinforced and permanent British presence overseas.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Adam Hunter: My interest in the debate is mainly a constituency interest, but this does not detract from my appreciation of the work of the Royal Navy over its long history, and its limited rôle at present. I represent a constituency with a large dockyard. It is one of my chief interests in Parliament. At the last review and the one before, Rosyth Dockyard came out very favourably. Its prospects have been very good and look very good for a few years ahead.
  The people working in Rosyth Dockyard and living in Dunfermline and West Fife felt that they benefited from the last review in particular. Rosyth was the only one of the four dockyards which increased its work force, and we had the assurance from the previous Government that this good work would continue. Rosyth Dockyard and the other naval establishments in the vicinity employ more people than the mining industry in Fife today—which 12 years ago employed about 26,000 people.
  The people of Dunfermline and district were also proud to know, a few years ago, that they would get the task of refitting the nuclear submarines. This assured them of a good deal of work, and 40 per cent. of the work force work on the refitting. The fact that Rossyth had been recognised as a top grade yard gave them great satisfaction.
  We have had our troubles in Rosyth Dockyard—not so much last year as in previous years. We have had productivity deals in the industrial section of the yard, which had teething troubles, but I understand that most of them have now been solved and that there has been little trouble in the past few months. Like any other industrial enterprise, dockyards are not immune from trouble, so few of us can complain about the few troubles which we have had.
  In the last Navy debate, on 9th March, 1970, I also pointed out the problems facing the work force in our dockyards. I do not want to repeat everything which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) said about the need for greater improvement in pay and conditions in all the dockyards, but I want to mention three points which I hope the Minister will carefully consider. All three are—and one has been—sources of

  1269
  concern for the people working in a section of the naval establishments.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) mentioned H.M.S. "Caledonia". In the last Defence Review it was announced that H.M.S. "Caledonia" would probably be phased out in 1977–78. This caused the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and myself a great deal of disquiet which we expressed in the debate of 9th March. Since then I have met a number of representatives of the civilian instructors at H.M.S. "Caledonia" and they are much concerned at the prospect that this excellent engineering training school should have its functions transferred to H.M.S. "Sultan".
  The Defence White Paper of last year simply said that in closing the "Caledonia" over the years other possibilities would be investigated for the continued use of the establishment. This is causing a great deal of concern among the civilian instructors. Some are alleging that this is another case of rationalisation and concentration taking industry away from Scotland to the South of England. I hope that the Minister will answer this point and say why it is necessary that the functions of H.M.S. "Caledonia" should be transferred to H.M.S. "Sultan".
  After the announcement about the "Caledonia" it seemed that people assumed that this decision could be met only by a placid acceptance. The position has changed, because the 54 civilian instructors are questioning the reasons for the change-over. I will not enumerate the points put to me by them, because the Minister has kindly agreed to meet me and my colleagues to discuss the future of the "Caledonia". I will save those points until that meeting. The view now is that there is no need for a transfer of the functions. Having toured the establishment once or twice, the last time as recently as a few weeks ago, along with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay) and the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour), I came away with the impression that the excellence of the establishment, its modern and up-to-date billeting facilities for the artificers and the large and efficient work-place, could not be surpassed. It would be wrong to break up such a smooth-running and efficient training unit. When this meeting
  1270
  takes place I will convey the doubts and misgivings of the people in the establishment and many more in the town of Dunfermline where there will be a great loss of trade as a result of the change.
  Secondly, I wish to raise the point of the craft apprentice intake. The complaints I have had come from the apprentice group instructors. Since he became responsible for the Royal Navy the Minister has had the honour of upgrading the apprentice group instructors, although this was the culmination of a fight that has gone on for 15 years. This upgrading benefited them in pay and conditions. Now the apprentice group instructors have another problem. They are concerned about the entry into Rosyth Dockyard. They have seen the answers given to Questions tabled by me recently and they query those answers.
  The Minister has said that the total intake for 1971 will be 127 craft apprentices. The instructors allege that this means that only 88 craft apprentices from Rosyth and Dunfermline will be admitted in real terms. The rest come from other naval establishments. The instructors refute many of the points put forward in the Minister's answers.
  Another serious and disturbing point has been drawn to my attention. I am told that new appointments are being made in the dockyard. It is alleged that there is to be the appointment of two education officers, with supporting clerical staff. It is also said that there is to be the appointment of a technical officer, grade 1, in the apprentice training sector. The Minister seems to argue that this has to be done because other dockyards have this type of appointment. Yet Rossyth has existed all these years with its training centre and has never required anyone of this grade to supervise. The staff argue that it would be better to appoint this person not to the training centre but to the welfare department.
  If there is to be this large cut-back in the entry of craft apprentices there will be a serious situation in and around my constituency. I have been informed that over the years the average intake was about 200. Now we shall be reduced, in real terms, to 88 for this area. Like most areas, mine is suffering from an increase in unemployment. There is difficulty in finding jobs for young boys, and if this

  1271
  cutback takes place there will be this further restriction of opportunity for those wishing to take up craft apprenticeships.
  Some time before the present Government took office it was brought to my notice that there was a likelihood of the dockyard technical college closing down. I met all the staff of this college and they were amazed to think that the college could be closed. I made representations on their behalf several times, and they came to see me several times. In the end, apparently, their professional organisation and the Admiralty came to an agreement, and the result has been the closure of the dockyard technical college and the handing over of its functions to Fife education authority.
  In response to another Question which I put down a few days ago, however, I learned that a number of the staff have not been placed in appointments. This is most unfortunate. Some have secured places with Fife education authority and with other educational institutions, but the few who are left should be the responsibility of the Minister. He should make every endeavour to see that those people who have been displaced from the dockyard tchnical college have other suitable work from the Ministry.
  I hope that the Minister will take careful note of what I have said, and I look forward to his giving us the best hearing possible when we call to see him.
  8.21 p.m.
  Captain Walter Elliot: I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) will excuse me if I do not take up the points which he raised. His speech dealt largely with constituency matters.
  I was a little surprised when the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), opening for the Opposition, said—I do not know whether this was his personal opinion or the policy of his party—that it was wrong to accuse the Labour Party of wanting Britain to withdraw from a world rôle. I have vivid and, perhaps, bitter recollections of White Papers from the Labour Government referring to the withdrawal of our forces to Europe and the seas around us, with accusations hurled at the Conservatives that we still had dreams of past imperial glory and we, therefore, wanted to maintain forces abroad. If the present Opposition have
  1272
  changed their views and they do advocate a world rôle for Britain, I hope that—
  Mr. George Thomson: Perhaps I can help the hon. and gallant Gentleman to get on with his speech. We have not changed our views. It is the Tories who have substantially changed their views, now that they are in Government. We always said that we saw a worldwide rôle for British forces based on Europe, and it was for that reason—if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had taken care to read them—we said repeatedly in White Papers that we wished to maintain a reinforcement capability, which we were, in fact, demonstrating at the time when the last election took place.
  Captain Elliot: I am glad to hear that the Opposition do advocate that this country should maintain a world rôle. Whatever their views now, I think that the House will agree that, over the past years, it has often been said that Britain has not a world rôle to play, because of the dissolution of the Empire and the giving up of our responsibilities abroad.
  It does no harm to repeat that, to a very large extent, our food and our raw materials come from all over the world, and we export all over the world. So we cannot avoid or throw away that world rôle.
  We have heard a lot, and particularly from the Opposition, although I should not take this too far now in view of the denial which I have just heard, about cutting our commitments to match our capabilities. Again, it does no harm to draw attention to the fact that about 90 per cent. of our exports and imports are carried in ships along the sea routes. We cannot cut that commitment, as long as 50 million or, perhaps, up to 80 million people live in these islands.
  What is the threat to these sea lanes? In the last two world wars, we came close to defeat. We came close to defeat because of submarine attack on our sea communications. In 1939, for example, the Germans started with only 25 submarines available to go to sea, but they caused enough trouble in 1939 and early 1940.
  After the war, in my naval career, I lectured for about two years on antisubmarine warfare and, in particular, on what was called the Battle of the Atlantic, the submarine war in the Atlantic. I

  1273
  recall stressing that, at the height of the battle, the Germans had as many as 100 U-boats at sea at once, and by stressing that I tried to emphasise the magnitude of the threat to this country and the importance which the Germans attached to their submarine campaign.
  Fortunately, by some time in 1943, our anti-submarine forces were well developed, but in spite of that development we only just got through.
  What is the threat today? Instead of 25 submarines, our potential enemy has nearly 400. I do not say that all these submarines would go out on the trade routes—some are missile carrying and so on—but they are a serious menace.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean by our "potential enemy" having 400 submarines?
  Captain Elliot: Russia.
  Mr. Loughlin: But why?
  Captain Elliot: The Russians are our potential enemy. One must be realistic. That is a fact of life. Not only have they the numbers, but technically their submarines are greatly advanced. We all know that sometimes attack goes ahead, and sometimes defence. Nuclear power has given submarines great advantages, great speed and great endurance, and I do not believe that defence has yet caught up with those technical advances.
  That is the threat. What are our defence forces against it? I was interested when my hon. Friend the Minister referred to the Royal Navy as being unmatched. He compared our forces with those of Europe and mentioned those of the United States. Qualitatively, no doubt our forces are unmatched. But we should be doing ourselves a great disservice if we tried to deceive ourselves over this matter. Europe is not the enemy; neither is the United States. The potential enemy is Russia. Our anti-submarine forces, to be pitted, possibly, against those Russian forces, are puny. I have here the answer to a question which I put to the previous Government, and the situation has not changed very much. We have about 71 Royal Naval ships with anti-submarine capability, and they are not necessarily all available to act in an anti-submarine rôle. The highest number in the last
  1274
  war—with 100 German U-boats at sea, we only just got through—was 875, as compared with 71 today. To put it more vividly, at that time we had eight antisubmarine vessels to every enemy submarine. Today we have one antisubmarine vessel to every five potential enemy submarines. The disparity in maritime aircraft available, a very important aspect of anti-submarine warfare—although I cannot dwell on that—is today just as great.
  Mr. Adam Hunter: Does the hon. Gentleman see any essential difference in the fact that whereas we are predominantly overpowered by the naval might of Russia and the United States, our land forces are in a similar position? Would he recommend that we should try to vie with Russia and the United States with land forces?
  Captain Elliot: No, I certainly would not. We have gone too far as it is in land forces. But when we consider our forces, we have to recognise that we do not expect to fight a war alone. We have our allies. In 1939 we did not expect to have to fight the war alone, but we found that we had to do so. But perhaps the situation today is different.
  What is the position? I briefly quote from the 1967 Defence Estimates:
  "N.A.T.O. must be ready at sea, as well as on land, to demonstrate its will and its ability to respond appropriately to any act of aggression. But it is no longer realistic for the Alliance to attempt to provide maritime forces for conducting a prolonged war at sea after a strategic nuclear exchange. Deterrence must be the first purpose of N.A.T.O.'s naval forces, too."
  It is unrealistic for the Alliance to attempt to provide these maritime forces. That was a true statement at the time. So we shall not get our forces from our allies.
  It may have been unrealistic to expect anti-submarine forces to be available after a nuclear exchange. But I question the assumption—I am not the only one—that a war necessarily is or is bound to be nuclear. It is possible to have a maritime war without nuclear weapons. More and more it is becoming reasonable to assume that Governments will not decide to incinerate the world because, for example, a maritime war is taking place.
  But a maritime war has especially important implications to us because it

  1275
  could mean the end of this country. In addition, as the 1967 White Paper said
  "Deterrence must be the first purpose of N.A.T.O.'s naval forces, too."
  Weak anti-submarine forces will certainly not deter Russian missile carrying submarines.
  We have heard a great deal about tripwires, controlled response and the like in Central Europe. The front line is not only on land but extends round our coasts and over the ocean. We want the capacity to survey activity on or under the sea in exactly the same way as we detect missiles, aeroplanes or other hostile or potentially hostile forces above the sea.
  When all this argument is finished, our ability to provide arms depends upon the money available; and it is limited. We must be realistic. Today naval and maritime forces are very expensive. We must get help from our allies, although it is worth mentioning that in the last few decades it has been the first time for hundreds of years that Britain has not been able to defend her sea lanes successfully for herself.
  On the question of help from our allies, the Defence Statement is disappointing. I am glad to read in paragraph 2 that
  "the first of the Government's objectives recognises that British interests and responsibilities are not confined to the N.A.T.O. area. Britain's political and trading interests are world-wide and they can flourish only in stable conditions."
  Paragraph 5 goes further and, referring to the continuing threat from Russian expansion, says this:
  "Success in this policy will be at the expense of Western political interests; it could also put increasingly at risk important Western economic interests."
  So the new Russian dispositions are, the Statement admits, a threat to all of us, not only to Britain.
  Paragraphs 10 to 14 are headed: "The Alliance's Response". However, these paragraphs contain nothing which deals with the new threat which has been mentioned in the earlier paragraphs. The only concrete measure—"concrete" is the operative word—is the reference at the end of paragraph 14 to a total cost of £400 million for
  "N.A.T.O. integrated communications system and measures to improve the protection of aircraft on the ground."
  1276
  That is very necessary no doubt but it bears no relation to the threat postulated in the earlier paragraphs.
  Paragraph 11 refers to the review of defence problems for the 1970s
  "which covered the whole spectrum of N.A.T.O. defence problems."
  In the light of the statements in paragraphs 2 and 5 drawing attention to the expansion of Soviet power and influence across the world, I have a few questions for my hon. Friend. First, is he sure that "North Atlantic Treaty Organisation" is the right title for our defence treaty? Should not the question of the boundaries be considered with a view to their stretching further afield than the North Atlantic?
  Will my hon. Friend ensure that the defence review for the 1970s which is referred to in paragraph 11 of this Defence Statement covers the threat to the security of the West as a whole as outlined in paragraph 5 of this year's Statement—that is, the worldwide threat, not only the threat in the North Atlantic? In the review, will he reiterate that land frontiers are not the only frontiers? Will he emphasise that nuclear war is not necessarily the only sort of war, and that maritime war is a possibility? Will he bring to the attention of the allies the dimensions of the Russian submarine forces and the strength of the allies' antisubmarine forces? In short, will he do what the Russians have done, and rediscover for Europe the vital importance of the sea in any defence arrangement?
  8.41 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: I must confess that this is new ground for me. I think that it is the first time I have ever dared, being a confirmed coward, to intervene in a defence debate. I do not think that I would have done so tonight but for the beginning of the contribution of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot).
  I am always rather confused when we talk about our defence capability. I have an increasing appreciation of Britain's defence limitations. Historically, it is true that we were able to dominate the whole world, largely because of our naval pre-eminence. I do not want to disparage in any way the

  1277
  achievements of the Services, whether in the air, on the land, or on the sea, and the work they do. I pay tribute to the lads in all the Forces, and would be the last to denigrate their courage or capability. Incidentally, I have been on a number of ships.
  What disturbs me is that any of us in this day and age can think in terms of an enemy. My interest in the debate was quickened when the hon. and gallant Gentleman talked about an enemy that he did not define, though he talked about its capability of 400 submarines, and when I intervened he referred to Russia. If we are thinking of the defence of this country, the last thing we should think in terms of is an enemy. The hon. and gallant Gentleman smiles, but if he is thinking of Russia being our enemy he is pursuing a policy of despair, because irrespective of all the courage we could command as a nation and all the enthusiasm we could engender, because of our particular way of life, if Russia is this country's enemy, we could not face that challenge alone.
  Captain W. Elliot: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman quite got my point. What I am concerned with is not Russia as such, but the 400 submarines she possesses.
  Mr. Loughlin: I began by saying that I was entering into these subjects. I can only take what people say. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman talks about "our enemy" and, when challenged, indicates that that enemy is Russia, I say that we are living in a fool's paradise if we believe that we can establish a psychological position in which we regard any nation with the capability that Russia has as our enemy.
  Captain W. Elliot: Potential enemy.
  Mr. Loughlin: It can be hedged round, or put in inverted commas, or otherwise qualified, but when it comes to our defence, we have to say that we have no enemies. We have a rôle to play and it is to try to get the willing co-operation of all nations irrespective of their political complexion.
  It is common currency today to regard the world as divided between the Western world that we know and the Eastern world centering around Soviet Russia. In
  1278
  five years, there will be another division: there will be the Western bloc as we know it, the Eastern bloc centering around Russia, and the Far Eastern bloc centering around China. This is something we have to bear in mind when we consider defence policy. It is ludicrous to have a defence programme based on the assumption that the only enemy which we can envisage for the years ahead is Soviet Russia.
  It is no good talking about Russia having 400 submarines and, to quote the hon. and gallant Gentleman, our having only 71 ships with anti-submarine capability unless one assumes that future development must inevitably be seen in a possible or potential—I use the hon. and gallant Gentleman's word—clash between ourselves and Russia.
  Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the Soviet Union overtly and blatantly describes the potential of its navy as
  "to give battle to enemy naval forces at sea and their bases, and to disrupt enemy ocean and sea transport".
  That was said by Marshal Sokolovsky. Admiral Gorskhov said:
  "The Soviet Navy has been converted in the full sense of the word into an offensive type of long-range armed force… which could exert a decisive influence on the course of an armed struggle in theatres of military operations of vast extent … and which is also able to support State interests at sea in peacetime."
  Those are overtly military capabilities which we must take measures, in concert with our allies, to counter.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am not sure what that intervention was all about since I did not argue that Russia was not a potential enemy. I am merely saying that it is a foolish defence policy which is based on the assumption that Russia is the only enemy. I pointed out that, in political and military terms, the world is developing not between East and West but between East, West and the Far East, and how we will fit into this pattern of development we do not yet know.
  I accept what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) said about Russia's might, but what is its impact on us? Every defence White Paper for the last 20 years or so, not to speak of virtually every after-dinner speech by our admirals and generals, has warned us of Russia's strength, but these

  1279
  warnings are really meaningless—[Interruption.]—at any rate to me, though if the hon. Member for Bradford, West has something to say I will conclude my remarks shortly in the hope that he will have an opportunity to speak. Perhaps he has something so say, which is probably more than I can claim.
  I rise simply to point out, despite the cynicism of the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton, with whom I am prepared to debate defence at any time—he has no reason to snigger at what I am saying because it is vital for our future—and despite the unreal world in which he lives, in which he believes that we can play a major rôle in any future war, that there will not be a maritime war. If we are ever involved in such a conflict, it will be a nuclear war—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and unless we are prepared to face the future on that basis, we will be betraying every citizen in this country.
  8.53 p.m.
  Major-General Jack d'AvigdorGoldsmid: Earlier in the debate a certain amount of heat was generated over the Naval Detention Barracks, in which was joined my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). As a soldier, perhaps I can take a somewhat dispassionate view of this issue, give my impression of it and make some suggestions.
  In recent weeks I have had the opportunity of visiting the Royal Naval Detention Quarters. I spoke to detainees and visited the military detention centre at Colchester. I have also seen the film to which considerable reference was made, but I do not intend to adopt the mantle of a film critic.
  I wish it to be clear at the outset that the Royal Naval Detention Barracks are extremely well administered and are closely supervised by the naval authorities at Portsmouth. They are run fairly and with common sense. One of the detainees with whom I spoke had been given a week's compassionate leave during his sentence. Improvements have been carried out and the washing facili-
  1280
  ties and food seemed more than adequate. Another detainee, who had been a cook, confirmed this view. These improvements were listed by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy in our debate on 13th January.
  There are three functions of any Service detention centre: first and foremost, to provide corrective disciplinary training for offenders; secondly, to be a deterrent for any further misconduct; and, thirdly, to rehabilitate people so that they can return to their ships, units or stations as better Service men. There are two categories within those establishments—those who have committed serious offences and have incurred dismissal from the forces at the end of their sentence, and those, like the men in the Royal Naval Detention Quarters, who have not incurred that sentence.
  Conditions of entry to the forces today are such that men with criminal records are not accepted. Therefore, in establishments of this nature, people are incarcerated for things which appear to be comparatively trivial, like absence without leave or insubordination, which in civilian life would at most incur the sack from their employment but certainly not a prison sentence.
  For that reason, I should like to compare the two establishments which I have visited. I deal first with the Army establishment at Colchester, which caters for personnel in the Royal Air Force and the Army. The inmates are incarcerated in barrack rooms, with six to eight men in a room, obviously under lock and key at night. The barracks are no form of luxury; they are huts. But they are together. The work is done mostly out of doors. There is any amount of real estate and the camp is situated in a large park. There is wire around the outside and one can see the countryside beyond.
  The staff at Colchester consists of members of the Provost Staff Corps plus a certain proportion of younger N.C.O.s, who come from Service units and who do proportionate time—two or two and a half years—and, therefore, are possibly more in touch with the young.
  The Royal Naval detention quarters at Portsmouth cater for personnel from the Royal Navy and Royal Marines. They are situated near the dockyard. The

  1281
  place is a prison—that is, the inmates, or detainees, are incarcerated in cells where they are under lock and key by night and where they spend quite a large proportion of weekends, which was the only complaint made to me when I was there. The staff are old and experienced. They are long-service chief petty officers, petty officers, warrant officers and senior N.C.O.s of the Royal Marines who have finished their service time with their units, ships or shore establishments and are biding their time there. Because of their increased age, they perhaps lack the touch of youth of their opposite numbers at Colchester.
  Before the war, I was adjutant of my regiment and I visited the notorious Army penal establishment at Aldershot known as the "glass house". Since that time there have been many changes in the Services and in the intelligence rating and the standard of living of members of the forces. Unfortunately, there is still a demand in the forces for centres of this nature. Good discipline, which is the backbone of Service life, is not inspired by fear of detention. The Army destroyed the "glass house" and has now resorted to a form of rigorous corrective training under unit circumstances.
  In conclusion, as a soldier, I humbly suggest to the Royal Navy that it should follow the Army's example. There should be one detention centre for all three Services, manned by representatives of all three Services so that special-to-arm training can be carried on. The incarceration should not be in a prison but rather in a barrack room system where there is much more communal life. The centre should be run not as a prison but as a unit, with a view to rehabilitating the Servicemen so that when they have finished their sentence they can go back to their respective forces as useful members.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: No one who has visited and studied the Royal Navy can be other than impressed by the high standard of expertise and the complete dedication and devotion of all ranks of the Royal Navy. Nor can anyone who has had the pleasure, as I have, of serving in the Royal Navy ever forget the spirit which lives for ever in anyone who has come
  1282
  into contact with the Service. I am particularly glad this evening to have this opportunity of participating in a naval debate, although I am somewhat awed at having been preceded by three of my hon. Friends, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu), the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen), all of whom have served with distinction in the office now occupied by the hon. Gentleman opposite as Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Navy.
  In every Navy debate we talk about the new rôle the Navy is undertaking and the new challenge that confronts it. It is not necessary for me as an ex-sailor to remind the House that every time a ship puts to sea it faces a challenge and, very often, a new rôle. The clear message comes from all the speeches in the debate that the Royal Navy still remains both a fighting force and an attractive proposition for any young man seeking a life of adventure. The Navy is responsible for carrying out the strategic nuclear rôle for this country. That is done by the submarine force to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton referred. It is done by the submarine force because, as Professor Martin pointed out when he addressed the Royal United Services Institution, the sea has the quality of shrouding the operations of that weapon.
  From what the Navy Minister said in his opening speech, it is clear that the broad policies laid down by the previous Administration have been accepted by the Government. Whether it be in ships, weapons, manpower or pay, all the broad outlines which were so bitterly attacked by the Opposition when the Labour Government were in power have now become the policy of the present Administration. If we look at the White Paper or the Navy Estimates we find that little if anything has changed. The old sterile argument about the carrier is now forgotten.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: No.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says "No". He may be having a battle with his own Front Bench. I am delighted that in his criticism of his own Front Bench, who are carrying out the policies of the Labour Administration,

  1283
  he refrained from using the harsh and discourteous words that he and some of his hon. Friends used in attacking those policies when they were in Opposition.
  Perhaps the Minister will tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he has any plans to lay down a new aircraft carrier to replace the "Ark Royal" after 1975. Perhaps he will also tell us what future he sees for the Fleet Air Arm. In the White Paper, the Government claim credit for the reduction in the redundancies planned by the last Government. A major part of the reduction resulted from the extension to the life of the "Ark Royal", but that does not secure the future of the Fleet Air Arm. The hon. Gentleman has a duty to spell that out.
  In those past debates, we had to listen to most disgraceful strictures levelled at our patriotism and the way in which we accept our responsibilities for the security of the country. I was not at all surprised that, when the Prime Minister formed his Government last June, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who bore the responsibility as Opposition defence spokesman, was given the shrouding quality of the European negotiations to protect him from the wrath that would otherwise have fallen upon him.
  The policies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) have been broadly accepted by the Government. The main arguments are now over and, provided the Government stick to those sensible policies, they can expect the support of the Opposition in any reasonable steps they take to maintain the security of this nation by maintaining the viability of the Royal Navy.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Is the hon. Gentleman not forgetting a little thing called "east of Suez"? We never knew what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) thought about that.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The Government have accepted the broad strategy. They may have moved the chess pieces about but they are not adding any new pieces or buying a bigger set. They can put a few ships east of Suez but there is nothing basically different in their policy. Hardly a penny more is to be spent by the Government than was planned by the last
  1284
  Government on defence, despite all the promises. When the Government consider defence matters, particularly those relating to those east of Suez, I hope they will listen to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) rather than to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) in dealing with relations with South Africa and the use of the Simonstown facility.
  But all these arguments are over. We can as a parliament turn to other problems—those of ensuring that the Navy can fulfil the new and agreed rôle that Parliament has laid upon it. The Minister referred to manpower as being the main problem now facing the Navy. We concur in that judgment. The problem of attracting men of enthusiasm and dedication to the Navy is a continuing one. I was pleased to hear his words on the necessity to establish a volunteer Navy, to ensure that there will no longer be any reluctant sailors serving in the fleet—reluctant either because they enlisted for too long a period at too young an age or, and this is perhaps something which may arise in the present climate, because they sought an escape from civil unemployment.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the purchase of discharge and the fact that this is progressively to be brought into line by 1977. How many men in the Navy would have been eligible for purchase of discharge if this system could have been operated immediately? How many men will continue to be kept in the Navy for the next six or seven years as reluctant seamen?
  Later in my speech, I shall return to recruitment and re-engagement. One of the main themes of the debate has been the subject referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Major-General Jack d'AvigdorGoldsmid), the Royal Naval Detention Quarters at Portsmouth. In view of the television programme a few days ago, I was surprised that the Minister did not consider it necessary to say a few words about it. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) that the hon. Gentleman was supplied with a transcript of the statements made by all the ex-detainees who were interviewed. If that is the position, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends cannot pray in aid the charge that the film

  1285
  was biased and unfair when the Minister had an opportunity, before the editing of that programme and its preparation for final viewing, to look through those comments and to make representations to "World in Action" about any alterations that he thought fit.
  The public spotlight has been concentrated on Portsmouth D.Q., whether hon. Gentlemen opposite like it or not. I have visited the D.Q. and seen the situation there, as I have Colchester. When the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester accused "World in Action" of making a sensationalised report full of political bias, I was staggered. I accept that perhaps the programme could have been broader in its conception, but I reject any accusation of political bias, and certainly any of sensationalism. When one bares to the glow of public examination such dark areas of naval life as the detention quarters, that cannot be regarded as sensationalist.
  The hon. and gallant Gentleman revealed that he had been a quarterly visitor to the detention centre. I looked up the detention rules to see what were the responsibilities of a quarterly visiting officer. They include, among others, listening to any complaints made by detainees. One must assume from that that every detainee in naval detention quarters has a regular opportunity once a quarter of quietly making representations to the visiting officer—
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: He does.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I also looked at Detention Regulation No. 41, "Offences against Discipline". Section (t) of a list of offences says that a man is guilty of an offence if
  "… he makes repeated and groundless complaints …".
  He would be a brave inmate in a detention centre who made complaints to a visiting officer or anyone else. I do not think that it is satisfactory for that position to exist. Some better system of complaints need to be devised than having visitors like the hon. and gallant Gentleman visiting once a quarter.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: One went there to get genuine complaints and not groundless ones.
  Mr. Driberg: They are always called "groundless".
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. and gallant Gentlemant went on to make an attack on the personal integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking. Quite rightly, lie got the bird from the House. My hon. Friend visited the D.Q. before participating in the debate on 11th January. In his speech on that date, he went out of his way to pay tribute to the Navy. He said:
  "Even these rather backward detention quarters were humanely administered so far as I could tell, and were perfectly clean, but I did not think that they were suited for rehabilitation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 125.]
  There is no criticism there of those very decent people who operate and administer the D.Q.s; only an acceptance that they were run in a humane way, but were unsuitable for rehabilitation. I echo those words.
  Despite the emphasis being put on detention quarters, we must get this matter in perspective; not overdo it. We must recognise that just as in civilian life we need a penal code and penal institutions to imprison, to rehabilitate and, we hope, to reform the civilian population who commit offences against society, so in the Royal Navy there is a necessity for a penal code and penal institutions. I do not think that anyone doubts that.
  I hope that we all accept that only a small percentage of men in the Royal Navy, or in any of the Services, go to the D.Q.s. I accept that a reasonable percentage of those who go to the Royal Navy D.Q.s are trying to work their tickets—reluctant sailors trying to get out. If that is the case, we should accept the Donaldson Committee's Report where it says that if the price of a few hundred or more being released from the forces is the price to stop this form of ticket working, then it is a price that we ought to pay.
  None the less, even though this is only a small problem in terms of numbers who go to detention quarters, it is no reason for the conditions at the Portsmouth D.Q. being swept under the carpet. Therefore, I have no hesitation in saying that the "World in Action" investigation was sensible and reasonable and that it was right to show that film.
  I should like to pay tribute to the "World in Action" team. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester might like to join me in this tribute. Perhaps I

  1287
  made a mistake. When I arranged with Granada to have a private viewing of the film, I invited the hon. and gallant Gentleman to accompany me, but he was not generous enough to pay tribute to the staff and the producers of "World in Action" who kindly and courteously spent considerable time discussing with us in a frank and genuine way the contents of the film.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles rose—
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall not give way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman again. I am short of time and still have a number of points to go through.
  I pay personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton who introduced most of the reforms which have taken place in the D.Qs: the replacement of boards by bunks for men to sleep on and the slight moderation—only slight—in the no-talking rule. I understand that young men sent there are still subject to the no-talking rule in their first week. The detention quarters rules are strict concerning no communication. My hon. Friend was also instrumental in introducing a television set into the quarters—only one set—which can be viewed only at limited times. He also took great steps to improve the quality of the diet.
  None the less, although these reforms have taken place, we must not forget that it has taken almost a quarter of a century since the end of the Second World War to get even these moderate reforms and to start dealing with some of the problems with which the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester should have dealt when he was a quarterly visitor to those quarters.
  I notice that in reply to a Question the Minister referred to the cells occupied by seamen in detention quarters as "rooms". It is not good enough. They are narrow cells with little peepholes in the doors, and the inmates are required to slop them out each morning. Long periods of solitary confinement take place when the men go back to them in the evening and particularly over the weekend.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West referred not only to the dockyards and the importance of Ports-
  1288
  mouth Dockyard to his constituents but to the detention quarters there and made a most important point. He said that the staff should receive training in the administration of this sort of establishment, and I agree with my hon. Friend. The staff and administrators of Portsmouth detention quarters have a difficult job, which they carry out in a very bad environment. If I have any criticism of the system, not of the staff—and the point was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield and Tamworth—it is that most, if not all, of the staff at Portsmouth are representative of the old Navy. They are pensioners who have come back to serve at the detention quarters.
  They are honourable men. No one is casting any aspersions or doubts on their integrity but, if we talk about a new modern Navy, the people who operate the detention quarters, those who have the responsibility of rehabilitating those who are sent there, those who have the job of doing what the detention rules lay down as the purpose of the detention quarters, which is to rehabilitate and make a man fit in all respects to return to his ship, should be representative of the modern Navy, and not of yesterday's Navy. I therefore urge the Minister to look at that aspect of the problem to see what can be done.
  During the debate on 13th January the Minister gave as one of his justifications for retaining the detention quarters the fact that because conditions were a bit rugged in some of Her Majesty's ships we must not make detention quarters too comfortable. I remind the Minister of the sea-shore ratio. From the Government's White Paper I calculate that the ratio is about one-third afloat to two-thirds ashore. I am sure that the Minister will give a slightly higher figure of the sea-shore ratio, but that is my calculation, based on the figures published by the Government.
  If that is the case, the overwhelming majority of Navy personnel are not in the cramped quarters of some of the small ships but in reasonable quarters. The overwhelming majority of personnel will be returning to shore establishments, and not to one of the small number of difficult and uncomfortable ships. There is therefore no justification for keeping these primitive quarters purely to try to

  1289
  ensure, in this old-fashioned manner, that they are not too comfortable.
  Mr. Judd: Is not another weakness in the argument that it is the same argument that was used against civil prison reform? If we had listened to the argument then, we should never have seen the progress that we have witnessed in civil prisons.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I hope that I have said enough to encourage the Minister to take seriously the view put forward by his hon. and gallant Friend that the real solution to the problem of detention quarters lies not just in reform, but in tile complete abandonment of them. There is an overwhelming case for having tri-Service corrective centres, and I hope that the Minister will continue to pursue a liberal policy in that respect, leading to the desirable aim of closing the detention quarters and having a proper corrective training centre at some other place.
  There is one aspect of the sea-shore ratio which the Minister ought to clear up. In the White Paper there is a nice little map of the world showing how many members of the Royal Navy are ashore and how many are afloat. From those figures I calculate that only one-third of the personnel are at sea at any time and 66 per cent. are ashore. If that is the case—and I accept that this may be a crude measurement—I think that we ought to be able to do something about that kind of sea-shore ratio in order to lessen the number of jobs ashore carried out by male members of the Royal Navy. We must, if necessary, consider seriously the substitution of some woman power for manpower in order to limit what might otherwise be a continuing problem.
  The other matter that I should like to deal with on recruiting is to urge the Minister to ensure that in all the recruiting literature that is sent out—and I have a selection of it here—the new terms of entry for young men are clearly set out. I see that in one of the more recent issues of recruiting literature that is done on the penultimate page. I hope the Minister will give the House an undertaking that in every booklet or piece of advertising material that is sent out from the Navy the new terms will be set out very clearly. We must get away from the situation that a young man of 15 can join the Navy under a misapprehension and finds, when
  1290
  he reaches the age of 18, that he still has a considerable length of service to do.
  I was interested to note that the Minister is pursuing the policy of his predecessor over the degree course at London University. We welcome that. We were a little concerned that it might have been lost on the way. We are not clear about his intentions there, but certainly it has not been abandoned.
  We should like to hear something about the trials, begun by my hon. Friend when he was in office, of the new uniform. Before any final decisions are made on these trials, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ensure that the views of serving seamen are taken fully into account.
  We have talked about enlistment and recruitment. One way to ease the manpower problems would be to deal with the situation over re-engagement. It is very interesting to note the figures in Table 5 of the White Paper for each of the three Services in respect of the percentage of men re-engaging after nine years' service. For the Navy, the forecast for 1970–71 is 35 per cent., for the Army it is 50 per cent. and for the Royal Air Force, 59 per cent.
  Why is it that the Royal Navy has such a small percentage? This could play an important part. If the Navy could reach the Army's figure of 50 per cent., that would have a tremendous impact on Navy manpower. I do not expect the Minister to reply off the cuff, but I hope that he will be able to say that he will have some research done into that matter. I hope that he will also consider the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East about the system in the Dutch Navy to encourage people who have left the Navy to rejoin.
  We greatly welcome the statement about the welfare services of the Navy. We have long thought that there is a desperate need to improve welfare facilities and the care of wives and children of naval personnel at sea. We therefore welcome his decision to conduct a study, and we wish that study well.
  This has been a wide-ranging debate, dealing with weapons systems, the manpower situation and the differences which used to exist between the two sides but which now, because of the adoption by the Government of our broad policies,

  1291
  have been transformed into a broad agreement which means that we can go forward to tackle the real problems. I have no doubt that future Navy debates will take a slightly different turn from those which we have had before or from this. Providing that the Government stand firm on this broadly agreed policy, we can concentrate on the future and on ensuring that the Navy can fulfil its rôle.
  The Minister can rest assured that we shall support him in all the sensible and liberal reforms which he continues to implement in the Navy, particularly in the D.Qs. I can do no more than wish the Navy well and hope that, in the temporary period during which the Conservative Party will have responsibility, they will not take any actions which, when we resume responsibility, will leave the Navy in a state which will take us years to rehabilitate.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. Kirk: By leave of the House may I reply to the debate and in doing so welcome the appearance of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) on the Front Bench opposite? Long may he remain on the Front Bench opposite and long may he participate in our naval debates. I am certain that it will be noticed, I hope, in the fleet, as well as outside, that whereas the debates on the other two Services folded up after a few hours the interest in this House in the Royal Navy is so great that we ran the full course and I fear that some hon. Members who wished to speak have been disappointed. This is encouraging not only for me as Minister responsible but for the Royal Navy.
  The debate has been of a remarkably fine standard and has been conducted on three levels. There has been first the strategic level when the argument did not seem to be across the Floor of the House but on the benches opposite. This is a great problem. On the one hand we are accused of having undertaken wasteful and wanton engagements all over the world which we cannot possibly fulfil and on the other we are told that we are merely carrying out the policies of the previous Administration.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite must make up their minds. I suggested earlier that the possible difference between the two
  1292
  sides of the House was that we did not recognise that there was a line anywhere on the map which divided defence. We say that defence is indivisible the world over. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) assured me that the Labour Party when in government and in opposition believed in worldwide defence, but I was denounced by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) for suggesting that we should have a defence policy outside the N.A.T.O. area, south of the Tropic of Cancer. This is a matter they will have to sort out between themselves, and when they have decided on their policies perhaps they will let us know.
  Meanwhile, I have made our policy plain and perhaps it might be more valuable if I answered some of the detailed points that have arisen. A question which has exercised a number of hon. Members and occupied a large part of the closing speech of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford has been the question of the Royal Naval Detention Quarters at Portsmouth. I did not refer to it in my opening speech, and this was because I thought I would wait and see whether, as it is only two or three months since we last debated the subject in the context of the Armed Forces Bill, there was a general demand for a further statement.
  I will divide what I have to say into two parts, the first dealing with the television programme shown on Monday of last week and the second dealing with the detention quarters generally. On the first point, I gave permission for Granada to film inside the detention quarters, willingly and at once. Although it has gone out of its way to suggest that there was some great scoop and great difficulties were put in its way, there were no difficulties placed in its way at all. The only two conditions I laid down, other than the normal Home Office conditions which I thought right to apply in this case, were firstly that I should have a chance to appear on the programme and answer any points raised. I did ask that I should see the programme up to that point so that I would know what had been raised, but it was said that this was technically impossible and instead, as the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has said, the company said it would send in transcripts. It did so, 130 foolscap pages. It took about four

  1293
  hours to read them. This was just before the television programme—
  Mr. Driberg: Some weeks before.
  Mr. Kirk: It was two days before it was due to film me. Owing to some internal difficulties about whether the programme was to be shown it turned out to be a month. The problem was that, although we could find out all about the men themselves and the allegations which they made—in fact, we discovered the interesting fact that one of them had never been inside Royal Naval detention quarters at all—
  Mr. Driberg: Next door.
  Mr. Kirk: He was in the cells at Portsmouth barracks for two nights before being removed to Netley Hospital—during the whole of that time—
  Mr. Driberg: No.
  Mr. Kirk: May I be allowed to get on with my speech? We had no means of knowing what part of that mass of material, which amounted to about five hours' filming, would be used in the programme.
  Our second problem—this faced me, in particular, when the interview came—was that the character of the programme appeared to have changed during the production. What set out, as we understood it, to be a balanced programme about Royal Naval Detention Quarters turned into a discussion on the "ticket worker", the reluctant sailor—call him what one will. It must be accepted that that was so, because there was no mention of anyone else ever having been inside Royal Naval Detention Quarters at all, although, in fact, the ticket worker represents less than one-sixth of the total population of D.Q.s. All the discussion centred on that.
  If it had been a programme about D.Q.s, much more, for instance, would have been shown about life in the D.Q.s. But virtually the only thing which was shown was people going round the assault course and scampering up and down the stairs—[An HON. MEMBER: "Squarebashing."]—square-bashing and so on, and, as is only too easy in a building of this kind, some pretty horrific pictures of the inside of the place, which I have never
  1294
  concealed from the House I view with the greatest dismay.
  No attempt was made to show the improvements in food, in bedding and in sanitation which were carried out either by the hon. Member for Sutton or by myself. There was only the most cursory reference to that. On the other hand, a great deal was made of the fact that the people we put there—indeed, it was suggested that they were almost the only people we put there—were the reluctant sailors.
  It became apparent that that was what the company had in mind, because, when its people came to interview me at the Ministry in the week before the programme took place, virtually all the questions were directed to that point. But what I found so interesting was that, when the programme was actually shown, all those questions and all my answers were cut out. Although I spoke about Donaldson, about the reforms which we had instituted in respect of engagement, and about the fact that, thanks to the power which we had given to the commanding officer at the detention quarters to recommend discharge direct from the D.Q.s, the number of discharges for that reason had gone up eight times in the last 12 months, all these points which I made to the producer of the programme were cut out, and the impression left by the programme was that the Navy was complacently sitting back saying. "We have got the place here and we shall not do anything about it". [HON MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]
  That is my complaint about the programme. I have written to the company to ask for an explanation, and I shall be very interested to see what can be said. I still maintain, however, that I was right to allow Granada to go and film there. I believe that that was correct. It is a matter of public concern. I only regret that the confidence which I placed in the company has been abused in the way it has.
  I come to some more general observations about detention quarters themselves. As the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford said, under the auspices of my predecessor, a number of reforms were instituted. I listed them in the debate on 13th January. One of the first things I did after taking office was to go and see

  1295
  the place, because I wanted to see how the reforms were working.
  In the light of the debate on 13th January, we have made further changes. The silence rule, for instance, has now been altered and the period reduced to two days instead of a week in the initial stages, in order to acclimatise—this is really what it does now—to get a man over the shock of finding himself in the detention quarters at all.
  In view of the concern shown by the House, and especially in view of what was said by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) about liaison with the civil prisons, I think it right to tell the House that, shortly after the debate on 13th January, and before I was approached by Granada Television, I asked the former Inspector-General of Prisons, Brigadier Maunsell, whether he would be good enough to advise me on whether the reforms we were making were right and whether the course on which we were set was right.
  Brigadier Maunsell has kindly undertaken to do this work. He has visited both the Royal Naval Detention Quarters and Colchester detention quarters, and I await his report with considerable interest. I did not announce it to the House at the time because I did not wish it to be thought that I had any disrespect for the Select Committee which, I knew, was to go to the detention quarters.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: That is welcome news, but could the hon. Gentleman, now or later, tell the House something about the 15 to 18-year-olds, and whether he will consider not allowing any young men of 15, 16 or 17 to be committed to the D.Q.s pending the reforms and the report?
  Mr. Kirk: That is a point to which I am already giving attention. I hope to be able to make a statement on that matter in the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
  Mr. Farr: Would it be possible for my hon. Friend to place in the Library of the House the reply of the television company, when that is received?
  Mr. Kirk: I will certainly give consideration to that. It depends upon
  1296
  whether it is a confidential letter. I should not like to betray a confidence in that way.
  I hope that I have said enough on this subject to convey to the House not the anxiety but the fact that I am continuing to take, as I promised in the previous debate, a close interest in the affairs of that establishment.
  Mr. Driberg: One reply that the hon. Gentleman gave in the previous debate, which was a little disappointing, was about the tasks, the picking oakum, and he said:
  "But the tasks will remain, all the same; we do need the mats in the Royal Nary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th January, 1971; Vol. 809, c. 150.]
  That was not very satisfactory.
  Mr. Kirk: That was true. We still need the matting. There is always a question, in establishments like that, of keeping the chaps occupied. I am looking into the matter and this is one of the points on which I shall welcome the advice which Brigadier Maunsell will be able to give as to the way in which we can vary the work done there.
  Mr. Driberg: Not in fatuous tasks.
  Mr. Kirk: It is not fatuous to make matting which the Navy needs.
  Perhaps I may pass on to one or two other points raised about personnel. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) raised the interesting point about the raising of the school-leaving age and the effect that this would have on the recruitment of 15-year-olds on whom we largely rely. This is one of the matters which we are having to consider with very great care. Perhaps the best that I can say today is that we are looking into it with the Department of Education and Science to see what is the best way of meeting the situation when the school leaving age is raised in 1972, which is just before the time when H.M.S. "Ganges" is due to close and transfer anyway. For that reason that is a convenient time to review the question of the best way of ensuring effective boy entry.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) has sent me a note saying that he is sorry not to be here. I understand that his wife has had an accident. I am sure that we all send him our good wishes at this time. He

  1297
  raised the question of the system used in the Dutch Navy to try to entice people back again. I understand that he suggested this to my Department when he was Minister. It seems to have survived two Ministers since then without ever surfacing again, and I will try to track it down and see what has happened to it over that period.
  The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford raised the question of the new uniform for R.N. ratings. As he knows, and as I am sure his hon. Friend has told him, the attitude survey made in the fleet just over a year ago showed that a great many ratings wanted improvements in the square rig, or even its abolition altogether. The prototype modernised version was announced by my predecessor in the debate on 9th March, 1970. This generated considerable new interest on this subject in the fleet. In the light of this, the study was extended by commissioning designs and prototypes from a commercial design firm as well as in the Service. These should be available at any time, probably within the next two or three months, and we shall try them out on the fleet to see which ones are the most obvious successes. We are looking for something consistent with naval tradition, but more comfortable and practicable than the present uniform, and something which obviously will survive for a good many years to come. One does not wish to be put to the excitement or expense of changing it every few years or so.
  I come now to problems of manpower which are associated with defence policy. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton once again suggested that by running on "Ark Royal" we are putting ourselves into a manpower box from which we shall be unable to emerge without scrapping "Ark Royal". I repeat what has been said before on this subject. "Ark Royal's" total complement is about 2,400 men of whom about 1,000 are Fleet Air Arm personnel who can be ignored for this purpose. Those men will be met after 1972 by the slowing down of the redundancy scheme and, if necessary, the introduction of R.A.F. personnel.
  The remainder—the large part of the extra requirement—is met by the cancellation of the conversion of "Lion" which was announced last year in the supplementary White Paper. "Lion's" ship's company would have been about 800.
  1298
  Cancellation of her conversion releases between 600 and 650 servicemen for "Ark Royal".
  We believe that with this bonus behind us, with the prospects for recruiting, which I am soberly confident we shall be able to step up, and other significant manpower economies which can be achieved by adjustments in the programme, not only in operational but in support ships, we shall be able to find the additional manpower for "Ark Royal" without unacceptable sacrifice elsewhere in the Navy's capability. We believe that running on "Ark Royal" will give a clear net operational gain, for reasons which have been discussed throughout the debate, in the surface-to-surface capability of the Navy, which is clearly lacking at the moment. On that, too, I shall say something a little later.
  As I have got on to the subject of the Fleet Air Arm, perhaps I may deal in more detail about that. A number of hon. Members, notably my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), have asked me questions about the Fleet Air Arm generally, and particularly in relation to vertical and short take-off planes.
  First, people—this includes some people in the Fleet Air Arm—tend to think of the Fleet Air Arm only in terms of fixed-wing flying. I can understand why. There is something about a Phantom and a Buccaneer which does not appear even in the most sophisticated helicopter like the Sea King. The Phantom Squadron at Yeovilton having been kind enough to give me my observer's wings last Friday, 25 years after I should have qualified for them, naturally I feel rather the same way myself.
  On the other hand, the helicopter rôle is particularly important as the cruisers come in. I confirm what the hon. Member for Sutton said, that the main point of the cruiser was as a helicopter ship. Anything we do on vertical and short take-off is a bonus on top. The helicopter rôle is exciting, sophisticated, and very important indeed, particularly as the Sea Kings come in with their greater anti-submarine capacity.

  1299
  In addition, the rôle of flying the Royal Marine commandos from the commando ships is vital. Whatever happens to fixed wing flying in the Royal Navy, there is a rôle for the Fleet Air Arm which the Fleet Air Arm perfectly well understands.
  However, there is not the slightest point in my trying to disguise from the House what every hon. Member knows to be true. This is that the Fleet Air Arm hopes that there will be Harriers in the Fleet and that it will fly them.
  Particularly as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester took the view that we did not want any more trials but that we should go ahead and buy the planes, I must mention the trials from "Ark Royal" which started today and which I shall attend next week. The trials which have taken place so far have been able to confirm the fact that the Harrier can take off from certain types of decks. We now want to discover, first, how effectively they can operate from ships at sea. That we have done with the "Eagle" trials and with the trials on the "Tiger" class cruiser "Blake" and other decks. We want to discover, second, whether the additional capability they can provide will be such as to justify the cost. This is far more difficult to resolve. This is the object of the second set of trials which are taking place this week and next week on "Ark Royal".
  As I have said before, and as has been revealed to the House, the design of the new cruisers will incorporate the option to operate the V-STOL aircraft, but there is no need to hold up the design of the cruiser until we have resolved that problem.
  Mr. Wilkinson: Is not there another option in the interim, which is to operate V-STOL aircraft from "Hermes" as an integral part of our amphibious forces? These could be either the Harrier or the naval version of Jaguar. The catapults of Hermes can take it, and this would give integrated close air support capability for the marines as they are going ashore, which would be a most valuable adjunct.
  Mr. Kirk: I feel that the first essential with "Hermes" is to get on with the conversion to an amphibious ship which we are carrying out. I hope that by the
  1300
  time we have done that we shall have reached a final decision on Harrier.
  I was asked about the running on of the old destroyers and frigates. We do not normally reveal numbers in these cases, but they will be refitted to enable them to carry on for several more years. They are not the equivalent of new ships, but they can perform useful tasks and help to carry out commitments which do not necessarily have to be performed by higher-capability vessels. They form a useful bonus in our total number at relatively low cost.
  Dr. David Owen Dr. David Owen rose—
  Mr. Kirk: Time is getting on.
  Dr. Owen: This is the only new announcement made to the House, that that there is to be running on of ships. Surely it is reasonable to give the names of the ships. They are not secret. We are told that they are destroyers or frigates. Surely their names and manpower numbers can be revealed, as this would not break any form of secrecy.
  Mr. Kirk: This is not usually done, but I can say that one, "Whitby", is starting conversion on refit in Gibraltar now, the first of the old ones to be converted.
  I was asked to give the number of operational ships. The number of ships operational is 164 out of the 210 that we have. The figure is probably slightly higher than most hon. Members realise.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) both made points about the Hydrographer. I join them in their tributes to his service. Both made the point that the hydrographic service is now used to a great extent for non-defence purposes. That is obviously true. Very few naval ships are affected by the difficulties in the Channel. Nearly all those affected are the new deep-draught tankers. Therefore, we are having talks with both the Department for Trade and Industry and the Chamber of Shipping, which I shall meet next month, and are invoking international assistance wherever possible. We have done this already in the Malacca Straits, and we hope that similar arrangements can be made elsewhere.

  1301
  I now turn briefly to the question of the surface-to-surface capability raised by a number of hon. Members, and particularly to the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), who suggested, though I do not think that he expected to be taken absolutely literally, that the Royal Navy was powerless before the Cuban Navy, the Egyptian Navy and presumably, the Navy of Monaco and one or two other countries. This is not so. It is not true that we have no surface-to-surface capability. There is not only "Ark Royal", which he mentioned, but the fact that a very large number of seagoing ships are fitted with helicopters with AS12, which gives an anti-ship capability. There are possibilities of using Sea Slug and Sea Dart for these purposes. The point, however, as he maintained, is that these are essentially cobbled methods of dealing with the problem. That is why we have gone for Exocet, which still seems to us the best weapon available in the time-scale. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Otomat and Harpoon. Both are interesting weapons which we have looked at, but they cannot be available to the Fleet in the same time-scale as Exocet. Therefore I still believe that our decision to go for Exocet is right, and the negotiations are continuing. I hope that they will be concluded fairly soon.
  A number of points were raised on torpedoes. I went into this in my opening speech, and I do not think there is any need to say much more. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester suggested that we paid off "Blake" and stopped work on "Tiger" as conditions there are intolerable, with no air conditioning. I have visited "Blake", though not "Tiger", because it is undergoing a refit. I found the crew surprisingly happy considering the difficulties that ship has had, and they did not make the points that my hon. and gallant Friend mentioned. It is also important to remember that at the moment these are the only ships we have which can deploy four Sea Kings, and it is of considerable importance, with their command and control facilities, that they should be kept going, at any rate until the cruisers come into service at the end of the decade.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East asked about fishery protection. There has been no particular change in
  1302
  the level of forces which we normally use. This is a regular minesweeper patrol and there is a regular allocation of frigate effort from the Western Fleet.
  I was asked a number of questions, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) about the fast patrol boats. This raises the extremely difficult question of the proper allocation of resources. We have, of course, ordered some fast patrol boats from Vosper's and we have already operated one of theirs to do trials and we are now evaluating the trials to see whether these boats are worth while. It may be that we shall have to come round to them, but at the moment we think probably not.
  A number of questions were asked about the dockyards, as is always the case in a debate of this kind, because they are of great concern to a number of hon. Members. I will not get involved in discussing dockyard technical colleges, for this is a matter which we have disputed before. We are pressing on and I have given my undertaking that I am personally trying to ensure that all those displaced will be re-employed as most already have been. Out of the 72 involved, 49 have either now received other posts, or preferred to retire. Two posts with the Kent County Council and three liaison posts with the dockyards have still to be filled. The process of resettlement is, therefore, going ahead fairly well.
  Meanwhile, as I said earlier, we have productivity agreements in all the dockyards. There have been complications in the technical trades, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) suggested. I think that we have now overcome them—I hope so, but one can never be absolutely certain in these matters.
  The modernisation programme will go ahead, although I cannot guarantee that it will be in exactly the same form as the hon. Member for Sutton left it to me, because I must reserve the right to make changes if necessary, but it will be roughly in the form in which he had it.
  As hon. Members know, it is always difficult to handle the balance of trades. We are doing the best we can to see that we get an effective balance of trades and to get the labour force fully extended

  1303
  and able to meet the increased output we need.
  I should like quickly to refer to H.M.S. "Caledonia". I should be delighted to meet hon. Members about H.M.S. "Caledonia". I am grateful to them for not discussing policy when they were in "Caledonia", for that would have been embarrassing for the captain, and for only finding out what the facts were. This was a decision taken by the previous Administration. I reviewed it as soon as we came into office and my noble Friend reviewed it again after having visited "Caledonia" and it still seems to make sense to us. Nevertheless, if hon. Gentlemen consider that there are any further points which they wish to bring forward, I shall certainly listen to what they have to say.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) made a number of points, and I may just have time to deal with them. He mentioned the design of new ships taking account of new developments. We try to do this as much as possible so that we can effect both repair and refitting by replacements which will save a great deal of ship time which would otherwise be taken in refitting, installing new weapons and so on.
  He mentioned the problems of procurement. We are still working out the precise details resulting from setting up a procurement agency, and it will he some weeks before we get it finally right. However, these are rather matters for my hon. Friend who deals with defence procurement than they are for me.
  I have tried to answer as many questions as possible. Many have been raised in this interesting debate and it has not been possible to answer everything. If I have missed any important issues, I will write to the hon. Members concerned. I end as I began, by thanking all those who took part and once again drawing attention to the fact that the Navy debate lasts the whole day whereas the other two Services can manage only half a day.
  The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Redemption of Standard Securities (Scotland) Bill, the Law Reform (Jurisdiction in Delict) (Scotland) Bill, the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill [Lords] and the Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

  REDEMPTION OF STANDARD SECURITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  LAW REFORM (JURISDICTION IN DELICT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Rossi.]

  WILD CREATURES AND FOREST LAWS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.—[Queen's Consent signified]
  Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committee), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committee), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  Thtat, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the safety, health and welfare of persons on installations concerned with the underwater exploitation and exploration of mineral resources in the waters in or surrounding the United Kingdom it is expedient to authorise:—

  (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act, and any increase in money so payable under any other Act which is an increase attributable to the said Act, and

  (2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any receipts of the Secretary of State under the said Act.—[Mr. Anthony Grant.]

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (MINERALS)
  10.4 p.m.
  The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move,
  That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the following Motion:
  That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.
  Mr. Page: That will be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
  These Regulations adapt and modify general planning law in respect of mineral workings. This is allowed by Section 197(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, which was a consolidation Measure. This has, in fact, been allowed since the 1948 legislation; that is, an alteration in the law as contained in the Act by Regulations of the sort that are now before the House.
  There have been several sets of Regulations since 1948 relating to mineral workings. The last set was in 1963 following the consolidation Act of 1962, but since then we have had the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, and it is necessary to bring the 1963 Regulations up to date.
  The object of the present Regulations, therefore, is twofold. The first is to reenact the 1963 Regulations so that they apply to the 1968 Act. This is merely a matter of drafting and inserting "1968" instead of "1962" in a number of the Regulations. I am sure that the House would not wish me to spend time on that matter. It is merely a question of change of references and certainly not a change of law.
  The second object is to carry out the purpose of the Section in the 1968 Act referring to the life of a planning permission. That object is an innovation in these Regulations compared with the 1963 Regulations. It relates to Section
  1308
  65 of the 1968 Act, subsection (1) of which provided that
  "Subject to the provisions of this section, every planning permission granted or deemed to have been granted before the commencement of this section"
  —that is, 1st April, 1969—
  "shall, if the development to which it relates has not been begun before the beginning of 1968, be deemed to have been granted subject to a condition that the development must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the said commencement."
  Therefore, any planning permission, whether it related to mineral workings or any other development of land, if it existed when the 1968 Act came into operation, had a life of only five years. That relates to permissions which existed when the Act came into operation.
  Section 65(2) dealt with future planning permissions. I propose to read the subsection but to leave out immaterial parts:
  "…every planning permission granted …after the commencement of this section shall be granted…subject to the condition that the development to which it relates must be begun not later than the expiration of—

  (a) five years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted or…

  (b) such other period (whether longer or shorter) beginning with the said date as the authority concerned with the terms of the planning permission may direct, being a period which the authority consider appropriate having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations."

  Therefore, any planning permission granted after the commencement of the 1968 Act—that is after 1st April 1969—automatically has a life of five years unless the local planning authority inserts some other life, whether shorter or longer, after it has considered the "material considerations" and the development plan so far as they relate to the application for planning permission.
  A mineral undertaker who now applies for planning permission would, if it were granted, have it for a period of five years—if he did not commence working on it in that period the life of the planning permission would go—or such other period as the local planning authority might consider fit and proper for the development of the mineral workings.

  1309
  What do the mineral undertakers think about that? My Department has had consultations with the mineral undertakers as represented by a committee of the Confederation of British Industry. It has been convenient for everyone that that committee should negotiate with the Department on behalf of the mineral extraction industry. There were conferences on 10th December, 1968 and on 15th May. So far as the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968 applied to future planning applications, the C.B.I. appeared to be satisfied at the time, and that satisfaction is expressed in a memorandum which has been sent to hon. and right hon. Members in the last few days:
  "For consents granted after the Section came into effect Local Planning Authorities are empowered under S.65(2) to allow a period longer (or shorter) than five years; if no period is stipulated the standard five years is deemed to apply. There is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State by virtue of Section 67(4) of the 1968 Act against the time limit deemed or actual… The industry accepts in respect of future consents, where the power is given to Local Planning Authorities to grant such longer or shorter period, that it will be up to the individual mineral undertaker to argue the case for the appropriate length of time. There is some danger of planning authorities adopting the standard five years but the position is protected by appeal procedure to the Minister under Section 67(4)."
  It is important to note that there was agreement between the C.B.I., my Department and the local authority associations that there should be no change of the regulations for future applications. The C.B.I. expressed itself confident in proving the case for a period longer than five years if necessary, and confident that the local planning authorities would act reasonably. If they did not, there was always an appeal to the Secretary of State.
  It is with regard to existing applications that we are at issue with the mineral undertakers as their case is presented to us by the C.B.I. I will explain first the purpose of putting a time limit on planning permissions. This was argued at the time when the 1968 Bill was going through Committee and Report stages.
  It was pointed out that it is very damaging and obstructive to proper planning to have a quantity of planning permissions outstanding of which advantage might be taken at any time or at no time. In mineral workings particularly, there are speculative planning permissions
  1310
  outstanding where there is no certainty about their use or when, if ever, they may be used. Section 65(1) of the 1968 Act was intended as a shake-out of doubtful planning permissions. What does the C.B.I., on behalf of the mineral undertaker, think of the principle of the shakeout—that is, shaking out the planning permissions which are not likely to be used, which are purely speculative and which are obstructing good planning in an area? I quote again, this time from paragraph 7 of the memorandum.
  "We suggest that no time limitation should be imposed upon consents that were vested in any bona fide mineral undertaker on 31st March, 1969."
  But, in paragraph 9, talking about everyone else, the memorandum said:
  "The C.B.I. proposal would not only preserve such consents as are necessary but would have the additional merit of getting rid within the next three years of old and speculative mineral working consents held by non-mineral undertakers which have never been implemented but which attach to the land."
  So it is agreed by those acting for the mineral undertakers that there should be this shake-out within the period—now reduced to three years—of five years after the Act unless the mineral undertaker can show that he is a bona fide mineral undertaker. I continue the quotation referring to the speculative work consents:
  "These subsist because at the time they were granted no period of limitation was stipulated but by virtue of Regulation 6 they will endure until 1979. They could be revoked but the compensation associated with revocation is more often than not a deterrent to its being carried out by the Local Planning Authority. The result is a record in planning registers of so-called mineral reserves which can be misleading and obviously must add to the difficulty of Local Planning Authorities seeking to pursue any coherent policy."
  I find myself in entire agreement with that statement on the principle of shakeout, contained in Section 65 of the 1968 Act.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: My hon. Friend has been referring to the speculator, but unfortunately he has bracketed the speculator with the genuine miner. Would it not be a good idea to give preferential treatment to the genuine mineral undertaker and go ahead with the shake-out of speculators?
  Mr. Page: The difficulty is to decide what is the genuine mineral undertaker or why, indeed, he should be exempt if

  1311
  he is holding speculative planning permissions. It is true that a bona fide mineral undertaker was defined for the purpose of the Land Commission Act, but there we were dealing with those in business as mineral undertakers, quite regardless of whether they might be holding speculative planning permissions. It is unrealistic to think that one can exclude a certain class of mineral undertaker and say that he is not holding planning permissions which may be obstructive to planning. It would surely be wrong to assume that no existing operator held only speculative, untried or unwanted permissions. The fact that a company was working minerals in a locality on a given date could be no guarantee of its needs or its intentions in different locations and perhaps in respect of quite different minerals.
  Instead of there being a five-year period of shake-out with the exclusion of what I might call the chosen few, we propose in these Regulations that there should be a 10-year shake-out which will give the genuine and bona fide undertakers time to identify themselves to the local planning authorities, to undertake negotiations for reapplication for their permissions, and to show that they really intend to work them and are not holding them merely for speculation. We have given adequate time for operators to assess their situations and to renew their permissions in good time.
  I do not think that it is realistic for them to fear, as they appear to, that permissions will not be renewed. We all know that minerals are an essential element in our industrial life, and no one supposes that workings can stop. But we can look to the time limit to clear away the permissions which are not likely to be exercised, and it is right to do that. It is right not only for the benefit of planning in an area, but, as, the C.B.I. points out in its memorandum, for the future of the industry itself.
  Here again is a quotation from the memorandum:
  "The early shake out of these mineral planning permissions held by speculators or owners who have never been engaged in the mineral industries, and which have often been obtained on the sparsest of information as to the occurrence of minerals, is highly desirable. Their existence has created complications in estimating mineral reserves and the ability of the various sections of the minerals industries to meet demand over a term of years."
  1312
  It is clear that the C.B.I. itself sees a danger to the industry in these outstanding permissions, as we in the Department see a danger to the local planning authorities in their efforts to plan.
  There is another purpose in this shakeout of planning permissions and placing a limit on the life of a planning permission. Many of these permissions were granted a long time ago before planning had become as sophisticated as it is now in terms of the conditions placed on planning permissions with regard to working and especially with regard to restoration. They were granted before there was a Department of the Environment, and it would be wrong for us to fail to take this opportunity of looking at some of the old planning permissions to see whether there should be new conditions on them and whether the conditions which may have been imposed are being carried out properly.
  I will not give any undertaking that, when a mineral undertaker who has had a planning permission for many years without working it has to seek reapplication, there will not be more stringent conditions put on it than may have been imposed 10 or 20 years ago. Surely the whole purpose of the Department of the Environment is to try and protect the environment with modern conditions against some of the eyesores which have appeared through quarry workings over the years because proper conditions were not placed upon them in the old days. I am sure that the industry is prepared to accept these conditions. With 10 years to negotiate reapplications with local planning authorities, I am sure that this proposal will work out to the benefit of all the parties concerned, the local planning authorities and the industry.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Spencer Le Marchant: I believe that The High Peak has about a quarter of the highest quality limestone in the country. A happy relationship, which works, exists between thoroughly responsible employers and a very good labour force. In my estimation at least 10,000 people, counting dependants, in my constituency depend on these quarries. This concerns not only the quarries but the ancillary services connected with them—transport, petrol, and those kinds of things.

  1313
  This is a vastly important industry for the nation. The limestone which comes from this part of Derbyshire, including West Derbyshire, forms the basis of our future road programme. It is also of vast importance to my constituents because, with the closing of the mills and factories, it is the major industry.
  While respecting the Minister's views on this matter, I ask whether we are using the shaking-out to hit the responsible people when we are really aiming at shaking out the entrepreneurs, or whatever they are. Regulation 6 adversely affects the responsible companies. When people make applications on a large site, they may not operate that particular piece of land, with the many applications which they have made, for many years.
  I refer to the publication by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1960 which goes back to the 1948 Act. On page 5, it says:
  "The acreage of land comprised in each allocation should obviously be related to the individual operator's need of security for his capital outlay—for example the allocation of resources with a life of say sixty years or more may be justified in the case of a large-scale and highly mechanised undertaking."
  I suggest that that is what we are speaking about tonight. In such matters, capital must be invested on a 60 years' basis. For example, five, 10 or 20 years is no good. For surface operations, 20 years will bring the capital back; but for these people it is a question of needing a much longer period to be certain.
  I refer to another comment in this Departmental publication where, on page 6, it says:
  "It should be the concern of the local planning authority to protect mineral reserves of economic importance which it is expected will have to be worked in the long term (beyond the period of the development plan)."
  These are the worries which I suggest we have to consider tonight.
  We must try to keep confidence in investment. We must consider, from the industry's view, the expense to which it might be put by continuing applications. I entirely agree that it is not possible to decide on a bona fide mineral undertaker. My hon. Friend has mentioned that a bona fide mineral undertaker could be working at a place where it could easily be ascertained that he was doing the correct thing, but on another site he may not be doing it.
  1314
  I ask the Minister to consider this matter again in the near future and to realise what a great deal of capital is needed for a very long period in this industry.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Evelyn King: The Minister explained with great lucidity—no one is more lucid than he, whatever my criticisms of what he said—that these Regulations flow from the 1968 Act. But that starts with the supposition, which in the case of houses is wholly reasonable, that planning consent, once granted, must be used within five years or fall into disuse. It is when my hon. Friend seeks to extend that principle into the field of minerals that I draw his attention to the fact that minerals are a totally different industry, a highly technical matter which ony those who have spent their lives in it can understand.
  The very phrase "mineral industry" is a misnomer, because there is no such industry. There is a large number of different persons extracting different minerals in different circumstances to which different Regulations may apply. My hon. Friend did not mention any particular mineral. There are several in my constituency, each different from the other.
  These Regulations are highly controversial and are opposed by every mineral developer in my constituency, and I do not believe that this is confined to my constituency. I am not concerned mainly with sand and gravel, which I suspect is what the Minister is thinking about. There are in South Dorset the quarry men of Swanage, the marblers, who, for generations, in a way which has offended no one, have carried on an industry on which the whole county is proud. They have done nothing at any time to deface the countryside. There is at Wareham the ball clay industry, in which, again, conditions are quite different.
  Finally, there is the stone industry at Portland, where I believe the Department genuinely believe that these Regulations will make some contribution to amenity or beauty. In fact, they will have directly the reverse effect. Portland stone, known to everyone, is the pride of the architectural heritage of Britain. St. Paul's

  1315
  Cathedral, Mansion House, this House itself—so many of our great buildings are built of Portland stone.
  The Portland stone industry today is on the verge of extinction. If it be extinguished, that will be no contribution to amenity. If my hon. Friend places on it these burdens, which will add to the cost of production, there will be no argument to justify it, in the interests of the employers, the investors or the workers, many of whom are out of work.
  These Regulations, however marginally, will make production more expensive. I often wish that, when planning matters of this kind are considered in the Department, it was someone's job to cost them. This might lead to a different decision. Not so long ago, the same Department prohibited the conversion of premises in the City of London into flats. Last year that decision was reversed. I put down a Parliamentary Question asking what the effect would be. The effect was that those rents went up by 200 per cent. I dare bet that by the time the Regulation was introduced no one had attempted to calculate what the economic results would be. I fear that the same sort of lack of calculation, at least in the industries about which I am speaking, is evident here.
  I recently received a letter from a member of a stone firm, who said:
  "I am particularly concerned about the situation in Portland where the reserves of Portland stone are well covered by planning consent. However, the land covered by three of these consents, granted prior to April, 1969, will not be entered into within the next 10 years. It is obsolutely vital that we maintain the reserves of Portland stone and protect the industry on the island."
  Only last week the Town Clerk of Portland wrote to me asking me to move the Government in any way whatever to protect employment in Portland. It is going down in many other respects, but I should be out of order to pursue that now. I dislike the thought that the only reply I can make to the town clerk so far is that the position has worsened in this respect.
  My hon. Friend will probably reply that we need not be too concerned about this, because the local planning authority, when the time comes, will have the power to use common sense to extend these per-
  1316
  missions as they ought to be extended. If the local planning authority were still to be Portland, I might share the Minister's confidence. He may have seen in the Press that one councillor has urged a Portland U.D.I., but I do not think that we need take that seriously. However, by the time these matters come to be considered we shall be unitary area number 29. That authority has not yet come into being. Certainly no Portland authority will exercise the power which I think ought not to be exercised.
  My hon. Friend wrote to me pointing out the powers of the local planning authority. His argument was that the local planning authority was likely to take the right decision and if it did not, there was the appeal to the Minister. He ought not to run two horses, because throughout the last six months and more the Ministry has been arguing that more power ought to be given to local authorities. The number of times the Minister upsets the local authority on appeal is small. I would be unwilling, in the light of the immense pressure that now rests upon local authorities, to place industries which have national importance wholly in their hands.
  I know that my hon. Friend will send a circular to local authorities on this point shortly, and I hope that when he does so he will make clear, in the most certain terms, at least in respect of the industries which I have mentioned, that if there is any attempt to restrict these permissions to 10 years then, on appeal, those decisions will be reversed.
  10.39 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) upon so clearly expressing the fears which many of us share. I should like to take the opportunky of congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister, because he is a man for whom I have a great deal of admiration. He is a very dogged sort of person and once he gets hold of a phrase I am afraid that he becomes determined to stick to it. In this case, knowing my hon. Friend's persistence, I feel that he is determined, as he puts it, to "shake out" these planning permissions. I fear that, regardless of what we say tonight and the obvious unfairness to many holders of planning consents, my

  1317
  hon. Friend will, to use his words, shake out these planning permissions.
  It is no recommendation to me to be told that the Regulations stem from the 1968 Act, because 1968 was a vintage year for bad Acts of Parliament. Although this particular Act is not as bad as some, it is certainly no recommendation that the Regulations originate from that source.
  Ten years is an inadequate period to allow for work to be commenced under these planning consents. In many cases, a planning consent will refer to just one reserve of minerals, and in order to acquire all the reserves in the site one may need more than one planning consent. A mineral right owner may have to go to a number of different sites in one reserve, each covered by a different planning consent, commence extraction at one point, then move, perhaps, a few hundred yards to another, commence extraction again, and so on, simply to be able to say that on 1st April, 1979, extraction had commenced.
  Obviously, that will be an uneconomic state of affairs, but it will be necessary for the mineral owner to take that course, and the consequence will be the disfiguration of the countryside.
  Another drawback of the Regulations is that that will mean that a good deal of land now in agricultural use, land which could remain undisturbed almost indefinitely until required for mineral extraction, will have to be disturbed by commencement of extraction before the 10 years are up and then be left in abeyance, presumably, until such time as the company wishes to get down to full-scale extraction.
  A good many mineral consents relate to land in what are known as areas of outstanding natural beauty. If the Regulations are accepted, mineral companies will be forced to commence extraction in these areas, sterilise the land by the starting of works, and then leave the eyesore of a hole and a slag heap started until such time as it is able to get down to work properly.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) said, mineral working is a long-term business. It calls for considerable capital equipment. In the cement industry, for example, it may take up to 60 years to
  1318
  write off the expensive capital equipment involved in such extractive work.
  What would be the position of somebody who had acquired mineral rights in, say, 1965, with the relevant planning permission, and who planned to commence extraction in, say, 1981? If the extraction had not commenced by 1979, the planning consent would be deemed to have lapsed, and even if a fresh application were made, there would be no certainty that it would be accepted. In such circumstances, there would be a direct loss to the company concerned. It has paid for the reserves, with planning consent to commence extraction. Does the Minister propose, if the Regulations are persisted in, that owners of such planning consents would be compensated for the obvious financial loss involved?
  In view of what he has heard so far, and what he may yet hear, I urge my hon. Friend to think again before pushing the Regulations through the House.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister on the lucidity with which he put his case. In common with other hon. Gentlemen, I suspect, the clearer it became, the stronger my opposition to his intentions became. In putting that to the hon. Gentleman, I mean no abuse or offence. This is not in any way a matter of party politics.
  My disagreement in this matter—and I suspect the disagreement of his hon. Friends—is not a disagreement with objectives; it is a disagreement with means. It is the method that is in doubt rather than the objectives sought. I am sure that everyone, including the bona fide mineral interests, would approve the triple objective of this set of Regulations.
  The first objective, to which the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has already referred, is the necessary shaking out of outstanding consents on which no action appears likely. It would, perhaps, be helpful to the House if the Minister—I realise that he may not have the information readily available—could give an estimate of the number of such consents outstanding. Information on the acreage involved would also be useful to hon. Gentlemen. On this first objective of shaking out, I agree completely with

  1319
  the hon. Gentleman in rejecting the proposition in the memorandum, from which he quoted, that there should be no time limit. He is absolutely right. There has to be some time limit, for reasons which the memorandum adduced in another section.
  Equally, I agree that it would not be right to exclude what would be arbitrary groups or classes of holders of planning consent. When I read the memorandum I felt the same objections that the hon. Gentleman has expressed. Again, he is absolutely right in his rejection of the form of words put forward.
  Mr. Skeet: During the course of the Land Commission Bill through the House, special exemption was made for minerals because they were regarded in the classification of Case C, and put in a special category of their own. Would not the hon. Gentleman consider that there is a case also for putting minerals in a special classification here, especially when a grant has been conceded and it is now to be withdrawn?
  Mr. Williams: I thought that the hon. Gentleman and I were in utter agreement, as is the Minister, I think, that there is a special case for minerals.
  In removing one anomaly, we are concerned not to perpetuate an even worse anomaly in adopting a form of words which is unjustifiable in equity.
  The second objective of the Regulations, which again I find utterly acceptable, is that they give greater security to the mineral operator than that given at present. The hon. Gentleman's supporters should recognise that. We think that this will be inadequate, but nevertheless there is greater security and this is part of the objective in helping those who genuinely intend to carry out operations on the land presently covered by consents.
  The third objective, which again I find unexceptionable, is that the Regulations would give the opportunity to apply modern restoration concepts where possible and necessary. Most hon. Members would find this a desirable objective. I have tried to follow closely the speeches made so far, and where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is in his method and in his rigidity of approach.
  1320
  This is the difficulty. I hope to show that the universality of requiring work to start before 1st April, 1979, if planning consent is not to lapse, is both unnecessarily rigid and possibly harmfully rigid. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that there seems to be a completely bipartisan approach in opposing these Regulations.
  In framing Regulations a Ministry which is subject to several conflicting lobbies tends, where the case is reasonably evenly balanced, to decide in favour of the lobby with which it has its most frequent contact and conflict. This is too much of a concession to the pressures of the local authorities and not sufficient of an understanding of the industry's problems. There is no need for this conflict. All the objectives which the Minister and the local authorities wish to achieve could be achieved without the harmful results for the operators.
  We all recognise the need for mineral operators to have adequate reserves to ensure their survival as commercial entities and enable them to continue to meet the nation's mineral needs. The Minister will also be aware that the greater the capital investment in the plant associated with a particular type of mineral operation the further ahead it becomes essential to guarantee adequate and accessible reserves. For sand and gravel operations it is necessary to think in terms of 15 to 20 years before capital is recouped and the operation is viable. In the case of cement, involving plant investment amounting to millions of pounds, it is necessary to think in terms of 60 years and upwards. This is an important factor to bear in mind when assessing the impact of the Regulations.
  Mineral reserve areas which will carry a firm for such a time span will almost inevitably be covered by more than one planning consent. We know the difficulties of obtaining the mineral rights where mineral rights are often separated from land ownership and where rights have been fragmented between a multiplicity of owners. Because of the difficulties of acquisition, or because reserves must be so large and the areas in which sufficient reserves can be found are not contiguous, there is often more than one consent covering the reserves of a perfectly legitimate operator who has every intention of legitimately using the reserves.

  1321
  It is clear that, against such time scales, in many instances a time limit of 1979 for starting operations is unrealistic. The length of time scales is recognised in the planning permissions that have been granted since 1969. We recognise it for those currently being given and those to be given in future. Local authorities are in general reasonable and realistic about the life span of planning permission, but when they are not the Ministry provides a valuable safeguard through the appeals system.
  The extra five years contained in the Regulations is an improvement. The fundamental anomaly remains. Basically, unless work is started before 1979 the consent will be lost and new planning permission will be required. We must not under-estimate the importance of the requirement for a completely new planning permission.
  To avoid resubmissions, operators will be forced to undertake uneconomic and premature exploitation of reserves that they should not be tapping for years to come. Such an action will make economic sense to an operator rather than risk going through the planning procedure again. This is very important, as an operator faced with a planning refusal knows that what follows is that his capital tied up in reserves is immediately depreciated. It is less valuable because the reserves are not exploitable. For that reason even the land becomes worth less than it was worth previously. Furthermore, because he has already entered into a capital commitment which was based on an assumption of long-time use of resources, and therefore long-term depreciation of the capital, he finds himself with a non-viable investment in plant as well.
  All these factors are very real worries to operators. One firm, which it would not be fair to name, has told me that it may have to remove face material from a reserve area to meet the deadline, though it does not need the reserves in that reserve area for many years ahead. Not only will that be expensive, because it will mean less economic utilisation, but—even more important, and against the amenity lobby, for which most of us would express sympathy—it will mean a premature disturbance of already existing agricultural land. If it were not for the Regulations, that land
  1322
  could be carrying on in agricultural use for many years beyond 1979. In this sense it could be that the Regulations will become counter-productive.
  So again I ask the Minister not to under-estimate the industry's fear that it may be faced with a series of renewed and costly planning permission skirmishes, with objectors reopening old battles. Many firms have made a heavy investment in plant, on the legitimate, legal assumption that the planning battle was already won. They would not have made those heavy investments had the planning battle not been seen by them to be won. Now they face the fear of loss of availability of reserves, losing the capital value of reserves if the consent is revised, and the possibility of being left with a non-viable fixed investment in the form of plant.
  They do not accept, and I do not, the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in another place on 23rd April, when he said:
  "It would be unrealistic to assume that Section 65 will be allowed to bring essential workings to a halt."—[OFFICLAL REPORT, House of Lords, 22nd April, 1971; Vol. 317, c. 902.]
  If there is no uncertainty in the whole question of re-submitting through the planning process, why re-submit in the first place? There must be an element of uncertainty if anything is to be achieved. It is that very requirement which creates the fear in the minds of the mineral operators.
  I have a suggestion, in a genuine attempt to be helpful. It may well be that it will not be practical, but perhaps the Minister could consider it. It seems to me that the fears of the industry could be met by a relaxation of the single criterion—having started operations—which he is seeking to impose within the Regulations. Could he make it possible to bypass the resubmission by saying that this would be acceptable where agreement is reached with the planning authority before the terminal date, 1st April, 1979, on a new life span for the existing planning permission, so that it could take into account the requirements of the mineral industry as it does on the new permissions, and where there has been agreement on suitable restoration provisions being accepted by the mineral operator?

  1323
  There would be all the benefits to be obtained from going through the process of getting planning permission. The operator would have to give all the information required to justify getting planning permission, and he would have to make the same concessions to amenity requirements; but he would not be facing the risk of losing a basic part of his investment. If the local planning authority were in doubt about the genuineness of the operator's intentions, it could require him to go through the whole planning permission process and possibly be subjected to objections from the general public.
  I do not expect the Minister to deal with this tonight. I know that he has a Whip majority, but I know that his hon. Friends feel strongly about this, although they would be placed in an invidious position if I forced a Division at this time. But I hope that he will bear in mind that this solution, if it is a solution, would still enable the shake-out to take place when local authorities discuss future consents and the future time spans of operators. It would still enable amenity and restoration factors to be taken into account. But it would give something which the Regulations do not give—a sense of security to the bona fide mineral operator with a heavy investment which he legitimately wanted to protect.
  I have endeavoured not to be political tonight, and I make this suggestion sincerely. To some extent the Minister's hon. Friends have indicated a certain support by their various noddings, unless they have been nodding off to sleep because I have been so long. I ask the Minister not to give an outright rejection and in return we will not ask for outright acceptance. Will he consult his advisers and the industry, and the local authorities if necessary, on the basis of the reasonable, common-sense compromise which I have endeavoured to put forward?
  I understand that the Government are considering bringing forward the mineral rights legislation. I worked for 18 months preparing the draft proposals and I should like to see them reach the Statute Book. That legislation would provide a convenient opportunity for the Minister to give us his views and say whether amending legislation should be introduced. If he will give that assur-
  1324
  ance, he will receive support from his own back benches and from the industry, and he will receive my gratitude, for I shall not have wasted my time trying to think of a solution to this difficult problem.
  11.3 p.m.
  Mr. James Allason: During the Committee stage of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1968, I had the privilege of moving on behalf of the Opposition an Amendment to exempt mineral workings from the scope of the five-year rule. I will not weary the House with the argument which I used on that occasion, but it is interesting to consider what the then Parliamentary Secretary, in the late Arthur Skeffington, said in reply:
  "As regards existing workings, it is immediately conceded that a limitation to five years is unreal. Operations and programmes might be threatened or put in jeopardy if it were thought that this were to apply to existing permissions.
  In these cases my right hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend will consider relying on Section 197(1) of the principal Act, whereby minerals attract very special treatment, and under which regulations can be made to adapt and modify anything in the major Act. My right hon. Friend will consider making regulations after consultation with the local planning authorities and the mineral operators. It may be necessary to have different periods for minerals but regulations will be made relating to existing mineral permissions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 4th April, 1968; c. 972.]
  As a result of that undertaking I withdrew my Amendment, but I am not sure that I should have done so, as that extension from five to 10 years does not seem a satisfactory solution to this problem.
  The effect of these Regulations is that as from 31st March, 1979, there may have to be a whole series of bogus starts on developments to avoid the loss of right to work for minerals at some time in the future. The alternative will be to seek renewed planning permission.
  It must be remembered that local authorities have their local interests at heart. Although they are aware of the national interest, what may be nationally important by way of a mineral working may be highly unpopular locally. This could result in the danger of local planning authorities either refusing permission, and taking this marvellous opportunity to revoke planning permissions without compensation, or imposing very

  1325
  onerous conditions, and we should not overlook the fact that conditions can be extremely expensive.
  Bearing this in mind, it is clear that the 10-year rule is not acceptable. I urge the Minister to think again and to remember those days in 1968 when we might have voted to remove the five-year rule in relation to minerals. I am sure that he does not want to go back to the nonsense we had under the Land Commission legislation, with people digging trenches simply to be giving the impression of starting a project on a particular day. That is the sort of bogus start he is asking the industry to go in for under this Instrument.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I am glad of this opportunity to speak on this subject, in which I immediately declare my interest in cement and hard stone. I will be brief because I know that a number of hon. Members still wish to participate.
  I welcomed the comments of the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and I appreciated his suggestion. We are considering what is a compromise, though it could ease the transition period between the termination of the 10-year period in 1979 and the time when reapplication will have to be made. The difficulty of the industry rests on the possible reopening of the old hostilities, with the possibility of a new grant not being made and the waste of large sums of expenditure. The outlay could amount overall to £50 million.
  Having looked carefully into the matter, I find a considerable change of view on the part of the Ministry. For example, in The Control of Mineral Working", published by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in 1960, we were told in paragraph 72:
  "Mineral undertakers often need to make their plans a long way ahead, and local planning authorities should adopt a similar time-scale in handling mineral problems. In particular, because of the heavy initial capital expenditure that is often involved, the mineral undertaker will need to be assured that planning permission for mineral extraction will be granted over an area of land sufficient to ensure the economic working of the plant for its useful life".
  We are told that local authorities will be reasonable, but when amenity con-
  1326
  siderations arise they will have to look over their shoulder to their constituents. It may be that they will refuse and then the mineral operator will have to go to the Minister on appeal. As a result, the planning machine will be overloaded. In order to obtain the raw materials which are essential for building and the construction of roads, it is desirable, not merely to clear the planning machine, but to enable the Minister to have a less worrying time vetting applications.
  The extract continues:
  "The period will vary from industry to industry and even from quarry to quarry; but individual applications are unlikely, in most sections of the industry, to relate to mineral areas affording less than 15 years working and local planning authorities should be prepared to consider applications for areas with a working life of up to 60 years or sometimes even longer".
  By a document issued by the Department in 1951
  "local planning authorities should be prepared to consider applications designed to cover operations of up to 60 years or, in exceptional cases, even longer."
  Planning permissions or consents were granted many years ago on the assumption that these large plants were to be amortised. These rights, which were lawfully conceded by the planning authorities under the 1962 and 1968 Acts, are to be taken away completely. No compensation is payable, but under the 1962 Act compensation is available in certain circumstances for the variation of a grant. But here no compensation is to be payable.
  The Minister has indicated that many speculators are in the field and that they need to be shaken out. But I mentioned in an intervention the question of being able to discriminate between them and the general mineral operator who wants to produce the necessary raw materials for industry and to enable the Government to achieve their aims and goals. More recently we have had Section 197 of the 1962 Act and Section 65 of the 1968 Act. Even more recently there have been environmental considerations. I appreciate that restoration clauses may not be present in the original consents and that modifications may be required on landscaping, but I was surprised that the Minister did not give the assurance which I am sure everyone wants to hear that a

  1327
  local authority, in the case of a reapplication, will not impose impossible conditions which would put out all the calculations on which the original plant was financed and founded. If it is to have the opportunity of putting in the most stringent conditions, the whole confidence of the industry will be lost.
  I cannot agree with Lord Sandford, in another place, that because the procedure has been altered and abbreviated it will be easier. The applicant will have to come before the Minister, there will have to be a public inquiry, everybody for miles around will have the opportunity of making their complaints, and after a period and possibly further appeals which cost a lot of money for the industry, the extended period will be granted.
  I should like to ask the Minister a specific question. He has indicated by the Regulations that if development has begun before 1979 the original consent is preserved. I often wonder what "development" means. Will it be essential to drill? Will the overburden have to be removed? Or does it simply mean that it will be necessary to dig a trench? If that is done, the 10-year period provision is obviated and a longer term is granted. What term will be granted? The Minister should give a clear answer on this point so that the industry may know the position.
  The industry desires to co-operate. It does not wish to see speculators in the field. It desires to protect its reserves and investments. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider these Regulations again and consider introducing at a later date some modification which is more acceptable to the industry.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Trew: The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) described with great lucidity the praiseworthy objectives of these Regulations—the desire to shake out redundant planning permissions, to take note of the special problems of mineral operators and to safeguard the environment. The 10-year period fails signally to achieve the first two of these objectives. It prolongs unnecessarily the life of redundant planning permissions, indeed it extends them for five years, and utterly fails to take account of the special needs of
  1328
  mineral operators who have to work over long periods especially those in the cement industry in which many of my constituents earn their livelihood.
  Should these Regulations come into effect, a mineral operator is faced with the choice of applying for renewal, with the possibility either of losing his permission or of getting it with onerous burdens which greatly increase the expense of his operations—or he can resort to starting work. My hon. Friends the Members for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) and Bedford (Mr. Skeet) have suggested that he has the remedy of a technical start rather than the digging of a trench on a building site under the Land Commission Act. But he does not have that remedy, because, on my reading Regulation 7 requires a full start to mining operations. This must be expensive and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) pointed out, this will often disturb good agricultural land long before it is necessary to do so or damage areas of great natural beauty.
  The Regulations will please nobody. They will not deal adequately with the problem of redundant and speculative planning permissions, they will place mineral operators in a position of risk and uncertainty, and they will place a considerable burden on the planning authorities. I hope that my hon. Friend will take an early opportunity to look at the Regulations as they work in practice and consider whether there is not a better way of dealing with redundant planning permissions, of safeguarding the interests of mineral operators and of preserving the environment. I commend to him the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for Swansea, West.
  11.18 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: With the leave of the House, Mr. Sneaker, I will deal with the points which have been raised. After having listened to the speeches of some of my hon. Friends anyone reading the Regulations would be astonished at their moderate tone. All we are dealing with is existing planning permission to carry out mineral workings. We are not destroying the mineral extraction trade. We are not attacking it root and branch, as some of my lion. Friends seem to think. We are dealing merely with planning

  1329
  permissions which may have been granted a considerable time ago and which are not being worked during the next eight years. We are asking that before working them after 1979 the mineral undertakers should first make further application to the local planning authority.
  My hon. Friends the Members for The High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant) and Bedford (Mr. Skeet) quoted a booklet previously issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. These are the rules which the Ministry hopes the local planning authorities will apply in considering entirely new planning applications and new planning applications which arise out of the termination of an existing application. I would quote these rules again and again as the rules which should be applied when a planning application now existing has not been worked when we get to 1979 and the mineral undertaker has to apply for a further period of time.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), said that every mineral undertaker in Dorset was opposed to these Regulations. That is not so. If his mineral undertakers are represented by the C.B.I., the opposition is merely on this point whether—
  Mr. Evelyn King: Perhaps I may intervene on a question of fact. What I said was true. They have all written to me. I did not suggest that they were represented by the C.B.I. They represent themselves very adequately.
  Mr. Page: Indeed, they all wrote to my hon. Friend enclosing the memorandum from the C.B.I. I do not think many of them even read that memorandum. I have seen some of the letters and the writers have not understood how moderate the recommendations are and to what extent we are in agreement with the C.B.I. on this point.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked, "What is development?". My hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason), who has been involved in this matter since the Committee stage of the 1968 Act, talked about development by removing the top soil or trench digging. That is not development, as I understand it, under the Act. "Development" is defined in Section 12 of the Town and Country Planning Act,
  1330
  1962, while Section 65 of the 1968 Act refers to the development which is permitted. I think that it is the mining operation itself which is permitted. Mining is mentioned specifically in Section 12 of the 1962 Act. It is the mining and not merely the bit of gardening on the top soil which is the development. It would be the mining operation proper which would have to start if the planning permission is exercised properly before 1979.
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: What happens where a stone quarry which has been worked out in the past carries planning permission? Can that be re-worked in a number of years' time or does it fall into the regulation of having to apply for further permission?
  Mr. Page: If the development allowed by the planning permission has been operated, then the planning permission has been exercised and its life does not terminate. I am speaking of a hypothetical case and I would not like my statement to be taken too far on that, however. If the development has occured, within the period permitted by the planning permission, the permission does not die at the end of this 10-year period from April, 1969.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams), for his agreement with the general principles behind the Regulations, and for the way in which he set out the triple objectives. I agreed wholeheartedly with the way in which he set them out. He asked me to have less rigidity in approaching this subject and to relax the single criterion. We proposed to the C.B.I. that there might be different periods for different kinds of working. The C.B.I. rejected that proposal. The discussion did not go so far as what periods there should be, but the proposal was rejected and so we were left to fix such periods as we thought appropriate.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it would be 1979 for one type of mineral operation and 1985 for another. But that does not meet our point. The circumstances of the individual unit have to be taken into account. That is where flexibility is needed. To make us all go home happy we want only an assurance from

  1331
  the hon. Gentleman that he will consider the possibility.
  Mr. Page: That flexibility will come on the application for fresh planning permission. As the Act stands, a planning permission cannot be extended, and that is what the hon. Gentleman was hoping could be done. I should have been very happy if the Act did that. But I see no reason why we cannot get round that difficulty.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes to send out a circular explaining these Regulations and giving guidance to local planning authorities on how they should operate them. That circular will point out that, in respect of new applications and new applications consequent upon the termination of permissions the lives of which will run out, they should apply sensible reasoning, and that the 10 years mentioned in connection with existing planning permissions should not be taken as an optimum or as any standard figure for future permissions.
  I should like the local authorities to apply to a renewal application exactly the same principles as they would apply to a new application, to disregard the fact that it has run out over a period of 10 years, and to consider whether five, 10, 20 or 60 years is the right period for a new application. I see no reason why a local authority should not enter into negotiation long before 1979 with the mineral worker concerned, and there should be discussion about the length of time and the conditions to be imposed on any new planning permission which may be granted.
  Mr. Alan Williams: The hon. Gentleman has missed the cardinal point. It is not this sort of flexibility which worries us. It is the sheer uncertainty in terms of existing investment which faces an operator and leaves him vulnerable to pressures from objectors. That is what we want removed. I have put forward a proposal which will enable the hon. Gentleman to allay those fears. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider it.
  Mr. Page: The proposal is that there should be an extension to an existing planning permission. In law, that cannot be done. We shall look at the law to see whether it would be wise to amend it, assuming that it could be
  1332
  got into the legislative programme over the next two or three years. But there is a way round the difficulty without amending the legislation.
  I hope that local planning authorities and mineral undertakers will enter into negotiation at once, if necessary, to consider what "extensions"—they will be new permissions—should be given at the end of the period in 1979. I shall see whether, in law, local planning authorities can give any firm undertakings about extensions. However, we are dealing with democratically-elected bodies which may change in colour over that period of time and come to different decisions. I shall have to consider whether any firm agreement can be given by an existing council to bind its successors. But I appreciate that the sooner that any mineral undertaker can be certain about whether he will get a new permission at the end of eight years, the better.
  This will mean that the bad ones will be shaken out the quicker, and the whole purpose of the Regulations will be carried out. I will look into this in that spirit, to try to get a settlement as early as possible for the mineral undertakers on the renewal of their planning permissions and to see whether we can sort out the matter on that basis.
  Mr. Alan Williams: May I thank the Minister for that concession?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) (Scotland) Regulations 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st April, be approved.—[Mr. Younger.]

  HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND
  Resolved,
  That one tenth of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, and one tenth of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section one of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, be appropriated for the purposes of section four of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948.—[Sir R. Cary.]
  Resolved,
  That, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 3 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948, the maximum annual amounts of the periodical payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund under the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, as amended by the said Act of 1948 and by the Resolutions of the House of 17th November 1955, 7th March 1957, 17th May 1961 and 9th March 1965 be varied as from 1st May 1971 as follows:—
  (a) for paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the said Act of 1939, as so amended, there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
  '1. The annual amount of any periodical payment made to any person by virtue of his past membership of the House of Commons shall not exceed £600 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £850 per annum, whichever is the less:
  Provided that if, having regard to length of service and need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £1,080 or such sum as, in their opinion, will bring his income up to £1,330 per annum, whichever is the less';
  (b) for paragraph 2 of the said Schedule there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—
  '2. The annual amount of any periodical payment to any person by virtue of her being a widow of a past Member of the House of Commons shall not exceed £360 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £610 per annum, whichever is the less:
  Provided that if, having regard to her husband's length of service or to her need, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £540 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring her income up to £790 per annum, whichever is the less';
  (c) in paragraph 2A of the said Schedule for the words ' the annual amount of any periodical payment' to the end of paragraph, there shall he substituted the words—
  'the annual amount of any periodical payment made to any such widower shall not exceed £360 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £610 per annum, whichever is the less:
  Provided that if, having regard to his wife's length of service or to his needs, the trustees think fit, they may make a larger payment not exceeding £540 or such sum as, in the opinion of the trustees, will bring his income up to £790 per annum, whichever is the less'.—[Sir R. Cary.]

  UNEMPLOYMENT (CAERNARVON)
  Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
  11.32 p.m.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am glad of this opportunity of drawing urgent attention to the problem of unemployment in the Caernarvon area.
  The first ten months of the present Government have seen a catastrophic increase in the percentage of unemployed in the area. In April, 1970, it was about 6.9 per cent.—far too high, but showing prospects of further reductions as industrialists responded to the special inducements of the then Labour Government to industries which wished to enter the area. Since then, those inducements have been drastically changed and reduced by the present Government. Industrialists are showing little interest in entering the area and some of those already established are doubtful about expanding. The unemployment percentage has shot up to 10.8 per cent. in the Caernarvon district and 7.7 per cent. in the Pwllheli district.
  To say the least, the Government have not helped. They discontinued the special roads programme last winter—not a small matter, especially for the 40 men thrown out of work. But what has sapped confidence in the area, deterring new industries from coming in and disturbing those already established, is the decision last October to do away with the investment grants. My first plea is for their restoration, at least in areas of high unemployment.
  I imagine that it would be out of order to refer to the Bill dealing with investment now before the House, but I suggest that the Chancellor's statement of last October should in the meantime be so interpreted that proof of genuine intention to expand before 26th October should qualify for an investment grant which provides such an essential cash flow for the type of industry which comes in areas like ours.
  For example, about two years ago a first-class engineering firm accepted the tenancy of a 26,000 square ft. advance factory in Caernarvon. It was exactly the kind of modern industry we need, and on the basis of very good management and an excellent labour force, it made

  1335
  rapid progress. With the strong encouragement of Government Departments, it then planned to expand. The proposal would more than double the factory space and add between 100 and 150 men to the payroll.
  The position now is that the expansion of factory space has been approved but the investment grant for the necessary machinery to be placed in that space, and on which the firm rightly counted, is not forthcoming because the formal contracts for new machinery had not been placed before the statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of 27th October.
  Government Departments were aware of every step in the thinking and planing of the firm. They knew, and know, better than anyone of the firm's genuine intention to go for the new machinery. Indeed, they knew that it was the availability of the grant which persuaded the firm to go ahead. And yet the firm is committed to that new building with no grant aid towards the new machinery needed to convert that building into a factory.
  It will be years before these extra jobs, so badly needed in this area, will be made available, because under the new regulations the firm must wait until it makes enough taxable income to qualify for the new allowance. I ask the Minister of State to look at this case, the details of which I am sending him separately.
  The other major deterrent to new industry to choose a development area such as ours is the extraordinary decision last December to raise the ceiling of permitted factory building in non-development areas. This encourages industry to expand in the already congested districts rather than to move into development areas.
  In Penygroes, as the Minister of State knows, there is a large Government-built factory which has been empty for months. In Portmadoc, 10 miles away, we have a Government-built factory which has been half-used for months. Does the Minister think that a new tenant for the one and full use of the other is more or less probable now that industrialists have this added encouragement to start or to expand outside development areas?
  I turn to the question of planning for industry, and here again I have a specific
  1336
  case to draw to the Minister's attention. The Lleyn Peninsula is an area of outstanding beauty and it is also one of continuing depopulation. The true beauty of the area rests on its community life, sustaining a distinctive culture and language, and its attachment still to the higher virtues of religion. But if this community is to survive, the people must have work and wages, and that means new industry.
  Our very highly automated agriculture cannot provide the new jobs we need. nor indeed can tourism, which, as I have said before in the hearing of the Minister of State, is a seasonal addition and not a permanent substantive. To get this new industry it is essential to relax planning restrictions and to speed planning procedures. I was fascinated to listen to the debate which immediately preceded this and to feel that on both sides of the House there is now a feeling that it is too restrictive, especially in rural areas, which depend very much on swift acceptance of a proposal by an industrialist to go into the area. At the moment the planning restrictions and procedures are working strongly against the introduction of badly needed new industry in areas such as South Caernarvonshire.
  Let me give an example. More than a year ago a substantial Midlands industrialist was good enough to consult me about a proposal to set up a research laboratory and a factory for the manufacturing of modern heating apparatus in a town on the south coast of Caernarvon-shire. There was the inevitable uproar among the scenic enthusiasts, many of them writing from places like Sheffield and the Home Counties where work is relatively abundant. But the local authorities up to county level approved the proposal, because it would create worthwhile jobs and opportunities in modern engineering for upwards of 75 school-leavers in the district.
  That should have been that. But it appears that this proposal must be subjected to appeal and public inquiry procedures, involving months of delay and very considerable expense—a daunting prospect, to say the least, to a business man who must decide whether to risk all the time and money involved. I cannot believe that this procedure is necessary in this case. It surely cannot be the case

  1337
  that any objection must inevitably lead to these costly and prolonged procedures. But, if it is necessary, will the Minister step in to speed up the processes if I send him the details of this case?
  Related to planning is the situation which has developed regarding housing in these areas. If industry is to come in it must be able to count on a certain availability of housing accommodation. Some excellent results have flowed from the provision of house improvement grants stemming from the 1959 Act and subsequent statutes and regulations. The intention—realised in many cases—was to enable local residents to purchase and bring up to standard houses which otherwise might fall into irredeemable disrepair.
  But what has happened in areas like the Lleyn Peninsula? Many of the applications have been, and continue to be, from people who ordinarily live outside the area and who have devoted these substantial grants to creating holiday homes for themselves. The result is a large number of empty houses occupied for only a few weeks of the year. The conditions of grant are so indefinite that poor local authorities like the Lleyn Rural District Council feel obliged to make these grants, the standard grants, but have no effective remedy when they are misused. No question of legislation is involved; merely a clarification of the conditions of grant, so that local authorities in such areas can reject or recover grant in cases of partial occupation.
  The restriction of building zones in such areas in the interests of amenity, and the proliferation of holiday homes through a misuse of grant, have the effect of forcing up the price of land for both industry and houses. As a result, the Lleyn R.D.C. finds it impossible to build houses at a rent which people can afford. At its meeting last week I see that a rent of £6 a week was mentioned as being inevitable. In a low-wage area this is out of the question. Wages are hardly double the rent which is notionally set for any new houses built in Lleyn. About £12 to £14 a week is the average wage in this rural area as in so many others. I understand that the Minister's officials will be meeting the Lleyn Council soon to discuss these matters. I hope that they will go deep into the whole question of land use for industry and housing in the area.
  1338
  In the Welsh Grand Committee, on 28th April, the Secretary of State said at column 10 that he accepted the conclusion of the Welsh Council that industrial development should be concentrated in "carefully selected locations". I do not know how "carefully selected" the suggested growth points were, as there were two glaring omissions—Blaenau Ffestiniog and Pwllheli.
  The Secretary of State has now made good the omission of the former, but I am sure that it must be apparent to the Minister of State and his advisers that Pwllheli, the heart and centre of the entire peninsula, indeed, the second county town of Caernarvonshire, should be added to Portmadoc in defining the general growth area. Incidentally, I agree entirely with the views expressed by the Minister of State and his right hon. and learned Friend about the need not unduly to pinpoint single towns for growth but, rather, to develop general areas where there is a problem in a largely rural community.
  The Secretary of State said also:
  "I recognise that as these small towns expand they run into financial problems connected with the provision of essential services. These involve expenditure on the rates which are not recouped by additional rateable values until development takes place some years later. I am considering what additional assistance I can give to the growth towns in this repect. I hope to discuss these problems of Mid-Wales and our policies in the area with the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 28th April, 1971; c. 13]
  Those financial problems apply with equal force in small towns outside Mid-Wales. I should like an assurance that they will not be left out of consideration when the Secretary of State considers what he then described as "additional assistance" for such localities in Mid-Wales. To leave them out would be inequitable; indeed, it would be unacceptable to local authorities generally in Wales.
  The Minister of State, like myself, represents a rural constituency, and I know that he understands the peculiar problems which we face in such constituencies. Also, he has his home, as I do, in rural Wales. I hope, therefore, that he will give to the points which I have raised his best attention and endeavour to assist us in South Caernarvonshire to build a safer and a more durable economy for our people.
  11.48 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I am glad of the opportunity to discuss the problems of South Caernarvonshire which have been raised by the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) in his very balanced and thoughtful speech. In a few minutes, he has given the House a clear picture of the situation facing the area in a number of respects, and I shall do my best in the time available to reply on the matters which he has raised. I shall, of course, convey the points which the right hon. Gentleman has made to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, who will pay careful attention to the debate.
  I note that the right hon. Gentleman will write to me about the advance factory of 26,000 square feet in Caernarvon, and I look forward to receiving his letter. I shall read it with interest and look into the matters which he has raised.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked that the planning processes be speeded up. This is a complicated question, as he well knows, but, here again, if there are particular cases which the right hon. Gentleman, as the Member for Parliament for Caernarvon, wishes to bring to my right hon. and learned Friend and myself, we shall certainly look into them to see whether there has been unreasonable delay in any respect.
  One of the most difficult problems facing an area such as South Caernarvonshire—and the right hon. Member will, I know, share my view since he once held the Ministerial office which I am now honoured to hold—is how best to provide diverse and lasting employment without at the same time destroying the natural beauty of this part of Wales. It is often the case that the areas faced with the most intractable unemployment problems are those rural areas possessing the greatest attractions for tourists and which are of greatest concern to conservationists. The right hon. Gentleman has made this point on more than one occasion.
  There are invariably conflicts whenever the environment and the quality of life have to be considered and weighed against industrial or other development.
  1340
  It is the old story of amenities versus jobs. The Government are in no doubt that on occasions the quality of life must come first, and two recent examples are Cublington and Pembrey.
  Employment needs to be considered, too, particularly in places such as Caernarvonshire where unemployment has been a serious problem for a considerable time. While the Welsh Office has given no specific guidance to local authorities as to what weight they should attach to amenity and environmental considerations, on the one hand, and employment needs, on the other, this is a matter which is frequently discussed between us in the Welsh Office and the authorities.
  As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the planning authorities are required to have regard to all relevant factors in dealing with planning applications. I can assure him that in so far as my hon. and learned Friend is concerned—and he is concerned—the employment factor will not be overlooked.
  The right hon. Gentleman has drawn attention again to the current high level of unemployment in his constituency. The figures are disturbingly high and, though they are likely to decline over the next few months because of seasonal factors, the situation is nevertheless serious.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the possibility of granting special development area status for the area. He also referred to it yesterday in the House at Question Time. This suggestion was, of course, put forward by the Welsh Council in its recent report on "An Economic Strategy for North West Wales".
  In reply to these arguments I can only repeat what my colleagues in the Government have previously stated: the situation in South Caernarvonshire, as indeed in other parts of Wales, was looked at most carefully in the Government's recent review of regional policy. The fact is, though, that despite the firm I.D.C. policy which is still being pursued, the amount of mobile industry is still very limited. This being so, the Government felt it right after their recent review to extend special development area status only to those older industrial parts of the country where the absolute

  1341
  numbers out of work as well as the rate of unemployment are high.
  But the fact that South Caernarvon-shire does not have S.D.A. status should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the inducements available there are still substantial. They are and I am sure that the measures taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, combined with the efforts of the Government to tackle wage-cost inflation, will create a better climate for investment generally.
  The Welsh Council's Report also recommended that efforts to attract new industry to North West Wales should be concentrated primarily on selected locations, among them Portmadoc and Penrhyndeudraeth. My right hon. Friend has already indicated to the council that he is broadly in agreement with this strategy. But this does not mean that other places in the area will be neglected.
  Though it is not in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, he has mentioned, as I do, Blaenau Ffestiniog as a case in point. Though not on the council's list of selected locations, the Government intends to go on encouraging firms to move there.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has also informed the Welsh Council that it is now for the county councils, as planning authorities, to take account of these strategic considerations in discharging their planning functions. I am, of course, aware of the considerable support there is in the area for the Central Electricity Generating Board to build a nuclear power station at Edern. Representatives of the North Wales trade unions came to see me at Cardiff not long ago and this was one of the points which they mentioned. I know that the generating board is also aware of this. Such a project would certainly provide employment. But it is also true that the proposal would he strongly opposed by certain parties.
  This is clearly the sort of potential case which throws up the environment versus employment issue most acutely. It would be improper for me to comment any further at present—there is no specific proposal and in any case major planning considerations would be involved which would need to be settled by my right hon. and learned Friend.
  There is also the question of the Central Electricity Generating Board under-
  1342
  taking surveys of certain sites in North West Wales to ascertain their suitability as locations for pumped storage schemes along the lines of the one at Tanygrisiau. I understand that the present position is that the technical feasibility studies of the sites are still in hand. I could not in any case comment on the merits of such proposals because my right hon. and learned Friend would be involved in settling the planning issues.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the vacant factory at Penygroes. The Department of Trade and Industry's Office for Wales is already doing everything it possibly can to find another occupant. These efforts will continue until they are successful. It is my sincere hope that the premises will in due course be taken by a firm which will provide the continuity of employment so badly needed in Caernarvonshire. It is a great tragedy for the whole area that the last tenant did not provide the permanent employment which was promised.
  The right hon. Gentleman might well have referred to a planning application for a factory development of 10,000 square feet at Caernarvon Road, Criccieth.
  Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I am obliged to the Minister of State. I did not identify the factory, but the one which was involved in planning procedures was the one to which he has referred.
  Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for helping me out of my difficulty. The position is that this application has been referred to my right hon. and learned Friend by Caernarvonshire County Council, since it is deemed to be substantially out of accord with the provisions of the county development plan. This is, of course, in line with normal procedures. The next step will be for one of the technical officers of the Welsh Office to visit the site and to prepare a report on it so that a decision can be taken on how the application should be dealt with. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for raising this case. While it would be quite wrong for me to comment on the merits at this stage, I can assure him that it will be dealt with as expeditiously as possible.
  Housing presents serious problems in this area as elsewhere. Discussions are

  1343
  at present going on between the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, on the one hand, and local authority associations, on the other, on the whole question of housing finance. But, whatever the outcome, it is perfectly obvious that local authorities must continue to build houses where there is a programme of industrial development. Without an adequate supply of suitable housing it will be extremely difficult to attract key workers to any area to train local labour.
  And there is no reason why any local authority should be deterred on financial grounds from building houses which are badly needed. Under the Government's proposals the rents of local authority houses will be determined in accordance with the principle of "fair rent"—a principle first introduced in the Rent Act, 1965.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred specifically to the problems facing Lleyn Rural District Council. I am aware of some of the difficulties—which may be
  1344
  more apparent than real—and I am sure that there is scope for a detailed discussion of the problems between the local authority and the Welsh Office. I have therefore arranged for officials from the Office to meet the local authority within the next two weeks or so. I hope that as a result of that meeting the council will feel able to proceed to meet the real housing needs of the area.
  I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity of replying to the debate. He has dealt with these matters with the sympathy and feeling of somebody who not only represents such a constituency but also lives in it. He rightly feels deeply about the problems which his constituents face. I can only asssure the right hon. Gentleman that we fully recognise the difficulties which he and his constituents are facing and will do all that we can to help him and them in solving them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Twelve o'clock.

SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployed Persons (Social Security Benefits)
  Unemployed Persons (Social Security Benefits)
  Malnutrition
  Malnutrition
  Petworth Hospital
  Petworth Hospital
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Dentists' Remuneration
  Dentists' Remuneration
  Contraceptive Methods (Publicity)
  Contraceptive Methods (Publicity)
  Pharmaceutical Industry (Advertising)
  Pharmaceutical Industry (Advertising)
  Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry
  Walsgrave Hospital, Coventry
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Occupational Pension Schemes
  Physically Handicapped Persons
  Physically Handicapped Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Schizophrenia
  Schizophrenia
  Scientology (Report)
  Scientology (Report)
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Hospitals (Waiting Lists)
  Noise
  Noise
  Cigarette Smoking (Filtration)
  Cigarette Smoking (Filtration)
  Glaucoma
  Glaucoma
  Accident Units
  Accident Units
  National Health Service (Cost)
  National Health Service (Cost)
  Western House, Ware
  Western House, Ware
  Chemical Lavatories
  Chemical Lavatories
  Wheelchairs
  Wheelchairs
  Prescription Charges (Season Tickets)
  Prescription Charges (Season Tickets)
  Westmorland County Hospital (Accidents to Tourists)
  Westmorland County Hospital (Accidents to Tourists)
  Hospitals (Private Patients)
  Hospitals (Private Patients)
  Supplementary Benefits (Industrial Misconduct)
  Supplementary Benefits (Industrial Misconduct)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  National Health Service (Charges)
  National Health Service (Charges)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Ford Motor Company (Dispute)
  Ford Motor Company (Dispute)
  Prices and Charges
  Prices and Charges
  Tax Avoidance (Emigration)
  Tax Avoidance (Emigration)
  Census
  Census
  Registrar General (Broadcasts)
  Registrar General (Broadcasts)
  Retirement Pensions (Increases)
  Retirement Pensions (Increases)
  Disability Income (Loss of Earnings)
  Disability Income (Loss of Earnings)
  National Insurance Pensioners (Dwellings)
  National Insurance Pensioners (Dwellings)
  Aged People (Numbers)
  Aged People (Numbers)
AGRICULTURE
  Continental Ponies (Quarantine)
  Continental Ponies (Quarantine)
  Draught Beer (Alcoholic Content)
  Draught Beer (Alcoholic Content)
  Milk
  Milk
  Price Review (Northern Ireland)
  Price Review (Northern Ireland)
  Anglo-Eire Free Trade Agreement
  Anglo-Eire Free Trade Agreement
  Cheese
  Cheese
  Prices and Charges
  Prices and Charges
  Apple and Pear Development Council
  Apple and Pear Development Council
  Domestic and Trade Wastes (Disposal at Sea)
  Domestic and Trade Wastes (Disposal at Sea)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Grants
  Government Grants
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Northern Region (Investment)
  Northern Region (Investment)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Canadian Minister of Finance (Discussions)
  Canadian Minister of Finance (Discussions)
  Royal Mint (Appointments and Salaries)
  Royal Mint (Appointments and Salaries)
  E.E.C.
  E.E.C.
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Decimal Coinage
  Decimal Coinage
  Investment Income (Disaggregation)
  Investment Income (Disaggregation)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Goodwin Sands
  Goodwin Sands
  South Africa (British Companies)
  South Africa (British Companies)
  Burmah Oil
  Burmah Oil
  U.N.C.T.A.D. (Recommendations)
  U.N.C.T.A.D. (Recommendations)
  Advanced Factories (Wales)
  Advanced Factories (Wales)
  Insurance Brokerage (Bankruptcies)
  Insurance Brokerage (Bankruptcies)
  W. and H. Nelson Limited, Bellshill
  W. and H. Nelson Limited, Bellshill
  New Firms (Wales)
  New Firms (Wales)
  Printed Matter (Imports)
  Printed Matter (Imports)
  Shipbuilders Board (Expenditure)
  Shipbuilders Board (Expenditure)
  Northern Region (New Firms)
  Northern Region (New Firms)
  Insurance Company (Press Comment)
  Insurance Company (Press Comment)
  Dollar Land Holdings Ltd.
  Dollar Land Holdings Ltd.
  Collieries
  Collieries
  Coal Mining Labour Force
  Coal Mining Labour Force
SCOTLAND
  New Houses
  New Houses
  Scottish Economic Council
  Scottish Economic Council
  B7001 Road, Colderbraes
  B7001 Road, Colderbraes
  Hunterston Peninsula (Radioactivity)
  Hunterston Peninsula (Radioactivity)
  Licensed Premises (Grants and Loans)
  Licensed Premises (Grants and Loans)
  Vacant Council Houses
  Vacant Council Houses
  Council Houses (Cost)
  Council Houses (Cost)
  Housing Societies
  Housing Societies
  Housing Authorities (Lanarkshire)
  Housing Authorities (Lanarkshire)
  Secondary Teachers, Lanarkshire
  Secondary Teachers, Lanarkshire
  Mental Hospitals (Ward Windows)
  Mental Hospitals (Ward Windows)
  Hospital Service (Staff Conditions)
  Hospital Service (Staff Conditions)
ENVIRONMENT
  Motorways Programme
  Motorways Programme
  M5 (Birmingham-Bristol)
  M5 (Birmingham-Bristol)
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Humber Bridge
  Humber Bridge
  Third London Airport (Rail Links)
  Third London Airport (Rail Links)
  Local Authorities (Public Inquiries)
  Local Authorities (Public Inquiries)
  Derelict Land (Grant)
  Derelict Land (Grant)
  Toll Bridges and Tunnels
  Toll Bridges and Tunnels
  Liskeard Bypass
  Liskeard Bypass
  Bradford-Skipton (Highway)
  Bradford-Skipton (Highway)
  M62 (Humberside)
  M62 (Humberside)
  Barnsley—Rotherham Link
  Barnsley—Rotherham Link
  Slum (Statutory Definition)
  Slum (Statutory Definition)
  Goods Vehicles (British Standard AU152)
  Goods Vehicles (British Standard AU152)
  Western and Southern National Omnibus Co.
  Western and Southern National Omnibus Co.
  Pedestrian Crossings
  Pedestrian Crossings
WALES
  Gittins Report
  Gittins Report
  New Hospital, Bangor
  New Hospital, Bangor
  Cardiff (Signposting)
  Cardiff (Signposting)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Hospitals, Barry
  Hospitals, Barry
  DERBYSHIRE
  DERBYSHIRE
  DEPARTMENTS (NOMENCLATURE)
  DEPARTMENTS (NOMENCLATURE)
  SIERRA LEONE
  SIERRA LEONE
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (TALKS)
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (TALKS)
  PRICES
  PRICES
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  REGIONAL POLICY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  REGIONAL POLICY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  SCOTLAND (VISITS)
  SCOTLAND (VISITS)
  CIVIL LIST (SELECT COMMITTEE)
  CIVIL LIST (SELECT COMMITTEE)
  DRUG CHARGES (YOUNG PERSONS)
  DRUG CHARGES (YOUNG PERSONS)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Welsh Office and Scottish Office
  Welsh Office and Scottish Office
DEFENCE
  Defence Establishment, Pendine
  Defence Establishment, Pendine
EDUCATION
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Education Act, 1944 (Section 76)
  Education Act, 1944 (Section 76)
  Outlane School, Huddersfield
  Outlane School, Huddersfield
EMPLOYMENT
  Absence from Work (Payments Schemes)
  Absence from Work (Payments Schemes)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Redundancies, Wales
  Redundancies, Wales
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Development Divisions
  Development Divisions
  Technical Assistance
  Technical Assistance
  Overseas Development Administration
  Overseas Development Administration
  Tanzania
  Tanzania
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  Foreign Travel (Medical Treatment)
  Foreign Travel (Medical Treatment)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  European Movement and Council of European Municipalities
  European Movement and Council of European Municipalities
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Fire Precautions Bill (Regulations)
  Fire Precautions Bill (Regulations)
  Prison Service (Building Workers)
  Prison Service (Building Workers)
  Carlisle (Assaults on Women)
  Carlisle (Assaults on Women)
  Kerry Allbeury
  Kerry Allbeury
  HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
  HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

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.

LORD ORR-EWING
Sir Charles Ian Orr-Ewing, O.B.E., having been created Baron Orr-Ewing, of Little Berkhamsted in the County of Hertford, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Carrington and the Lord Mancroft.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS AND PERSONAL LOANS
2.46 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to make a statement on the application of the trustee savings banks to make personal loans.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, this proposal would have important implications for the future development of the trustee savings banks and for their relationship with the Government and with the banking world. These are matters which the Committee being set up to review the future role and development of the National Savings Movement can be expected to examine, and a decision on the personal loans scheme must inevitably await the outcome of that review. The Chairman of the Trustee Savings Banks Association has been informed accordingly.
LORD HOY: My Lords, that is an exceedingly disappointing reply, coming after a very long period of delay. It
150
seems that by Government action millions of people in this country are denied the right to a personal loan, people who are not only depositors in these savings banks but are really part of the backbone of the British economy. I only hope that the Government will not delay for very much longer.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord asked a question or not. I realise that it is a disappointing Answer, but this Review Committee is in being and it would not be sensible to go ahead until it has had a chance to report. It would be open to the Trustee Savings Banks Association, if they so wished, to ask the Committee to prepare an interim report on this particular matter.

DEFENCE MINISTRY: TELEPHONE TAPPING REPORT
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on recent reports of the tapping of the telephones of senior officials of the Ministry of Defence.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, extensive inquiries in my Department and in other Departments that might be concerned have produced no information to justify the newspaper report which I imagine the noble Lord had in mind. What I can tell your Lordships is that, owing to the exemplary conduct of a junior official of the Ministry of Defence, the attempts of a Russian Embassy official some months ago to obtain classified information about official telephone numbers and duties of members of the Ministry of Defence were frustrated. The Russian official has since left the country.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords. I hope the noble Lord is aware that that Answer is very far from disappointing.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he thinks that this newspaper, which was responsible for some disgraceful canard

151
against him some years ago, is just taking up an old theme? Would he care to comment on the slightly ludicrous nature of some of the charges made?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, in view of what I have said, I do not think it is really necessary to comment any further. The Answer speaks for itself, and I am sure the newspaper concerned will take note of it.

LONDON AIRPORT HOTEL SCHEME
2.50 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. May I say that the words "Instrument Line System" should in fact be "Instrument Landing System". The error is entirely due to my bad handwriting, and I accept responsibility for it.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will withhold approval for construction of an eight-story hotel at Meadowbank on the South side of the Bath road adjacent to London Airport; whether they are aware of the misgivings of airline pilots on the possible effect on the accuracy of the Instrument Line System on the pilot approach path if and when the building is completed, even if the building heights are within those authorised by the Department of Trade and Industry.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the situation remains as it was when I replied to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on March 18; namely, that planning permission had been given in accordance with the advice of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We are aware of the misgivings of the airline pilots, but I am still advised that the proposed hotel would not interfere with the performance of the Instrument Landing System.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the standards accepted by the Department of Trade and Industry aeroplanes will pass 250 ft. above the roof
152
of this proposed hotel; and further, that by accepting the proposals of the Department of Trade and Industry we shall be lowering our standards in this country to the lowest allowed by ICAO, the international body? Surely it is not right that this country should be satisfied with the minimum standards of safety.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I will not quarrel with what the noble Lord has said: the figure is perfectly accurate. It is the fact that the instrument landing glide slope will be some 250 feet above that required by the planning permission.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, in view of the Government's commitment to develop the airport at Foulness, and the admitted relevance of that decision to the economic development of East London, could not the noble Lord's Question be answered within the context of a national policy for the location and development of hotels? And if no such policy exists, is it not high time that it did?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not aware of the existence of any such policy. This is a rather different question; we are concerned only with planning permission given for a certain hotel.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a report in Flight magazine about a 747 which took off so low, and failed to gain height for so long, that it actually flew underneath a glider which was being towed up? If this should happen again could not an aeroolane easily hit the hotel?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is never possible to ensure that all the requirements are fulfilled; but it is possible, of course, that from time to time an aircraft may not fulfil the obligations placed on the pilot by the existing regulations. This may have happened in that case. I cannot tell.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord pay a little more regard to the advice of those who have to fly the aeroplanes? Is he aware that it is not enough always to expect an aeroplane to perform according to the rules? Sometimes aeroplanes do not. It is a matter for consideration, and I would

153
ask whether the noble Lord will now give further consideration to the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye? Can he also undertake not to build an 8-storey hotel near the runway at Foulness—if a runway is ever built there?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with regard to the last question, that is another point. So far as the safety factors here are involved, the present worst assumed glide path is 150 feet above the highest height that, under the planning permission, the hotel can reach.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, if as the Minister says, all is fine and the pilots' misgivings are not justified, would he take steps to see that the authorities meet the pilots' representatives in order to be convinced of their error; or, alternatively, to convince the pilots of their error?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am quite certain that the responsible authorities would meet the pilots, if they wished to be convinced on this matter.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why this mega-highline monstrosity had to be built in any case within the line of flight? What are the Jesuistical acrobatics which cause civil servants to give him an answer that a 'plane can be so many feet above the hotel? Why on earth is it in the line of flight at all? And will the noble Lord see that this does not happen in future?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this hotel is outside the public safety zone, which extends to 4,500 feet beyond the end of the runway. If we are going to refuse planning permission for planning proposals that have not any special standing at all, it would mean that we should have to surround airfields, or at any rate the extended line of the runway, with prohibitions on any kind of building; and I am sure that noble Lords would not wish that to happen.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, does the noble Lord not consider that whatever the safety regulations or limits may be, the publicity given to this building must have some passenger reaction and must perhaps affect the business done at London Airport in future years?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the present position here is that planning permission has been given for a hotel. That is all that has happened. The land has yet to be disposed of to a potential hotel builder. That is the present state of the matter. To revert to a question by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, it would be possible to revoke or modify this planning permission if good reason were shown; but in that case, of course, the authority would have to pay compensation to the owner of the land.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to give us an assurance that planning permission has not been hastened in this case just because of pressure of time, owing to the end of the hotel development scheme, in order that the building might attract grant? Can he assure us that the decision has been given on its merits and has not been hurried, as a considerable sum of public money would be involved?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the time within which the hotel could attract grant had already elapsed.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, are we to understand from the previous replies given by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that the hotel in question, in addition to being beyond the distance, is also outside the flight plan?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, so far as the criteria is concerned all that is required is that it should be outside the public safety zone; and that was set up, I think, after the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, had been at the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It was set up in 1958. Since then there has been no accident in any public safety zone.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, can help me over a matter which worries me and which, I think, worries others? Are any wind studies made to see what eddies these high buildings make in a very strong wind? Is the noble Lord aware that some of these wind eddies created by high buildings are in most surprising position; of extraordinary and surprising strength and very difficult to estimate, even by experts? Are studies made before permission is given to erect such buildings?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for drawing attention to this matter. It had not occurred to me, but I shall inquire and, if I may, let him know. I may say that the maximum height that this building can reach is 83 feet.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Lord be surprised to learn that I agree with him on this issue, and hope that the Government may show equal logic in dealing with certain other problems where, as in the siting of a new airport, they do not seem to have followed logic so much as sentiment?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord agrees with me on this issue. I have a suspicion that the House as a whole also agreed with us on the other issue to which he has obliquely referred.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that so many people do not agree with the noble Lord, would it not be desirable to have a public inquiry in this case?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the time for a public inquiry in this matter has already lapsed. If anybody were to demand a revocation order, no doubt a public inquiry could take place.

CO-OPERATIVE BANK BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK (NORTH CENTRAL FINANCE & LOMBARD BANKING) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

RENT (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill 136 as printed for the Commons]
Clause 52, page 33, line 45, leave out "one shilling" and insert "5p".
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment. It is not a very extensive Amendment; it is to delete the words "one shilling" in Clause 52 and substitute the word "5p". I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UNSOLICITED GOODS AND SERVICES BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.4 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received. Before moving the Amendments in my name I should like to make a preliminary explanation. To the legal laymen of both Houses it seemed that the object of the Bill was clearly stated in permitting the court to award interest on damages from the time of the right of action— that is to say, from the time of the accident—and to compel the court to award damages, unless there were specific reasons to the contrary, where there were personal injuries. Subsequently, on the Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, moved a series of Amendments. These were not accepted at the time but were taken into consideration, and as a result of the consideration between the noble and learned Lord and the Lord Advocate the Amendments which are now before the House were drawn up. Although they do not in any substantial way alter the Bill, they make its purpose clear beyond a legal peradventure. The noble

157
and learned Lord, being on circuit today, is unable to be present to support these Amendments. I am sure your Lordships will understand that his absence is unavoidable.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Balerno.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Extension of power to courts to grant interest on damages]:
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("Where") to ("pronounces") in line 9 and insert ("a court")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, unless it is your Lordships' desire, I do not want to tire you with a detailed argument for each Amendment, and will do my best to be as brief as possible. The first Amendment is to remove a doubt whether the Bill applies to damages for breach of contract as well as to damages in actions for reparation. If your Lordships agree the Amendment, no one will be able to say that it does not. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, leave out from ("Where") to ("court") in line 17 and insert ("a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment
No. 3:
Page 1, line 19, after ("damages") insert ("or solatium")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 ensures payment of interest not only for personal injuries but also for solatium or on such part of solatium as the court considers appropriate. Solatium might be interpreted as a sum of money paid for injured feelings. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection (1) of this section")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 4 is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment
No. 5:
Page 1, line 23, after ("damages") insert ("or solatium")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 24, after ("damages") insert ("and on that solatium")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 25, leave out ("them") and insert ("each")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("special reasons") and insert ("reasons special to the case")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment alters "special reasons" to "reasons special to the case"—semantic perhaps, but important to the lawyers.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 2, leave out ("of those damages") and insert ("thereof").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 2, at end insert
"(1B) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that where, in any action in which it is competent for the court to award interest under this Act, a tender is made in

159
the course of the action, the tender shall, unless otherwise stated therein, be in full satisfaction of any claim to interest thereunder by any person in whose favour the tender is made; and in considering in any such action whether an award is equal to or greater than an amount tendered in the action, the court shall take account of the amount of any interest awarded under this Act, or such part of that interest as the court considers appropriate.
( ) In section 2 of the said Act of 1958 there shall be inserted at the end the words "having regard to the provisions of the Interest on Damages (Scotland) Acts 1958 and 1971.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is for the avoidance of doubt, since it is arguable that it restates the present law, that a tender made in the course of an action is normally in full satisfaction; that is to say, it includes a claim for interest. Your Lordships will understand that the court, not having heard the full case at that time, is hardly in a position to make an award for interest. The second part of the Amendment removes a doubt. When there is an appeal from a sheriff jury case to the higher court, the court may make a different award of interest. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BALERNO LORD BALERNO moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 5, leave out (""damages" includes solatium, and")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
3.12 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 LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 5 [Rights of workers in respect of trade union membership and Activities]:
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("worker") and insert ("person").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the names of my noble friends and myself on the Marshalled List. We are now entering upon the consideration of perhaps one of the most important clauses in the Bill, for very much of the character of the Bill derives from the provisions and the wording embodied in Clause 5. It is necessary therefore to examine the terms of this clause very closely. The Amendment which I am moving relates to the content of the first subsection which, among other things, seeks to state a general right to be a trade unionist.
When we look at the wording and then at other Parts of the Bill, the term "worker" which is here used limits the extent of that right in a way which it seems important we should examine closely so that the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government can explain fully the reasons for the use of this term and for the limitations which its use places upon the right which is inserted and the implications which the use of the terms may have in other Parts of the Bill.
Let me say, in the first place, that my noble friends and I believe that the right to be a member of a trade union should be asserted in completely general terms. There is no necessity for any limitation upon that, save of course the acceptability of an applicant to the trade union which

161
he seeks to join. This in itself would be a justification for the Amendment. But our reasons for putting forward this Amendment are strengthened when we look at the definitions which are embodied in the Bill. There is a danger that if a right of this kind is not a completely general right, the position may be misconstrued. If an Act of Parliament gives a right to a class of individuals to do something or other, it might be mistakenly presumed by those who have a nodding acquaintance with the Act that any person who is not included in the category so defined might not be able to perform the Act in question, might indeed be even regarded as specifically forbidden to perform the act in question—in this case, that of being a trade unionist. It is important that there should be no colour for any impression of that kind, which I am sure is not intended by the Government. However, we should not like to find that the rights in this regard, which it is generally agreed should be extended, have become in practice, whatever the intentions may be, more narrow as a result of this Bill.
To get the definition of the term "worker" we must turn to Clause 158 of the Bill, on pages 118 and 119. When one looks at the long definition, it falls into three parts. First of all, there is the definition of the term "worker" in subsection (1) of the clause, beginning on the middle of page 118. Then in subsection (2) we find that "worker" further includes individuals who are generally speaking employed under the National Health Service. We then find in subsection (3) on page 119 that, in addition to these two parts of the definition,
"The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide that in this Act 'worker' shall include any individual … who works … or seeks to work as the holder of an office specified in the order …."
What we have is a triple definition of "worker".
"Worker" has been defined in different ways in different Bills which have come before Parliament. I should like to draw attention to the Industrial Relations Bill which was put forward by the former Administration in April, 1970, which also defined "worker". I am not arguing, I emphasise, for or against the definition of "worker" contained in the former Bill as being superior or inferior to the definition which is before us in
162
the present Bill. I merely draw attention to the fact that it is a substantially different definition, so different in fact that it seems desirable that the noble Lord should give us a full explanation of why it has been regarded as necessary to frame the definition of a worker for the purpose of the present Bill in the way it has been defined.
If we turn to the Bill put forward by the former Administration, we see (if I may pursue the analysis I sought to give of the definition in the present Bill) that that definition falls into two parts and the first part falls, itself, into three parts. The first and the third of those correspond closely to the first and the third of the elements of definition given in subsection (1) of the present Bill, but the second element—and I will quote it to your Lordships' House—is materially different from paragraph (b) which appears in subsection (1) under the definition "worker". In the Bill proposed by the former Administration the corresponding provision ran:
"under any other contract (whether expressed or implied and whether oral or in writing) personally to do work, whether the contract is for manual labour, clerical work or otherwise, or"
and proceeded very much as in paragraph (c) which is before us. That is materially different from what is now proposed. To take only one point, there is no reference in that to the consideration that the other party to the contract should not be a professional client. I think it would be helpful if the noble Lord would comment upon that particular phrase, the reference to "not being a professional client", which comes into the present Bill.
The second part of the definition under the Bill put forward by the previous Administration was, in fact, to add a fourth sub-paragraph to those equivalent to the three now before us. This fourth sub-paragraph included in the definition of a worker:
"Someone who was the holder of any office specified in Schedule 1 to the Bill".
When we turn to Schedule 1 of that Bill we find that in fact the specified officers were in effect registrars of births and deaths and rent officers appointed under the 1965 Rent Act.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord, when he comes to reply would explain

163
why it has been felt appropriate to define the term "worker" in the more elaborate way that has been done in the Bill now before us and reassure us on one or two points. Is there a possibility that anybody who at the present time enjoys the full entitlement to join a trade union will be in any degree or respect prejudiced in his entitlement to become a trade unionist by the appearance of the term "worker" and the definition of "worker" which is embodied in the Bill? To assist us in that, perhaps he could tell us how many people, in the Government's estimate, are covered by the definition of "worker" as it appears in the present Bill, and whether it covers people who may be brought into the definition of "worker" by any actions which the Secretary of State may in future take under Clause 158(3). It would be useful to know how many people are covered by the provisions of the Bill as it at present stands.
Perhaps most important of all, can the noble Lord tell us whether there are people who are generally accepted as mainly or substantially dependent on wages and salaries who are in fact excluded? In fact there is in the present Bill one category of exclusion clear to which I will return in a few moments. It would be valuable to know whether such people as the registrars of births and deaths, who seem to have caused some anxiety to the former Administration in this regard, are safely and satisfactorily covered by the present provision.
This, I think, is of importance, because a trade union under the present Bill is defined, if I understand aright, by reference to "workers". We have to turn to Clause 59(3) of the present Bill to find the definition. I will not comment on it at any length because we shall be commenting on it at some length later on, but for my present purpose the important point is that it is an organisation of workers. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would indicate the position of an organisation of workers which accepts into membership people who are beyond the definition of "worker" contained in the Bill. There are people—there might be Members of Parliament—who, as I understand it, would not fall under the definition "worker" in this Bill but who might wish to join a trade union. Since
164
a trade union, apart from other features and other requirements, is defined as an organisation of workers, does an organisation in any way prejudice its position if it accepts into membership people who are beyond the definition of worker set out in the Bill?
Further, are all the other rights and obligations, and the remainder of the Bill, associated only with those individuals, those of our fellow citizens, who fall within the definition of a worker? This is an important point because the entitlement to join a trade union is important. But the entitlement to join a trade union is of limited value unless there is some reason to expect that the employer will accord recognition to the trade union and will deal through the trade union with the problems that the individual has. One could properly go on to say that once recognition has been established, that, of itself, is of relatively little value unless there is a procedure which is available for negotiation, so the entitlement to be a trade unionist, the entitlement of a trade union to be recognised, and the existence of a proper procedure, are three interlocking aspects. Although I would in no way underestimate the importance of the right to be a trade unionist, that right is made a much more valuable one if it is associated with the other aspects, the right to recognition and the possibilities for getting a procedure, to which I have referred. Therefore it is important to know what exactly is the practical effect over the whole extremely elaborate scheme which the Bill envisages. What is the importance in that whole scheme of the definition of a worker, and how is an individual who falls outside that definition going to be situated under this Bill?
There are, I think, particular categories of workers about which we may wish to ask if the noble Lord is not able in reply to cover the situation completely, but I want to make a brief reference to one category of our fellow citizens which is expressly excluded from the right: members of the Armed Forces are explicitly excluded under paragraph (c) on page 118. They are expressly excluded from the definition of "worker". I should like the noble Lord to say a little in explanation of this. As I understand it, a member of the Armed Forces is not precluded from joining a trade

165
union. There are, indeed, a number of members of the Armed Forces who are members of a trade union. What has so far not been accepted as appropriate is to accord to a trade union negotiating rights and recognition in respect of any members of the Armed Forces. Does the Bill, as drafted, mean that, by virtue of this exclusion from the definition of "worker", any consideration at any future time of negotiating rights would be precluded if the Bill passed into law in precisely its present form? I have detained your Lordships rather longer than one normally does in moving an Amendment, but I hope I have succeeded in showing that this is an issue of importance. It is an issue of some complexity, and is one that is intimately related to many other parts of the Bill. I trust that the noble Lord will be able to reply to the questions that I have raised and give us a fuller explanation of the proposals. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): I do not think I can answer these questions in detail straight away, and I shall ask my noble friend, Lord Windlesham, to give a detailed answer after the debate on the Amendment has concluded, so that he may have time to inform himself. But perhaps the noble Lord could confirm that I am right in assuming that quite a large number of rather similar Amendments are intended to raise the same points, and not separate points. They appear to be Amendments Nos. 22, 36, 38, 44, 47, 49, 51, 62 to 64, 65, 68, 71 and 73.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: One must look at each of these Amendments in its particular context. They do raise, to a greater or lesser degree, the issues that I have touched on, and issues which no doubt other noble Lords will mention as we debate this Amendment. It may well be that when the discussion on this Amendment has been completed my noble friends and I may not feel it necessary to move the other Amendments which are similar in form, but I do not think at this stage we should wish to commit ourselves on that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The point that I have in mind is this—and it is rather well illustrated, I think, by what I am saying. Obviously, in a case of this sort one has to rely, to some extent,
166
either upon one's native ingenuity or upon the advice that one receives from others who are more expert in the administration of a subject of this kind. It so happens that in this particular case practically none of the specific questions was foreseen as arising out of this Amendment, which really only substitutes for "worker" the word "person" in a particular part of the Bill. If there were a large number of specific questions to which the noble Lord wished to have an answer, it might be for the convenience of the Committee if he could let us have such of them that he thought we could be trusted with in order that the answer may be more rapidly forthcoming than would otherwise be the case. I should be grateful if this could be done.
In the meantime, the only thing I would say is that under the clause as we have drafted it the word "worker", as the noble Lord quite fairly pointed out, does not include the Armed Forces, the Women's Services, professional persons in relation to their clients, or office holders, though presumably all these categories would come into the word "person" if it were inserted. Office holders, of course, are capable of being brought in by the Secretary of State, as again the noble Lord pointed out, but prima facie they are not in. Prima facie, therefore, the police are not in ether, because they are office holders, as the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, can tell his noble friend. So far as I can see, the noble Lord's question about organisations of workers is covered by the definition in Clause 59. Those who admit a few members—the noble Lord gave the example of Members of Parliament—somebody who does not come within the ordinary definition of "worker" for whom they cater, would not be affected by any exclusion, because an organisation of workers, as he will see from reading Clause 59, is an organisation which consists "wholly or mainly" of workers. So far as I know, there is nobody who would ordinarily be called a worker who is excluded, unless one chooses to include the particular list of categories which I gave a moment ago. I will ask my noble friend Lord Windlesham to obtain a more detailed answer than I have been able to give off the cuff, after other noble Lords have spoken.
LORD DIAMOND: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord is

167
inviting us to conduct a lengthy debate for the sake of filling in time until his noble friend is in a position to answer the questions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was giving no such invitation. My noble friend has been acquiring information all this time, and he is now ready to speak.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): I am glad that we have the prospect of such a short debate on this Amendment. I am not surprised, in a way, because the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has made an interesting and detailed speech, but he has not advanced any reasons why the word "person" should be inserted in this clause rather than the word "worker". His earlier questions were based on the analogy of the Bill produced by the previous Administration, which, as he himself said, used exactly the same expression. What was their expression? It was not "person", but "worker": and the word "worker" was defined in their Bill in the same way as it is defined in this Bill.
It may be helpful if I say something by way of introduction on why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State chose the word "worker". He discussed this in his Second Reading speech. He said that he tried to find another word which had a less sectarian—"Victorian" was the adjective that he used—connotation than "worker"; but he explained that he had not been able to discover a more accurate term to describe both employees, in the literal sense, and those who came under contracts of service. I should like to return to that second point in a minute, because it answers several questions put by the noble Lord. I may add that when my right honourable friend was speaking in the Second Reading debate and touched on this point he was twice interrupted from the Benches opposite by someone saying:
"It is an honourable word … There is nothing wrong with 'workers'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT; Commons, 14/12/70; col. 964.]
With both of those observations my right honourable friend was able to agree. The word "worker" is commonplace in the language of industrial relations: indeed it is even enshrined in the title of the union of the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, the National Union of General
168
and Municipal Workers, which claims the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn among its members.
While thinking about this particular word and the way in which it was used, I turned to the report, as I so often do for my bedside reading, of the General Council of the T.U.C. to see what they had to say when preparing their members for the Special Congress held on the Bill in Croydon on March 18. The T.U.C. clearly must have some view as to whether the word "worker" is appropriate, or the word "person". After all, they are very different terms. What word do we find in the document put to their members by the T.U.C? The T.U.C. have been very careful and have chosen the expression "workpeople" of which the singular is "workperson".
I have said that by way of introduction. To explain why this particular expression is used in the Bill, let me turn to some of the points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith. I am advised that in the interpretation of the word "worker"—shorter than "workperson" and perhaps in more general use—contained in Clause 158, there were no substantial differences in the definition in this Bill and the previous Bill. There are some drafting changes. It has been clarified and there is a change in that the Secretary of State has a power under subsection (3) to bring within the statutory definition of "worker" certain other office holders. He has this power which he may use or not.
How many people are likely to be covered by the description "worker" which is used in this Bill? The total number is likely to be of the order of 23 million to 24 million people. Question: are registrars of births, deaths and marriages included in the expression "worker"? Answer: No, they are office holders; but they can, if the Secretary of State so decides, be brought within the definition in Clause 158 by use of the power in subsection (3). Other office holders include judges, coroners, I am told even Ministers of the Crown, and the police, which is the biggest single category of person.
I am quite ready to discuss why some of these categories were excluded if that would be helpful to the Committee. It is

169
a long and technical explanation concerning the police, but I think that what perhaps I can do more helpfully is to say something about categories of professional people in general terms, and then conclude with the underlying approach of this clause because I am not quite sure, despite the interest and curiosity with which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, approached Clause 5(1), that he has quite grasped its full significance.
Let me say a word or two about professional people, because he asked me about those people who are in a professional relationship with their clients. We must distinguish because not all professional people are in the same category. Some professional people, notably doctors, have employers and are therefore included within the description "worker". Others, such as barristers, or solicitors who are in private practice and are not employed but are partners in a firm of solicitors, again are not workers because they have no employer. At the same time it is necessary to point out that there may be —in fact will be—substantial numbers of qualified solicitors and qualified chartered accountants who are not themselves members of a partnership but are employees of an employer and therefore come under this particular clause. I ought also to say that in the proceedings in another place a Government Amendment was accepted which inserted in the Bill (it is Clauses 82–84) what is described as a special register for chartered bodies which, under the terms of their charter, cannot take on all the functions of a trade union but which none the less have negotiating rights as regards salaries and conditions and terms of service.
What I think lay under the noble Lord's probing Amendment—I regard it as a probing Amendment because he has not actually proposed that the word "person" should be inserted in the Bill and that it would be appropriate wherever the word "worker" occurs—is, why should the right to join a union be contained at all? Why should not everyone have the right to join a trade union? The noble Lord nods his head, so we are in agreement on that point. Everyone has a right to join a trade union. They have that right
170
to-day, subject only to the right of the union to accept or reject a particular candidate. What we are doing in the Bill, and we now come to the crux of this clause, is to provide a statutory right to which specific remedies are attached in Clause 5(2), the next subsection, for the exercise of that right in certain specific situations.
Nobody is going to interfere with the right of a private individual to join a union if he wishes to do so whether he is a professional man or a man in these special categories or otherwise; but it is in the employment relationship that this right needs to be protected, and in Clause 5(2) there are specific remedies which we shall be discussing later this evening. Therefore the words are chosen with very great care in Clause 5:
"Every worker shall, as between himself and his employer, have the following rights, that is to say, …"
the right to join a trade union—it is spelled out more fully—or the right not to join a trade union, as stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the subsection. Those are specific protected rights, because it is in the employment situation where there is an employer and a worker that there is a need for safeguards, and those safeguards are contained in subsection (2) of this clause.
3.48 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I am rather sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Windle-sham, has not referred to that part of the speech of my noble friend which deals with members of the Armed Forces. It is 50 years since I was president of the sergeants' mess on the Rhine so things may have changed since then, but I remember that two of my sergeants were members of a trade union. They were both sergeants in the Corps of Royal Engineers and they still held their membership cards of the old A.S.E., the Amalgamated Society of Engineers, the forerunner of the present engineering union, and they were very proud of it.
I am not going to raise the question on semi-Soviet lines of suggesting that we should have a union of soldiers, sailors, workers and peasants—nothing like that. What I am concerned with is the position of trade unionists who go into the Forces and then come out feeling that their continued membership of a trade union would be helpful to them in

171
seeking or resuming employment. We have, as is well known, a very effective reserve organisation in connection with the Forces. It was strengthened very considerably during the period of office of my noble friends. Those people, because they are in that particular reserve unit, are accustomed to certain skills and crafts. They may be stevedores or people who can handle cranes in docks. All of them are highly experienced, and many are members of trade unions of long standing. If they are called up to the Colours and serve, perhaps, for a year or two, will they be required to surrender their trade union membership? Then there are the nurses. We know that there are a large number of nurses in Her Majesty's Forces. Some of those may belong to a professional organisation which may or may not be excluded by this particular clause. Some of them— and there are scores of thousands of them —belong to a genuine trade union, and we want to know what their position is.
We also have to bear in mind that it is the custom for Her Majesty's Forces to tend to invite recruits on a short-service engagement. A man may be going into the Services for three or five years. When he returns to civilian life he will want to be able to resume his old employment or, alternatively, seek some fresh employment, perhaps based on a skill that he has acquired in the Army. If this man comes out and does not have a trade union card he may be seriously prejudiced in seeking employment. I know that this fear will not in all cases be justified, because in recent years there has grown up between trade unions and Her Majesty's Forces a close liaison, and everything possible is done by the unions to take men back into the occupations from which they sprang; to give them rehabilitation courses, and to help them in every way possible. If the clause and the definition remains as present, excluding members of Her Majesty's Forces, I see considerable hardship being brought to bear on these men who have been in the Army and wish to resume a decent position in civilian life.
LORD SHINWELL: I am completely baffled by this discussion, and that is a very bad start for to-day's debate. The subject requires further clarification. What, is a "worker"? Is an unemployed
172
person a "worker"? There is a section of industry where, during a temporary period, nobody is working at all. Can those persons be described as workers? Obviously not. It is very difficult to ensure an accurate and specific definition of what is a worker. It would seem to me that a much better, and more accurate definition—and I thought this emerged from what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said—might be "employed persons". When it comes to the question of defining what is a trade union it would hardly seem to fit in. I confess that I do not exactly know where we are. On the whole, I imagine that the proposition advanced by my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith—to use the word "person"—is the most admirable and relevant definition. Can we say that a worker is not a person? Would the noble Lord who advanced arguments from the Government Front Bench venture to argue that a worker is not a person? I should imagine that those who are working would be disturbed and offended if they were regarded as not being persons. These are relevant questions, and they have to be answered more effectively before we can come to a definite decision as to what is a definition of a worker.
Unless there is a more specific definition, I should be inclined to press the Amendment, because it may have a bearing on other Amendments to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ventured to advance. It is difficult to find an accurate definition, but if I have to choose between "worker" and "person", in the circumstances, having regard to the arguments I have advanced, I should prefer "person".
3.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that if he is worried about the position of the unemployed person he has only to look at the definition in the clause, which states that "worker" includes anyone "who seeks to work". That is the answer to his question. I will ask further information about the question put by the noble Lord opposite. It is within my knowledge, because I served in a Service Ministry for some time, that members of the Services belong to trade unions. I think the answer is that the clause certainly does not take away from them anything that they have. As my noble friend pointed out, if you look at

173
the terminology of Clause 5 you will see that what we are seeking to do is not exclude anybody from the right to join or belong to a trade union—that is far from our thoughts. The point is that this is a statutory right which is enforceable against the employer; and, therefore, although it is often the case, especially in time of war, and in time of peace, too, that a member of the Armed Forces is either a member of a trade union or makes arrangements to become one when he leaves the Armed Forces, this is not enforceable against his employers, the Crown. Therefore this does not come within the definition in that sense in Clause 5. I was not aware that this point was going to be raised, and I will ask my noble friend to get further information upon the subject. We can either revert to it later, or provide the information in some other form.
LORD BROWN: I think I understood the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I thought, as he gave his explanation, that it did not spring to the mind in reading this part of the Bill. If the clause had started with words like:
"In order to provide that special protection from possible oppression by an employer, a person who finds himself in the role of a worker shall …"
and so on. Then it goes on to state what rights he shall have. I ask the noble Lord to take note of these words. I believe that they may be helpful in assisting people later to understand precisely what is meant by these words, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I was interested in the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, in moving the Amendment. I felt that I would like to investigate the reasons behind this. I wondered whether he just disliked the word, "worker". I checked up on the Trade Union Act 1871 and found that, although it uses the words, "person" and "workman", it goes on to describe "master". Where it uses the word "person", it is not being specific. Where it uses the word "workman" it is being specific. Equally in this clause, we want to have the word "worker" because it is specific; "person" would not be specific enough. To refer back to earlier Acts, the word "workman" would no longer be suitable,
174
and the word "master" is virtually obsolete. In the Trade Union Act 1913 the word "person" is used, and also the word "member" but in that case it is speaking specifically of members of unions.
I also thought possibly of substituting the word "worker" for "employee". I was a little worried here again because quite a large number of people are self-employed persons; and a number of people who are self-employed may be actually employed in one unit. Many people started to do this in small firms after the introduction of selective employment tax, to allow their employer to get out of it. It might be a mistake to exclude them completely. Also, this question is important in regard to the definitions used in this Bill. An employee is a person who is employed. In this clause I feel we want to have a broader meaning covering a person who seeks work. Furthermore, may I ask noble Lords to refer to subsection (2) of this clause, which says:
"It shall accordingly be an unfair industrial practice for any employer, or for any person acting on behalf of an employer,—
(a) to prevent or deter a worker …".
Again, it is proposed by the Amendment that the word "worker" should be changed to "person". I am a little worried here, because I feel it could then mean, "prevent or deter a manager", because the word is not specific enough.
The only point where I do feel your Lordships should take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, and his friends have suggested—and it is a very important point—is this. In Clause 5, by defining the word "worker", it might appear that we are excluding people who are not workers within an organisation from becoming members of a trade union. I think the noble Lord has got something here; this could be quite important. Therefore, possibly, in order to cover this point, it might be right to substitute the word "person" for "worker" in Clause 63, which specifically describes who shall and who shall not become members of a union. One of the things I felt when I first read Clause 5(1)(a) of the Bill—which says:
"the right, if he so desires, to be a member of such trade union.…"—

175
was that a man cannot belong to just any union unless he is qualified. A plumber could not belong to the electricians' union. But I think this point is covered in Clause 63.
LORD LEATHERLAND: The noble Earl said that a plumber could not belong to the electricians' union. Recent history, I think, would tell him that the plumbers and electricians have either joined up or have a very close working agreement.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: I apologise to the noble Lord for having chosen rather a bad example, but what I meant was that you could not have (shall we say?) a bricklayer becoming a shipworker. But this point is covered in Clause 63 and I think that should deal with the point.
The only other point is that here I feel it is important that if we use the word "employee" it might refer to somebody who is seeking employment. Therefore. I think the word "worker" is simple, to the point, covers everything we want it to; and I do not recommend that it should be changed to the word "person".
4.5 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I am rather surprised at the conclusion reached in the noble Earl's speech, because I thought that quite a lot of his remarks would favour deleting the word "worker" and substituting the word "person" in order that we could steer clear of lines of demarcation which are involved. I should have thought that this was an Amendment which the Government could have accepted readily. According to the Donovan Report—I am speaking from memory; I have not it before me—there are something like 24½ million people engaged in industry of some kind in the country; some 22½million of them are more or less classed as "workers". These figures are broken up into the number of male and the number of female workers. My noble friend has now provided me with the text I am referring to. I see it is said that the total working population in the United Kingdom is almost 26 million, of whom over 23½ million are employees. The Report then breaks the figures down into the respective trades. It says:
176
"There are 15 million male employees and 8¾ million females, of whom 4 million employees are manual workers and over 9 million are white collar workers."
The working population are defined in these statistics as numbering almost 26 million, and I think if we accept the term proposed we shall be introducing another classification into the application of this Bill. The word "person" would include the whole of the 26 million of the working population without any attempt (as I have said earlier) at having lines of demarcation which we condemn so strongly. I should have thought this was not too large a point; it is not a point we can get really excited about. But I should have thought that, in the interests of trying to get somewhere with this Bill, the Government might have indicated that they are prepared to accept the Amendment and the definition of "person" as distinct from "worker".
LORD SHINWELL: May I venture to make a suggestion? I was very much interested in what the noble Earl on the Back Benches said about Clause 63. I have looked at it as carefully as one can in the circumstances. If the clause were amended as proposed I believe it would cover every person who is a worker as defined in Clause 63—because it will be noted that the clause under review, which concerns the Amendment, relates to precisely the same subject; namely, membership of a trade union organisation. If this word were accepted, it would clarify the point. If the words "Every person who is a worker as defined in Clause 63 …." were acceptable it would, I think, meet the objection raised by the Government spokesman, and meet the point raised by my noble friend.
LORD SLATER: I wonder whether the noble Lord opposite can give us a definition in regard to the Amendment which has been moved and which my noble friend Lord Shinwell has tried to deal with. In view of what has already been said from the Front Bench opposite, may we have a classification of those people who are engaged in, say, television, colour advertisements, films and such like? What would the noble Lord classify them as—workers, or artists? Each and every one of them, whatever their professional trade, may be an integral part of the society of this country. What classification do we give to ourselves?

177
We are part of Parliament. We are in a type of employment, not as workers but as persons, so why cannot the word "persons" appear in place of "workers"? Having regard to the appeal made by the previous speakers one is surprised that the Government should be resisting this. No matter who we are or where we come from we are all individual members, and therefore we count.
LORD ROBBINS: May I put a layman's difficulty to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor? I understand that the reservation underlying the point of view which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, was a fear that the positive, constructive! definition of "workers" contained in another part of the Bill might omit categories whom it would be unjust to deprive of certain rights. I understand that the point of view put forward from the Government Front Bench was that the suggested substitution of the word "person" opened the gate too widely, and that there were certain categories whose admission would obviously be an embarrassment to good administration. My question may be a foolish one: The noble and learned Lord knows that I am utterly innocent in these matters. Why should not the word "person" be used and then certain exclusions be defined by schedule?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Since the noble Lord has appealed to me I can assure him that I am every bit as innocent as he is, but if he reflects he will see that the answer is not far to seek. There are a great many people who do not, as between their employer and themselves, have a right to join a trade union. A child of five is a person—at least I hope it would be assumed that a child of five is a person—but this Bill does not cover children of five. Also, of course, there are self-employed persons, who although they are in a minority in the community are still members of it and are "persons" or people. Again they do not come within the ambit of Clause 5 because they do not have a right as between their employer and themselves.
Perhaps I was to blame—I hope I was not—or perhaps my noble friend was to blame, although I do not think he was: it is clear enough that the word "persons"
178
applies not to 26 million people but to 55 million people. We want to define about 24 million of them, and we want to define them for the purposes of Clause 5, which gives them a right as against their employers. It is not just a question of excluding those whom I read out, such as the armed forces and the police; it is that the word "persons" includes all human beings, and in spite of their great numbers it is only a limited class of human beings who are concerned in the Industrial Relations Bill as such.
4.15 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am bound to say that I feel the Government have not altogether satisfied the Committee on this point. Let me first put this point to the noble and learned Lord. We appreciate that he has addressed his arguments, and so have his noble friends, to the bearing of Clause 5 itself, and to the assertion of the right to be a trade unionist against possible discouragement from the employer. As my noble and learned friend, Lord Gardiner, said last night, the Government have brought forward what I think they would agree is a very complex Bill, in which each part —and on our side we see this more and more clearly the more we study it— has its repercussions and inter-relations with other parts of the Bill. Therefore there is bound to be anxiety in our minds that, while we understand the force of the argument put forward by the noble and learned Lord, when it is addressed to Clause 5 in isolation it seems to me that it can raise implications and complications in other parts of the Bill. It led to my anxiety that we might find that, as a result of this form of words and these definitions, some individuals would in the end, in practice, find themselves in a less advantageous position in respect of the effective exercise of trade union rights.
My anxieties have not been allayed by the explanations given by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and there are many questions in my mind. Let me first give more emphasis than I did when I introduced this Amendment to the fact that we have no objection to the term "worker" as a term. We agree that it is a very honourable description. However, we are concerned that the right to be a trade unionist should be stated in the most general terms. If there are indeed precocious children of five who wish to become trade unionists, and who can find

179
a trade union to accept them, we would not wish them to be debarred by the terms of the statute. I fully agree that that is a somewhat extreme case, but I trust that the Government will look either at the suggestions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, or at the suggestion made, I think, by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, and taken up by my noble friend Lord Shinwell. In my view there is a need to look more closely at this, for there is no doubt that there are some blurred edges, and the blurring of these edges could possibly put individuals in a position of disadvantage.
Then I am a little puzzled about office holders. I do not quite understand why holders are left over to be dealt with subsequently, and I am not quite clear how wide a category of people these may be. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned registrars of births and deaths, and various other fairly small categories. He mentioned Ministers of the Crown: if what I read yesterday in a newspaper which has already been referred to this afternoon is correct, there may be some Ministers of the Crown who will be most anxious before long to exercise the right to be trade unionists and seek negotiated rights. But there are other categories, and I think we should have a fuller description of the position of office holders.
Frankly I was surprised to hear the noble Lord refer in just half a sentence to the position of policemen. I would have thought that we had reached the stage at which there ought to be no dubiety about the entitlement of a policeman to be a trade unionist. For many years they were linked with prison officers and, if I am not mistaken, they were subject, in practice, if not in law, to restrictions upon possible trade union activities. For prison officers that limitation, whether it be of law or of practice, has long since passed away, and they have an organisation which is not only an independent trade union but is affiliated to the Trades Union Congress. We know in fact that the policemen have their own representative organisation, and I am a little surprised that the noble Lord should take it for granted, as he seemed to do, that policemen should be one of the excluded categories.
We have already talked about the position of the Armed Forces, and the noble
180
I and learned Lord, I understand, is going to examine that point and provide fuller information at a later stage. But there, are other categories going beyond office holders to whose position I think attention should be drawn. There are such categories as sub-postmasters. A sub-I postmaster is normally a person who keeps a shop, but in the shop he has a facility for conducting post office; counter and other business. He may himself be a small employer, but for many years sub-postmasters, to deal with their relationships with the Post Office, have had what has been in effect a trade union, accepted by trade unions beside whom they work in co-operating with them in matters of common interest. Would they be workers for the purpose of this definition?
There are such categories are share fishermen. I am not sure whether they are workers under this definition. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, referred to; a most important, and in some fields of employment growing, category of people those who describe themselves, at any rate, as self-employed, but who in many cases operate as a collective group for carrying out some task for a contractor. I think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has had occasion to study this problem in other connections, and he will know what a complex one it is. The line between people who describe themselves as self-employed and accept this form of work on the one hand, and the wage-earner on the other, is a very narrow one.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Let me try to clear this point up. because it is fundamental, and the noble Lord seems to be under a misapprehension. Clause 5. which is what we are discussing, concerns the right of the individual worker as against his employer. It does not concern the right of an individual as against a union. To join a union, or not to join, is covered under Clause 63. What we are confining ourselves to here is the position of the worker vis-à-vis his employer and the remedies he has against the employer in subsection (2) of Clause 5 if the employer commits an unfair industrial practice in not allowing him to exercise a right.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am quite aware of that fact, but I put the point at an earlier stage that this Bill

181
is a Bill in which the various parts are so interlocked that, although I appreciate the force of the argument put by the noble Lord, if one looks exclusively and solely at Clause 5 and what it seeks to achieve it does not remove anxiety that it can have detrimental consequences if it carries this definition of categories of people with whom the Bill is concerned, and limits it in this way. I cannot see what the difficulty is about removing any possible anxiety, either by examining the course suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, or the course I referred to earlier, touched on by the noble Earl, and taken up by my noble friend.
If I may say so, I do not think the noble Lord's intervention was particularly appropriate to the point I had reached in my argument, because there are quite a number of conceivable situations in which gangs of men who had chosen to describe themselves as self-employed need to be able to assert some kind of right and another kind of collective representation in relation to the individual who is in fact their employer. I take it no further than that. I can conceive of situations. It certainly does not seem to me that that relationship in particular is one that one is entitled to dismiss. I think the noble Lord should look at that specific point.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Perhaps the noble Lord could give an example, because the categories of "worker" in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in Clause 158(1) are very specific; they cover the normal relationships between employer and employee. If the noble Lord thinks there is a relationship which is excluded, I would be interested to hear it.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: That is one of the things upon which I was hoping the noble Lord was going to assure me. I had addressed some remarks to the subject of office holders, and then came to people in private employment— share fishermen in the first place. Is there no problem here? Are they "workers"?
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord must try to grasp this point. When I he refers to sub-postmasters as being self-employed—which in most cases they will be—but at the same time having union representation, he is talking about their I right to join a union as against the union, not as against the employer,
182
because there is no employer. So he should address his remarks on that point when we come to Clause 63. At the moment we are talking about the right of a worker as against his employer, so it is no good raising examples of people who do not have an employer and saving that they are entitled to be collectively represented. Maybe they are, but there is no right that can be enforced against an employer, because there is no employer.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am astonished at the noble Lord's argument. Let us take the case of sub-postmasters. The point I was making was that a sub-postmaster is normally a shopkeeper, and he has in his shop facilities for the purposes of Post Office work. If he works for more than 18 hours a week on that work, I think I am right in saying that he is regarded for National Insurance purposes as an employed person. That is the point I am making. He does, in fact, in that relationship have a relationship with the Post Office. I am not saying what the precise nature of that relationship is; I am saying that he has that relationship, which is a relationship of a character which has for many years led sub-postmasters to form what is, to all intents and purposes, a trade union, which works alongside the trade unions representing normal wage-earning employees, which with them negotiates with the Post Office all those matters which are of concern to the normal wage-earning or salaried employees and the sub-postmasters. All I am saying to the noble Lord is that there are categories of employed people who do not, as I understand it, fit quite naturally and easily into the categories that the Government have set down. I am asking for an assurance that in fact these people do; and perhaps the noble Lord can assist by saying so.
This was the question I put when I first raised this matter: are there any people who are thought of as normally dependent or mainly dependent on wages and salaries who are excluded from the definition of "worker" which is put forward in this Bill? If the noble Lord can assure me that there are no people so excluded, then I shall, of course, feel very much happier. I am drawing his attention to the fact that there are people who are, from a common-sense point of view

183
very much in the position of wage-earners at any rate for a part of their time, but who are not necessarily, as I see it, covered by the definition in the Bill. We should be glad if the noble Lord could assist us by assuring us that they are. The figures which he gave were not completely reassuring. I think they showed there was quite a gap between them and the figure normally given for the employed population. Perhaps he can assure us that the gap is one which really need give rise to no anxiety.
I am bound to say that first of all our general proposition is that both on grounds of principle, and to avoid any difficulties which can be quite simply avoided, the definition should be changed from "worker" to "person", with the proviso that any special categories may be looked at and defined as not covered, which seems to me to be a very safe arrangement. There cannot be a very long list of people the Government would want to exclude. Even if one does here provide a safeguard for people who will never need the safeguard, I do not think one is doing a great deal of harm. I would have thought that to follow up either of the two suggestions that have been made in the debate would remove the possibility of difficulty, would remove the anxieties that are felt on this side of the House, and would remove the possibility that what appears to be to us a restrictive definition in Clause 5 could have disadvantages for individuals as a result of other parts of the Bill.
4.32 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I just say to the noble Lord that I did invite him at the very commencement of this Amendment to say whether he wished to link it with other Amendments to the same effect in different parts of the Bill. Although I was hoping that he would accept the invitation, he declined it quite firmly. That may be right, but it is not open to him, in the light of the fact that he declined, to complain that my noble friend has dealt only with Clause 5, because he cannot have it both ways.
The second invitation I gave to the noble Lord was that I said that so far as we know—and my noble friend said it in much more compendious and absolute terms—there are no excluded categories
184
which would not have been excluded by the Bill of the Government of which the noble Lord was a member. It may be that we are wrong, but we do not know of them. I invited the noble Lord— following a very old tradition of this House—to give particulars of any examples on which he would like a specific answer, because we know of none. I said that then we would look into it. The one thing I am quite certain of is that, as at present advised, Clause 158 is the appropriate place for the general definition. That is why the clause is so long. That is where the definitions are. I think that that disposes of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell.
I hope I have already given a satisfactory answer, but at any rate the best answer that was available to me, to the noble Lord who spoke from the Cross-Benches. Since the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has declined our invitation to treat these Amendments as one, I think the least he can do is to raise any specific points he wants to raise on the particular clauses, and if he gives us notice we shall be only too glad to deal with them, but, so far as we know, the definition stands.
LORD SHINWELL: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor cannot dispose of me in that airy-fairy way: I am not so easily disposed of. I shall venture to put one or two further questions, because I think that noble Lords in all parts of the Committee are anxious to avoid a Division on what appears to be a very baffling problem, and one probably not clearly understood. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was quite correct in directing our attention to the fact that the clause under review, so far as definition is concerned, varies from Clause 63. The clause under review does, as the noble Lord rightly said, refer to the relationship between a person who wishes to join a trade union and his employer. That is perfectly correct. On the other hand, Clause 63 relates to the relationship between a person who wishes to join a trade union, and who has a right to join a trade union and is qualified to join, and a trade union. He correctly described the position. But the remarkable fact about both clauses is: why the different language? Why the different terminology? Clause 63, as the noble Lord read it out, and

185
perhaps I might repeat what he read, says this:
"(2) Any person who applies for membership"—
and it goes on to say in the succeeding paragraph, as—
"a worker of that description,".
That follows the way that I venture to suggest we might amend the clause under review, and come to some agreement, if we use the term "every person who is a worker". That will meet both points. I cannot understand why the Government object to this unless they have some reason that has not yet been disclosed.
May I make this last suggestion, and I will leave it at this? In view of what the noble and learned Lord has just said about having a look at this, would it not be better to defer consideration of this part of the clause—whether it should be "person" or "worker" or a combination of both—and then come back to the clause at a later stage? Perhaps the Government would agree just to look at it, and give it consideration. We may be all wrong about this. On the other hand, as the noble and learned Lord said—and it is the first time I have ever heard him say this in all my experience of him, which goes back a very long time—he may be wrong. I must say that this was a concession for which we are very grateful. I think it ought to be inscribed on the portals of this House in some form.
I am ready to accept it for what I hope was no doubt sincerely intended. Why not take it back, give it consideration, and then come back, because I am fairly certain that very few noble Lords on either side of the House can understand why we are engaged in disputation on a matter of this kind. It is a matter of definition. Look at it again. Ask some of the other legal gentlemen to come in and give their opinion. You can have a second opinion, there is no harm in that, and it often happens in legal circles. Come back and tell us what you think, and we will come to some agreement.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: There are obviously real points in this Amendment, and the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, put them forward. I cannot help thinking that this debate would have been shorter and closer than it has been if some of the noble Lords who have spoken had even read the definition
186
of "worker" on page 118 of this Bill, which clearly they have not.
LORD HANKEY: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. If it would not be irrelevant under the rules of your Lordships' House, it would be very interesting to look at the effect of Amendment No. 35, where the noble Lords who have put down this Amendment have tried to avoid using "worker" and have instead used "employee". It occurs in paragraph (a) and in the last paragraph. It strikes me that you could not use "person" here because it would be meaningless, and if you use the word "employee" it does not include the self-employed or the person who is out of work or seeking to work. Therefore it seems to me that, by definition, it is rather safer to stick to the careful definition which we have on page 118.
LORD SLATER: May I ask the noble Lord whether an employee is not a person, just as he may be a worker? Why criticise the Amendment in regard to that? He is an employee and he is a person, just as he may be a worker.
LORD HANKEY: I did not want to prolong the debate by dealing with Amendment No. 35, but that Amendment deals with a very important provision which provides protection for these people. If you provide protection only for an employee, because your other word is too broad, then you will get into corresponding difficulties. So I come back to the word "worker".
LORD SLATER: If we carry on in the way the noble Lord suggests, we shall have to take this to its logical conclusion and instead of talking about a "manager" to talk about a "boss". The noble Lord, the Leader of the Liberal Party, is nodding his head.
LORD BYERS: I should like to make it clear that I was indicating dissent. I was also indicating dissent about the time we are wasting on this Amendment. We have a lot to do to improve this Bill and the sooner we get on with doing it the better.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: May I follow up the suggestion which was made by my noble friend, Lord Shinwell, that the Government should agree to take

187
this matter back for further consideration? He said that a number of details had been raised and a number of specific cases had been quoted at which the Government should have a look. Suggestions were made by noble Lords in various parts of the Committee about ways in which this matter might be dealt with. May I appeal to the Government to consider it further? There will be ample opportunities for us to return to
it, if necessary, but I should have thought that the contributions made by a number of noble Lords had made it clear that there was justification for a further examination.
4.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 68; Not-Contents, 158.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Raglan, L.

Archibald, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Royle, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hamnett, L.

Rusholme, L.

Arran, E.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Balogh, L.

Hoy, L.

Samuel, V.

Bernstein, L.

Jacques, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Janner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Birk, Bs.

Kennett, L.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Slater, L.

Brown, L.

Lindgren, L.

Snow, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Stocks, Bs.

Burntwood, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Maelor, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Mais, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Moyle, L.

Walston, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Faringdon, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

White, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Gardiner, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Popplewell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Buchan, E.

Fisher, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Burgh, L.

Fortescue, E.

Abergavenny, M.

Byers, L.

Gage, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Caccia, L.

Gisborough, L

Albemarle, E.

Carrington, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chesham, L.

Glasgow, E.

Allerton, L.

Clwyd, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Amherst, E.

Coleridge, L.

Gray, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Conesford, L.

Greenway, L.

Amory, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Grenfell, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Courtown, E.

Gridley, L.

Atholl, D.

Cowley, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Balerno, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hacking, L.

Balfour, E.

Crathorne, L.

Hailes, L.

Barnby, L.

Crawshaw, L.

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

Barrington, V.

Cromartie, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Daventry, V.

Hankey, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Hatherton, L.

Belstead, L.

Denham, L.

Hawke, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Drumalbyn, L.

Helsby, L.

Bessborough, E.

Dudley, E.

Hemphill, L.

Bethell, L.

Dundee, E.

Henley, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Eccles, V.

Hives, L.

Bolton, L.

Effingham, E.

Hood, V.

Bourne, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Brecon, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Bridgeman, V.

Essex, E.

Ilford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Falmouth, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Jessel, L.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Ferrier, L.

Kemsley, V.

Kilmany, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Kindersley, L.

Piatt, L.

Stamp, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Poltimore, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Lauderdale, E.

Radnor, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Lothian, M.

Rathcavan, L.

Swaythling, L.

Loudoun, C.

Reigate, L.

Swinton, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rhyl, L.

Templemore, L.

Lyell, L.

Rochdale, V.

Thomas, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Rochester, L.

Trevelyan, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Rockley, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Margadale, L.

Rutland, D.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Sackville, L.

Vivian, L.

Merrivale, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Meston, L.

St. Helens, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Milverton, L.

St. Just, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Molson, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Westminster, D.

Monck, V.

Sandford, L.

Wigram, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Sandys, L.

Willingdon, M.

Monk Bretton, L.

Savile, L.

Winchester, L. Bp.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Selkirk, E.

Wise, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Wolverton, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Yarborough, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.54 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("as between himself and his employer")
The noble Lord said: The construction of this clause rests upon the belief that one can make a complete distinction between the trade unionist or the would-be trade unionist in his relationship with his employer and in his relationship with the union. I want briefly to ask the Government to address themselves to this problem, and I think I can best do so by putting a situation which arises under the clause. I should be glad if the noble Earl who is to reply could explain what the position will be in the case of a firm, an employer, who has trade union recognition for one particular category of workers assigned to one union, if some of his workers covered by that union decide in fact for one reason or another to join another union and to seek, through that: union, to have a grievance remedied or representations made to the employer. In the event of the employer saying, "I already recognise Union A; you have chosen to join Union B, and I am therefore not prepared to consider representations from you", would he in fact be guilty of an unfair industrial practice under subsection (2), particularly paragraph (b), or would he be protected by subsection (5)? I think that this situation indicates the difficulty of drawing the sharp distinction
190
upon which the drafting of this clause so largely rests, and I should be grateful if the noble Earl who is to reply would indicate what is the course that an employer is expected to take in the kind of situation which I have described. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: This particular Amendment would in fact alter the course and the content of the Bill quite considerably. The whole of Clause 5(1) refers to what rights the worker may have in relation to his employment. He may be a member of a trade union; he may elect to be a member of no trade union. If he is a member of a trade union, he may have the right to take part in the activities of the trade union; he may have the right to seek and accept appointment in the trade union; he may have the right to become an official of the trade union—and in all these matters the employer cannot interfere. The whole purpose of Clause 5 is to draw the relationship between the worker and his employer. The worker may have these rights—rights which are clearly spelled out and rights over which the employer cannot have any say. These are rights which are as between the employer and the worker, and that is the reason why it is important for them to be included.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, asked what would happen if some members of a shop or a place of employment were to decide to belong to another union. The employer can choose what unions he elects to bargain with; but

191
the particular matter which the noble Lord has mentioned does not come within the purview of this particular clause, because the employees of a place of work can join any trade union that they wish to join. Therefore, it is perfectly possible for the employees at a place of work to belong to three, four or five different trade unions; the only point being that, whatever trade unions they do belong to, they will have rights under this clause, and they are rights with which the employer cannot interfere.
Of course, if one removes these words this gives the worker the right to belong to any trade union to which he cares to belong, and it also puts an obligation on a union to which he applies for membership to accept him irrespective of whether his application or his qualifications are reasonable. If one could draw a parallel, there would be nothing to stop a mine-worker from becoming a member of Equity or an actor from becoming a member of the Mineworkers' Union. That would be the effect of removing these words, which I suggest are important to this clause. I do not think that this is the effect that the noble Lord would wish it to have. The rights of a worker in respect of trade union membership as between himself and his employer are, as the noble Lord knows, spelt out later in the Bill under Clause 63. Clause 5 refers solely to the rights of a worker in respect of his employment, rights which his employer cannot interfere with. That is why I suggest that these words are important to the Bill.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am grateful to the noble Earl, but, with respect, he has not dealt with the point of difficulty which I raised and which demonstrates, to my way of thinking, how abstract and remote from the realities of industrial relations is so much of the drafting of this Bill. May I state the problem again? We have the situation of an employer who, having a particular category of workers, recognises, and possibly for many years has recognised, union "A." There has been no difficulty, no problem. This Bill comes into effect, and the day after, some of his employees who have been in union "A", or perhaps have not been in any union at all, decide to join union "B". They are
192
a small minority of the category of workers concerned. An official of union "B" goes along to the employer and says, "I am making representations on behalf of workers in your employ who have joined union 'B'. I want their grievances remedied", or, "I want to negotiate for them."
Under the Bill, what is the employer permitted to do? Is he to say, "I will listen to your representations; I will deal with you in exactly the same way as I have hitherto dealt with union 'A' which has the confidence of the great majority of my workers in this category."? Is he to say that, or is he to say, as an employer would normally say in these circumstances, "I recognise union 'A' for this category of workers; I do not recognise union 'B'"? In the event of his giving that answer, are the workers who have chosen to join union "B"—and this is a point of great practical importance—entitled to claim that under subsection (2), and particularly under subsection (2)(b), they are being discriminated against because they have exercised the rights to be members of the trade union which they have chosen?
That is the problem which I am putting to the noble Earl and to representatives of the Government. It is a very important practical problem because the trade union movement, and the employers, have devoted a great deal of time to trying to get some degree of order into workshop relationships, and it depends on the recognition of unions by employers. It is therefore of great importance to know what would happen in a case of the type I have described: because as I read the Bill, the employer is under an obligation to treat with union "B" on the same footing as union "A", and then we are straight away leading to a proliferation of unions, to the encouragement of breakaway unions and to an undermining of the efforts that the trade union movement collectively has made to try to keep reasonable order and to prevent people from shifting from one union to another in times of temporary grievance. I must press the noble Earl to answer my problem. If he can tell me that in the circumstances I have described the employer would not be under this obligation I shall be greatly relieved. But I cannot see how that can be squared with what is in the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend has answered the noble Lord once and I shall now try to answer him clearly for a second time. The whole problem would have been averted if the noble Lord had taken two simple precautions: first, to read the clause—which he clearly cannot have done with any degree of understanding—and, second, if he has a question to ask which bears no relation whatever to the Amendment which is proposed, to give us notice in accordance with the immemorial traditions of this House so that we should try to answer it. If the noble Lord had studied the clause under which the Amendment arises, he would have seen that it has to do with membership and not with recognition or collective bargaining. It follows, therefore, that the problem does not arise and cannot arise in the form in which he stated it. The clause deals with membership and not with recognition. The employer under this clause cannot complain of his employee joining a union, but he has no obligation, if he recognises one union for bargaining purposes, to take any notice of another union. He simply has to leave alone the member who joins it.
The effect of this Amendment, if it is passed, is threefold. In the first place, as my noble friend has clearly pointed out, it would prevent unions from excluding an applicant from membership, whether or not it desired to receive him or whether or not he is qualified to join it. In other words, it would deprive the unions of any right to receive or to refuse to receive members. It would prevent a union from imposing any qualifications on membership at all. It would abrogate the Bridlington rules, it would encourage poaching and it would encourage "scab" unions. The point that the noble Lord raised has no relation to the Amendment. If the noble Lord chooses to divide on this Amendment let me tell him that he is voting against the Bridlington rules; he is voting in favour of "scab" unions, in favour of poaching and in favour of depriving unions of any rights to impose a qualification on membership.
I have this to say to the noble Lord. We had a definite pledge from the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that there was going to be no filibustering at this stage of the Bill. In at least one
194
daily newspaper, a very shrewd and experienced political commentator this morning says that he was left in no doubt that the proceedings yesterday were a Lordly filibuster. I am bound to say that the noble Lord's pressure on my noble friend, who answered him fully, clearly, categorically and courteously, rather induces me to believe that that diagnosis is correct. I hope that the noble Lord, if he has problems to raise which have no relationship to the Amendment he proposed, will give us notice of them. We shall then try to answer them even better than we have done twice already.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: The noble and learned Lord seems, if I may respectfully say so, rather more angry than courteous. If he had done me the kindness of listening to the remarks which I made, no doubt inadequately, in moving this Amendment, he would have heard me say that this clause appeared to be based on the belief that one could consider quite in the abstract the relationship and the attitude of the employer to the individual who wished to join a trade union. I readily concede that the noble and learned Lord's experience of the law is far greater than mine, but I venture to suggest that experience of the problems of trade unions is perhaps greater in my case than in that of the noble Lord.
I sought, very inadequately, to suggest that there was a quite false conception underlying this clause and its approach, and that in fact the clause embodied and exemplified the abstract approach to industrial relations which runs through this Bill and which will do them very great harm. It seemed to me, wrongly perhaps—and wrongly, it appears, in the view of the noble and learned Lord—that the best way of drawing attention to this was to move to delete the words "as between himself and his employer", which are in one sense, I think the noble Lord will agree, the key to this part, at any rate, of the clause. I put what I think was a very reasonable problem, which arises exactly from the concept underlying this part of the clause: that you can treat the relationship between a worker and his employer in relation to trade union membership quite in the abstract, quite apart

195
from all the rights other people are exercising and quite apart from the rights of recognition and bargaining procedures. I put a specific problem, and I am glad to have received an answer to it. I confess that I did not understand it from the noble Lord who spoke first, but I did understand it from the noble and learned Lord just now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I apologise if I in any way offended the noble Lord, but I thought that my noble friend's explanation was clear. I am glad the noble Lord has now accepted the explanation from me. I certainly do not wish to offend the noble Lord, but in fact I really thought that my noble friend had put it very plainly.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, we have a long, long journey to go together on this Bill, and I feel that we should at any rate listen to each other's arguments at this stage of the proceedings. I assure the noble and learned Lord that I regard this as a very deep and serious defect of this Bill, which I sought to illustrate simply. As I understand it, he has told us that in the situation I have described, where there is a perfectly clear and satisfactory recognition arrangement and some members of a union which has been recognised choose to join another union, the employer will be perfectly entitled to, if the Bill is passed in its present form, to say to union B, "I am not prepared to accept representations from you", and that will not be discrimination under the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is perfectly right. He is bound to say "I concede your membership, but I am not going to bargain with this particular body." This clause deals with membership and not with recognition. If the employer recognises one union, he is not bound to recognise another. He is, how-over, bound to recognise the right of members to belong to another union and not to persecute them for it.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am extremely grateful. This is valuable clarification, which was certainly not clear to me before. The Government are postulating a situation in which the whole of the apparatus envisaged under the Bill comes into operation. In fact, a great
196
part of industry is covered at the moment, not by closed shops or anything like closed shops but by the kind of situation I have described; and I think it is extremely reassuring to have had from the noble Lord the assurance that we are not likely to have this particular kind of difficulty, which I am bound to say I honestly—and I think reasonably— believed would arise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I naturally accept everything the noble Lord has said. There has been a misunderstanding, and I hope we will remain good friends in spite of it—and I am sure we shall.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: May I add a comment in defence of my noble friend who has just spoken? This Amendment has clearly shown up one of the biggest difficulties in this Bill. We cannot fault my noble friend on his experience of trade union law: I challenge anybody in this House to challenge him on this. He has had probably a lifetime of experience on it. At the moment, we have not got a body of lawyers experienced in trade union law, and this Amendment has clearly shown this to be one of the greatest defects of this Bill.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am grateful for the clarification given by the noble and learned Lord, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.17 p.m.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 35, leave out ("if he so desires").
The noble Lord said After that rather rumbustious little interlude, I rise to move this Amendment, which is a very simple one. I hope that I shall not be tempted to move from the Amendment to any other clause. I propose to concentrate on the Amendment which is now before your Lordships' House. I move this Amendment for many reasons. First, if those words are left in they leave this particular section of the clause very loosely worded indeed—and that is putting it very politely compared to what was said in another place when this Amendment was being discussed. But certainly I do not think anyone would challenge that it leaves the clause loosely worded.
The whole of this clause, whatever else might be said about the rights of trade unions (and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, mentioned this), and whatever else it does, imposes on trade unions limitations and qualifications which they find repugnant. They say—and I agree with them—that the clause (and the Bill, for that matter) strikes a blow at the principle of the closed shop. Indeed it really attacks what we believe to be trade union interests, and if my assertion is correct then the Amendment I am moving today has a simple purpose, which is to remove these limitations and qualifications from the trade unions of this country.
It is not only the trade unions who want these words struck out of the Bill: there are many employers in many parts of the country who would like these words removed, because they realise that, despite all the criticisms that are made, there are great advantages in the closed shop negotiations as between the employer and his employees. The employers, as well as the trade unions, will argue that the closed shop is good both for negotiations and for industrial relations, and I want your Lordships to pause and consider just for a moment what would happen if the principle of the closed shop were to be destroyed. It would make it perfectly possible for other organisations to spring up inside these workshops and cause endless trouble, not only for the trade union but also for the employer. So, because I think the Amendment speaks clearly for itself, and I know that I shall not be accused by anyone of being too short—and certainly I hope not of being too long—I beg to move the Amendment.
5.20 p.m.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: I support the Amendment. This is a crucial point in the Bill; it sets out the rights of workers with regard to trade union membership. I wish, first, to draw attention to paragraph (a) which sets out the right of the worker "if he so desires" to be a member, and the next paragraph in which there is the right not to be a member, subject to subsections (3) and (4). The words we suggest should be deleted set out the permissiveness which is part and parcel of the philosophy of the Bill, to be or not to be a member of a trade union, which I think could cause a great deal
198
of difficulty and certainly will not contribute to good industrial relations. It clashes with the closed shop, and has to be set out in this way to indicate that a worker has the choice of being a member, or not being a member, of a trade union.
This is not an equal equation. Being a member, usually, is part and parcel of a collective effort. Not being a member is an individualistic approach to a situation, which does not help good labour relations. The amazing thing is that the alternative the Government put up to the closed shop is in practice fantastic—that of the agency shop. I think it relevant to dwell on this when talking about whether a person should be able to satisfy his personal desire regarding trade union membership. Under the agency shop a person may be allowed to start work, and within a short period he must be faced with the question, what is he to do about trade union membership. If he is not prepared to join a trade union where an agency shop has been conceded, he will be obliged to pay an appropriate contribution to the union, the appropriateness being in relation to the service it is assessed that he will receive from the union. If he has a conscience about the situation, the worker may pay to a charity. If he refuses to pay to a union or to a charity after, say, three weeks employment, he can be sacked. So this marvellous conception of an approach to individual freedom met by the agency shop means that a man is faced with certain choices, and if he docs not agree to them he can be given the sack. I say that that is a fantastic situation.
You cannot get a closed shop until you build up a high degree of trade union membership. I do not think that any trade union official has ever initiated a closed shop. By voluntary means membership of a union in an establishment is built up to about 80 or 90 per cent, and the odd few employees start sneering at the organised men, saying, "I get all you get and I don't pay for it." So the trades union members start pressing for the trade union to do something officially about a closed shop and eventually a closed shop is negotiated. Then comes the question of new employees. When we negotiate a closed shop, if there is a worker who has ' been employed by the firm for twenty or

199
thirty years and has not been in a union, very often we make an agreement that we will not interfere with him. In respect of a new employee, it is not unreasonable, where a closed shop is established, for the employer to have the right to say, "You can come into this workplace and work only if you join the trade union, because all the people in this establishment are already in the union." To try to move from that is discriminatory against trade unions and I will tell the Committee why. I had the privilege of putting this to the Minister when I led a T.U.C. delegation.
Under the common law up to now employers have had a right to lay down almost what conditions they liked under which people should work for them. Employers say to new employees, "You must join the superannuation fund,"or" You must join the sick fund, because it is a condition of employment." This is done already, and will not be interfered with. Why, therefore, do away with the right of an employer to say, "You must join a trade union with whom we have good mutual arrangements and with whom we have been working for years."? I support this Amendment, because it is part and parcel of other Amendments designed to try to get us back to something like recognition of the closed shop. I think that the Government are on a bad wicket over this. I think that to try to meet the point about individual freedom by destroying the closed shop and replacing it with an agency shop, where a man may be started and later sacked if he does not do what he is told, creates a very difficult situation.
5.28 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It sounds quite reasonable to say no more than that every worker should have the right to belong to a trade union or an independent organisation of workers, and that that would be the effect of these three Amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26. But, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, in his admirably brief opening, behind these rather innocent words lies the whole concept of the closed shop. So therefore we need to look with some care at the significance of removing these words. I do not think, with respect, that this is the moment to have a general
200
debate on the closed shop, on which there are strong feelings and on which there is a great deal to be said from both sides of the Committee. Perhaps when we come to Amendment No. 27, dealing with the right to belong to a union, it would be the appropriate time to have a I wider debate.
In this clause we are touching for the first time on one of the foundation stones of the Bill, the right of an individual to join a union, or not to do so. The corollary of this right is that if he decides to become a member of a trade union, as we hope that he will, it must be for the worker to decide which union he will join. The noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, correctly pointed out that the words we are discussing, the right "if he so desires", occur in Clause 5(l)(a) and (b), which deal with the right to belong or not to belong.
There has been a great deal of debate about this clause in another place. The Government were pressed to say whether or not they saw these as equal rights, as rights of equal weight; and of course it is very difficult to reply in these terms. Rights are not things that can be weighed out like sacks of potatoes. But what the Secretary of State has said is that the Government recognise that the right to join and the right not to join, although both are essential to the principles contained in the Bill, are not to be seen simply as equal and opposite rights. As he has made clear on several occasions in another place, we want to encourage the development of stable and strong collective bargaining machinery, and this will naturally depend on extensive and on loyal union membership.
The Government have made it quite clear that everything possible should be done to encourage workers to join the unions of their choice; indeed, subsection (5) of Clause 5 was added on Report stage in the House of Commons as a declaration of intent. The subsection enables an employer to give positive encouragement to a worker to join a union. Noble Lords will notice that no such provision applies to any employer who might feel encouraged to persuade his employees not to join a trade union; indeed, it would be an unfair industrial practice if he sought to do so. What we must at all costs avoid—as in fact the Bill does—is to

201
force a man against his will to join a union. There will always be some cases where, for some reason, an individual does not want to join a union. As I say, we shall be debating this particular point very thoroughly on later Amendments, but at this stage I should say clearly and unequivocally that we do not think it right that a man's livelihood should be at the discretion of a union. Noble Lords who saw the I.T.V. programme on the Industrial Relations Bill which was presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, will remember the weight he gave to this particular question: is it right that a man's continued livelihood should be at the discretion of a union?
The detailed effect of making this Amendment would be that an employer might be able to maintain that he was acting in accordance with the statutory provisions if he required his workers to belong to a particular union, even though that union was patently inappropriate and was not recognised for bargaining purposes, and even though the employer had no agency shop agreement with that union. The whole point about the phrasing of Clause 5(1)(a) is that it provides a statutory right for the worker, as between himself and his employer, to choose, first, whether he wants to be a member of a union, and secondly, if so, which union. The removal of the qualifying phrase, "if he so desires", would relate to that first question as to whether he wants to be a member of a union, while the phrase "as he may choose" relates to the second question, which union, which we shall be debating on the next Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, was very accommodating on the last Amendment we debated, and I hope that I can be equally accommodating on this one. But to do so I shall have to put a question to noble Lords on the other side of the Committee. Is this Amendment part of a series? Is it paving the way for further changes of substance in Amendments Nos. 25 and 27? If noble Lords will look at the Order Paper, they will see that Amendment No. 25 would enable employers to determine which union a worker joined, and Amendment No. 27 would delete altogether the right not to belong to a union.
202
If this Amendment is linked to that series, noble Lords will not expect me from this side of the Committee to say that the Government feel able, on matters of substance so important as this, to accept that particular line of argument. I hope, therefore, that the Opposition will be frank about this and will tell us really what is in their minds. Are they genuinely trying to improve the Bill by the deletion of these words? Is it their intention to improve the Bill, to clarify it by removing words, the removal of which they think would strengthen the Bill (Dr. Jekyll) or are they using this Amendment as a vehicle for outright opposition to the Bill (Mr. Hyde)? We should like to hear from them before giving a final reply.
LORD HOY: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the offer he has made, though I think he might have made it in a better fashion. To lean across and say, "I want to make an offer to you, but first of all are you Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde?" is not a very polite way of doing it, and I rather resent his doing it in that way. I am sure he could not have thought that when we put down this Amendment we were not sincere. Of course we are sincere; and may I tell the noble Lord that I am so sincere that I do not intend to move Amendment No. 25? That, surely, is a fair test of sincerity. I will accept his offer, but there are one or two other things that I have to say to him.
There is one thing we have to make quite clear, as was made clear by my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath earlier. It is said that if people join a trade union they ought not to be at risk because of the action of a trade union. Let this House remember that had it not been for the actions of trade unions throughout the years, workers would not have been in such a fine standing of life as they are to-day. Indeed, those few people who resent membership of trade unions do not resent the benefits which trade unions have brought to them, so they also have a responsibility. The noble Lord drives the point a little too far when he uses that argument, because he himself will admit that a person who does not join a trade union, or who joins an agency shop and then declines to con-I tribute either to the trade union or to

203
a charity, and gets the sack after three weeks or so is removed just the same. So the noble Lord should not accuse trade unions of doing this.
When the noble Lord said that my innocent words as I moved the Amendment were the equivalent of a closed shop, he was absolutely right. I thought I had gone out of my way to say this was exactly what I meant, and what my noble friend meant. This was not quite what we were arguing for, not simply to have it in this respect, but because we believed this was one of the ways in which we could in fact maintain good industrial relations. But if we were going to negotiate and make it easier for industry, it was much better that the employer should be dealing with one union and one set of workers, rather than have within his workshop half a dozen contending forces.
I do not want to be taken on to the next debate which I shall have the privilege of initiating. I want to confine my argument to each Amendment without taking in any extraneous matter, and that is why I moved this Amendment, pretty shortly and succinctly. So we are grateful to the noble Lord for accepting this Amendment, and to show our gratitude I have told him that, with his approval to Amendment No. 24, we will not move No. 25 and. with great advantage to your Lordships' House, will proceed to Amendment No. 26.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I appreciate what the noble Lord has said and it is not necessary for me to add more than a very brief footnote. I was not of course in any way questioning his sincerity. What I was doing was to place on record that if we are accepting this Amendment we are not doing so as any acceptance that there should be a limitation or infringement of the right either to belong to a trade union or not. But this is a concession the Government feel might well be made in the interests of commonsense. Do we really need these words in the clause? They are in paragraphs (a) and (b) but, as I have explained, the Secretary of State in another place has made clear that in his view they are not equal and opposing rights. They are very important rights. By adding the new subsection (5), he has put a statement of
204
intent on the Statute Book, to encourage workers to join a trade union. That being so, we feel that we can accept the Amendment, and accordingly I have pleasure in advising the Committee to accept it.
5.41 p.m.
LORD HOY LORD HOY moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 35. leave out ("such trade union as he may choose") and insert ("a trade union or independent organisation of workers")
The noble Lord said: May I express my thanks to the noble Lord for accepting the first Amendment to be accepted to this Bill. Your Lordships have been present on a historic occasion and I am grateful that I should have played a part in it, albeit not an important one. We are getting along so nicely that I should like to fill the first three places. Obviously I cannot do so, because another of my noble friends will be moving the next Amendment but perhaps I could fill the first two places and in that hope I now move this Amendment for your Lordships' consideration.
It is difficult to understand the Government's reasoning in this subsection. To say that a man may join any trade union he may choose seems to me to be a piece of nonsense (if I may phrase it plainly but not provocatively) and I should like to know what the Government mean by these words. May I give a simple example? As an apprentice, I had to serve six years and at the end of that time had to join the trade union that catered for my trade. I never thought that I had the right to join some other union. This is a little difficult to understand. I want to try to avoid quarrelling with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I but last night he said that there was no I closed shop in the legal profession. But I would never be admitted to the legal profession though trained in another profession. The members of the legal profession would say to me, "By what right I do you come into our profession? You I are not trained as a lawyer and you are not entitled to practise." I should be very foolish to try to do so; and if I did, I do not think I would get many clients. But what I am saying is that in the legal profession they have a closed shop just as we have one for each particular trade.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is not quite right. In order to become a barrister, one has to pass the qualifying examination which is set by the Council of Legal Education and this involves membership of an Inn of Court. If one wants to become an M.A. at Oxford University, one must join one of the Oxford colleges. But they are not shops or unions; they remain Oxford colleges, and the qualifying examination is not a union membership. The professional association of the Bar is the Bar Council, which has about an 80 per cent, membership. We think, rightly or wrongly, that we are stronger by having only volunteers and not by introducing pressed men.
LORD HOY: The noble and learned Lord was claiming earlier this afternoon that he ought not to be asked to repeat statements he has already made and which he thought we had understood when he first made them. He made this statement on the last occasion; and he was so correct this afternoon that he has repeated exactly the same figures, so I cannot doubt the sincerity of his statement. All I am saying is that just as one has to have some qualification to get into the law, a man has to have some qualification to get into a trade union. A man cannot be trained in one trade and join some completely different union. Examples have been given in another place and here this afternoon. One can think of two trades where, if this were allowed, great danger can ensue to human life—I refer to the coal mines and the docks. What right have people without qualifications to go into these unions? We find this exceedingly difficult to understand.
If we allow this, it may even go further and arouse a temptation which I think is facing industry as well as the trade unions. May it not be, if the choice is to be as wide open as it is in the Bill as at present drafted, that some people may decide to have a breakaway organisation from the union concerned? In our lifetime we have seen some bitter internecine warfare taking place in this country between breakaway unions and the established unions concerned. If this choice is to be available, it will be open to any group of people to form a union in opposition to the recognised union. Frankly, I cannot think of a better recipe for internecine
206
warfare and industrial unrest. If that is ever attempted, the recognised unions would not be worth their salt if they did not take steps to fight that opposition to the bitter end. That is the position with which we may be confronted.
May I remind noble Lords opposite of the argument frequently used by them, that one of the great troubles of this country is that we have already too many unions. I do not think that any noble Lord will deny the use of that argument. Every time we discuss what is happening in the shipyards, for example, it is argued that there are far too many unions inside the yards. We have to reduce their numbers so that we get continuity of labour and fewer contending forces inside the shipyard and, as a consequence of that, the yard will have a better economic record and output. But let us be perfectly frank. If we accept the Bill in its present form, without the Amendment I am now moving, we shall produce the opposite result. So I would beg of the Government to look at this Amendment and meet the modest request that it represents. On behalf of my noble friends and myself, I have much pleasure in moving the Amendment.
LORD WILLIAMSON: I would call your Lordships' attention to the fact that this particular subsection, now amended, stands by itself. It is not qualified at all, and now reads:
"(a) the right to be a member of such trade union as he may choose."
I think this subsection is one of the most important in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Hoy has made the point about too many unions—a point I made in my speech on the Second Reading—and I cannot understand those who argue for fewer unions such as there are in Germany where there are 16 unions, or one for each industry, and at the same time argue against compulsory membership. One of the most important factors connected with this clause is that there exist today in British industry hundreds, and possibly thousands, of industrial agreements where one trade union has agreed with the employer that all workers shall belong to this particular union and therefore the employer can negotiate with one union instead of four or five. It eliminates internicine warfare and also eliminates certain dissident people inside a

207
factory saying, "The union is no good; they settled for £2 a week and you chaps should have had £10".
This clause gives every worker the right to leave the union, to say to the men in the canteen, "The union which negotiated for you is no good, it is not militant enough, therefore you should join another union which you have a right to do under this Bill". This will ruin every decent working agreement in the country and every experienced trade union officer knows perfectly well that he would have to spend a great deal of his working time in stopping the dissidents and those who would break away and those who, sometimes for political reasons, would undermine a decent trade union. Therefore, I sincerely trust that this clause will be looked at again. I say to noble Lords opposite that if this goes through, within 12 months there will be such a hullabaloo in industry that you will have not only the Trades Union Congress on your heels, but also the Confederation of British Industry and every decent employer. Whoever thought of this either had no experience of these industrial matters or, if I may use a phrase coined by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, "They were stark raving bonkers".
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: May I ask noble Lords to consider this Amendment. It says, "a trade union or independent organisation of workers". I am very scared of the word "independent". Is that independent of all other unions, independent of an agency shop agreement; independent of a closed shop agreement? If those words had been "other organisations of workers", I should not have been so worried, but I intensely dislike this word "independent". I feel that it could lead to all sorts of pseudo unions, it would be to the detriment of the genuine unions and would encourage workers to break away. "Independent" means completely free from everybody else. I am very unhappy about the word and I ask your Lordships or the noble Lords who moved the Amendment, to consider it again.
LORD SLATER: I rise to give support to my noble friend who moved this Amendment. I am delighted to see the
208
ex-General Secretary of the General and Municipal Workers in attendance as a Member of this House, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, because I may be referring to that union in the course of the remarks I make in regard to this Amendment.
As already indicated, noble Lords will have accepted, irrespective of what the Government spokesman has asked, that this clause sets out the rights of workers in respect of trade union membership and activity, but the whole emphasis is centred on what has become commonly known as the closed shop. It is obvious that the purpose and intention of the Government is to impress upon the general public of this country that what has happened over the years is that unions responsible for looking after the interests of their membership have had too much liberty, and have exercised it in such a way that individuals who did not believe in such a set-up have been literally forced to seek membership. On the other hand, those who do not accept in any circumstances such principles as operated by the unions have had to suffer indignity arising from the closed shop mentality.
The basic principle of trade unions in this country has been and still is to achieve 100 per cent, membership. As has already been mentioned by the three speakers from these Benches, there are far too many unions in this country. But one thing that they have overlooked is the fact that trade unions have been amalgamating over the last few years and the numbers have been much depleted. Secondly, just as many other issues have been overcome by amalgamations inside industry, principally based on certain types of industries, now, as I see it, the Government have slipped up in the wording of this particular clause, especially when they seek to have inserted in the Bill the words, "such trade union as he may choose". I want the noble Lord and particularly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to take particular notice of what I am now saying. Suppose, for example, an individual was working for a local authority as a roadsweeper; that the union recognised by that local authority for trade union negotiations was the General and Municipal Workers which, by the closed shop introduced by the

209
town county authority, was the negotiating body which the local authority used to negotiate on behalf of their workpeople. Then let us suppose that this employee, the new roadsweeper, is approached by the local branch secretary and is asked if it is his intention to join the union. By the provisions of this Bill he may choose the union that he desires. This is bound to complicate matters for the individual whom the Government are seeking to protect. When approached to join the General and Municipal Workers Union, which caters for his type of employment, he declines and says: "I am going to join the National Union of Mineworkers." On his approach to the branch secretary of that union he is informed that the National Union of Mineworkers provides membership only for those working in or about the mines. That is the constitutional working of the National Union of Mineworkers.
I should at this stage like to tell noble Lords how that system works. When I was a branch official, if a member who was a financial member wanted to change his occupation, he was given what we termed a clearance card, with the result that in entering on his new occupation he would in all probability be accepted without having to pay an entrance fee. We operated this system without any difficulty. If a member changed from being a face worker and became an under-official (what we class in Durham County as a deputy in charge of a particular district), he would be given his clearance card and told that he could no longer be a member of the face workers' trade union but would have to join the deputies' union operating at that colliery. That system still operates, and it has worked well.
To come back to the roadsweeper, surely it is not the intention of the Government to force the National Union of Mineworkers to accept such an individual into membership. That would be outside their code of practice of which we have heard so much in previous debates on the Bill. Here you have a situation where both sides have nothing in common. I would remind your Lordships that the closed shop can operate, and has operated, in local government. If this Bill were to go through with these words left in, it would be bound to create dissention among the membership
210
of the two main unions, apart from the educational union, N.A.L.G.O. and the General and Municipal Workers' Union. I do not think the Government want this to happen.
When I first looked at the Bill I reflected on the five years that I spent as Assistant Postmaster General in the previous Government. I well remember making a speech in the other place and informing Members that there were no less than 420,000 people in that Department, and that there were also over 20 unions. That took Members by surprise; they had never realised it. Some of these unions have a small membership, others a high membership. Before we left office, we put through a Bill and set up what is now known as the Post Office Board. Negotiations are taking place in regard to these 20 unions, with the result, I think I am right in saying, that the number will be fewer than when we were in office. Therefore, when the Minister responsible for this Bill talks about choosing, I would say to him: do not expect the National Union of Mineworkers to accept a roadsweeper into their union, because he is a non-miner and not associated with the industry; there is no accommodation for him and they would not be able to negotiate on his behalf.
LORD POPPLEWELL: In opposing this Amendment, I should have thought that the Government would have taken notice of history. To leave in the words "such trade union as he may choose" opens up a very wide prospect indeed. At the turn of the century, according to Donovan, there were some 1,323 trade unions, with a membership of just over 2 million. At the end of 1966, there were 574 trade unions, with a membership of over 10 million. Unions vary in size, from the 24 members of the Jewish Bakers' Society to the very big Transport and General Workers' and the Municipal and General. Some of these unions are so small and individualistic in their approach that they remain outside affiliation to the Trades Union Congress; and in con sequence, according to the latest figures I that I have there are now just over 130 unions affiliated to the Trades Union Congress. Leaving these words in the Bill would encourage an individual to join a union of his choice irrespective of the

211
merits or demerits of that union and of whether or not that union can negotiate for him. My noble friend Lord Williamson dealt with this, saying, in effect, that when a number of unions are engaged in a particular industry the negotiations are considerably bedevilled, and it is to the advantage of management to have a minimum number of unions. This clause would encourage growth in the number of unions.
We were challenged by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on an earlier Amendment when he suggested that some of the points we were putting forward hit against what are called the Bridlington proposals. The basic idea in the Bridlington proposals was to prevent growth of trade unions; to seek the amalgamation of trade unions; to help towards eliminating lines of demarcation disputes, and a wide variety of other things. From the introduction of those Bridlington proposals remarkable steps forward took place. The suggestion we make in this Amendment is in accord with the Bridlington proposals. Objection has been raised to the use of the words, "independent organisation of workers", but there is a history behind this. So much is the trade union movement against the Bill and the ineptitude of the Government that many unions have said that they will not register. By virtue of not registering they may become independent workers' organisations. This is a sad story, but let us face it. The Government have tried to say that if those organisations do not register voluntarily they will automatically be accepted as registered although they say they will not register. I believe it is to cover this point that those words have been embraced in this clause. This is resented very much.
There is a strong feeling among trade unions that it is much better for there to be a limited number of unions in any given industry. I can speak only as an individual; I cannot speak for my trade union friends, but I believe in the development of the industrial trade union as a whole. I think the craft organisation which we have seen develop has served its purpose well, and in the light of present developments the need is for a minimum number of unions engaged in any bargaining in any particular industry. From that aspect I think the Amendment
212
is right, and I hope—perhaps the hope will not be realised—that the Government will see our point of view on this matter.
Another important matter which is concerned is the question of the agency shop. That is imported from America and, to say the least, we are very suspicious of it. One can only refer to past experience. One remembers the Foremen and Staff Mutual Benefit Society which is mentioned in the Donovan Report. I believe Rule No. 7 of that Society's rules said that if he were to maintain his position as a foreman a man must not belong to any trade union. In the development of the agency shop at a later stage such an organisation might very well qualify for recognition under an agency shop agreement.
6.17 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My immediate reaction on reading this Bill was that there was no reason for me to change my opinion that Clause 5 is perhaps one of the most important in it. It raises so many issues, disturbs so many emotions, strikes at tradition. Although the debate has been going on for only about three hours, I think it would be generally agreed that the clause is very important indeed. On this Amendment I have no desire to say anything about one of the fundamental issues raised by the clause, the closed shop. I listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said on that. Perhaps at a later stage we can discuss that fundamental principle. I read the debate on Clause 5 in another place. One of those who took part in the debate, a member of the legal profession, said that Clause 5 was the silliest clause in a silly Bill. I support this Amendment because I think the clause is full of danger.
I wish to re-echo some of the sentiments expressed by Lord Williamson. I believe that Clause 5 is charged with explosive material. If and when it is implemented it can bring about chaos and I disruption in industry. Why do I say that? When one makes any statement it is natural that those who are listening should expect a reason to be given for it. I say that the clause is full of danger and contains explosive material because it will destroy the good work done over many years by unions and employers in organising workers into trade unions on

213
the basis of industry. I draw the attention of your Lordships to the wording of the clause. It says:
"Every worker shall … have … the right, if he so desires, to be a member of such trade union as he may choose."
If that comes about in some industries it will put the clock back. It takes us back to the days of fragmentation.
I shall give a classic example of what I mean by that term. The tragedy of inter-union and demarcation disputes is known to all of us. Without going into the details of what has happened in particular industries regarding these two forms of dispute, I would put forward the opinion that this clause is a licence to intensify the difficulties which arise as a result of inter-union rivalries and demarcation disagreements. With Clause 5, the Government Front Bench are making a rod, if not for their own back, certainly for industry in this country. The words in Clause 5, particularly in the subsection which I have read out, are a prescription for chaos and anarchy in industry, and many employers know it. Many employers have expressed those sentiments, even if not in those words. That is certainly the view of the trade union movement. The patient work over many years put in by unions and employers to get organisation on an industry basis, expediting negotiations, improving the atmosphere in industrial relations, could be destroyed by this clause. It provides a legal opportunity for chaos and anarchy in industry. That is not my idea of freedom.
Some 25 years ago the mining industry was, so far as the employers and trade unions were concerned, in a fragmented condition. There were some employers in one county and other employers in another county; there was the equivalent of organisation in one county but not in another county. It was a hotch-potch—a mess, I should like to give as an example what has been done by the mining industry, and I do not think that anybody will deny that the work has given good results. In 1944 the Miners' Federation of Great Britain came to an end; so did the county and district unions. They were organised in one union on an industry basis. When the coal industry came into public ownership the same applied. The National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers agreed that they should
214
negotiate together and speak with one voice so far as the whole of the employees in the industry up to managerial level were concerned. Since that took place there has been less dispute, more harmony, a more peaceful atmosphere and a better understanding so far as industrial relations are concerned than the mining industry has ever known. I plead with the Government to think again. I suspect that the people who were responsible for this clause had little, if any, trade union experience in the field of industrial relations. The Government should think again before they destroy some of the collective organisation which has come into being over the past few years and before they do anything to cause fragmentation, which will poison industrial relations. I urge upon the Government to think again of all that is involved by putting Clause 5 in this Bill.
6.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I put this point. He says that if you do not have compulsion in unions you are going to have complete anarchy. But surety that falls essentially on the responsibility of the British working man. Surely it is far preferable if unions can attract people to join them through their sense of fair play, efficiency and responsibility. Any organisation is far stronger if you do not use compulsion to join it.
LORD SAINSBURY: I will take only a minute of the Committee's time. Looking at this matter from an employer's point of view I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Williamson said. If you consulted the majority of industrial managers to-day they would agree with my noble friend Lord Williamson because they know that it always leads to disharmony when you get two unions covering the same workers, doing the same job in the same industrial shop.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: I have tried—God knows I have tried! —to intervene, but now I find it is difficult to say something which is not repetitive. I have watched the behaviour of: the Committee in discussing an Industrial Relations Bill which is intended to bring discipline within industry. I agree that there should be discipline within industry: discipline imposed by the

215
people elected by the workers in the industry. It is true that we have slipped away from that somewhat. Mrs. Barbara Castle discovered that the Emperor had no clothes, and said so when she remarked that the power is now in the hands of the shop stewards. That has been self-evident to many of us in the trade union movement over many years. It is a natural growth. They are near the scene where disputes arise; they have responsibility for settling disputes. What is more natural than that they should take the power which comes into their hands by the evolution of industry?
What has not been seen in the industrial world is that the elected representatives not only include the shop stewards; they include the executive councils and the regional committees. The executive councils in many cases have been rather lax about imposing discipline upon their members. They say, "We are not called upon to police our shop stewards." It depends on the language you like to use. I think they have a responsiblity to the industry in which those shop stewards are operating and a responsibility to tell the shop stewards if they, the executive council, feel they are doing their job wrongly. So there is a gap in the control, or there has been a gap in the control. We are trying to fill that gap at the present time. But if you read your current newspapers you will see that shop stewards in some industries are objecting to the imposition of discipline by their general secretaries in making agreements over the heads of the shop stewards.
Why is this happening? If you trace the history of trade union negotiations at the present time you will see that we are moving towards a gaol that this Bill is going to drive us from unless we are very careful. When you have a strike of any considerable dimensions—and we are growing to that now—the union has to spend a very great deal of money. Has it never occurred to noble Lords opposite that the union cannot allow a lot of money to be spent without knowing that it is being properly spent, fairly spent, and not spent in such a way that it will leave the union defenceless if it has to call a justifiable strike at some future date. The responsibility is on the executive council to control what is happening
216
in the union; and the natural movement is towards that situation at the present time.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: May I ask the noble Lord a question, with all due deference to his experience—very much greater experience than that of many noble Lords in this House? As he addressed his words to "noble Lords opposite", noble Lords on this side of the Committee, may I ask whether he could explain what his observations, in which I am very interested, have to do with Amendment No. 26?
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: If the noble Earl will have just a little patience—I know from experience that he is impatient—he will find out exactly what I mean. There are so many undeveloped arguments in this Committee, particularly from the opposite Benches, that sometimes I despair of noble Lords opposite listening to an argument which leads to a conclusion.
If you are going to have this sense of responsibility inside the trade union movement, it is essential to have control. All of us who have experience in the trade union movement have been told at some time or other, "Your members are breaking agreements; they are breaking rules. It is up to you to put them right." And we have done it. Some employers would develop that to the point where they regard us as the people who should impose discipline on all occasions, in spite of all the wrong things that they as employers do which destroy industrial relations—and I have seen plenty of them in my time. The union cannot carry its discipline that far. There must be some reciprocation; there must be a community of effort between the employers and the trade unions.
If you start at the branch level and you are organising men, it is at this level that the local official is going to be told that his local people are breaking rules. This is where you start. Will some noble Lords opposite who have been singularly silent in this debate, although they have previously expressed agreement with the point of view we have expressed, tell us how we impose discipline on a man who is not a member? How do you do that?; We have hauled members before the branch committee to tell them that they must obey the rules and regulations and

217
honour agreements. If there were something in this Bill about sanctity of agreements, I think it would meet with approval by a lot of people in this country on both sides of the fence—I do not say "employers and workers"; I say "managers and workers" because there are not many employers left; we are all employed by somebody these days; we are managers and workers. If we had some co-operation from the employers at this crucial moment in our industrial history, when discipline by general secretaries is being objected to by shop stewards, that movement for sanctity of agreement, could grow. But unless we have control over the membership, it will not grow.
But, of course, this clause makes matters worse. It not only refuses us control over all members; it says to the members, "You may join another union where you will be controlled by somebody outside the industry". I can imagine a man saying, "I want to join the Textile Workers' Union", when he belongs to the steel industry. And if he was wickedly disposed he would want to do it for a particular purpose. I am not speaking against textile unions; I am mentioning them because Lewis Wright is a friend of mine and he will not misunderstand me; some other people might misunderstand me if I were not careful. Would you have Left-Wing organisations in this country whose intention is to disrupt industry? It will need only one man in 500 to cause that disruption. Can you imagine reporting back to branches? I ask you to imagine it, because you cannot have had any experience when you put a Bill like this forward. Can you imagine reporting back to a branch, "We have been offered £1"—£2, or whatever it is—"and we recommend acceptance"? This is responsible trade unionism. What so often happens now is that the malcontent says, "That's not enough. We are going to have more"—without any reason whatever, without any regard to the industry, without any regard to the union. One man can hold up a branch meeting for two hours until everybody goes out sick, sore and tired of the act. Then they get the motion over; but they do not accept the agreement recommended by the officials. This happens to-day. What is going to happen with this Bill is an intensification of that—a glorious opportunity for the Left-Wing
218
people to come in and disrupt negotiations.
The Conservative Party, which has said so often that it wants to help the trade unions, that it wants to help industry, that it wants industrial trade unionism, is going to destroy all those things which it has assured us over the years it wants; and not only over the years; in the past few days. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself has told us that this Bill is to help trade unions. How in God's name is this going to help the trade unions, the employers or the country? I appeal to your Lordships, in spite of the fact that you do not have the intimate knowledge that we on this side of the Committee have, to believe that we are not speaking for the trade unions alone. We are speaking for the country and we are speaking for the industry we love, the industry in which we work, in which we want discipline. For Heaven's sake! accept what we nave suggested in this particular Amendment in order that we may be able to do that little—more than a little—whicli so many trade unionists are doing in the country to-day to help put this country back on to its feet. Do not include poison in a Bill, which has some good points (and maybe I will speak on the good points as we go along, as the noble and learned Lord asked us to do), and make it a witches' brew by putting that poison in among the fairly good herbs that might be in some parts of the Bill. Please do not poison either the brew or the trade union movement.
6.39 p.m.
LORD COLLISON: I have not intervened in any of the debates that have taken place so far; I have not thought it proper to do so. But I feel I must make a point on this Amendment 26 which has not yet been made and should be considered. What my colleagues have said about inter-union rivalry is perfectly true. It is perfectly true that members of responsible unions can be made dissatisfied and can be tempted into some other organisation which is not so responsible, and which has not the interests of the country or the workers at heart. The only way that this can be prevented is by giving the unions themselves some authority. To my knowledge the only real authority which can be imposed upon the trade unions—and that is not the

219
word, because it is not an imposition; it is an acceptance by trade unions—is through the action of the disputes committee of the T.U.C.
I intervene because I think that if Clause 5 is approved it will undermine the T.U.C. itself, and will certainly prevent the disputes committee of the T.U.C. from operating. I have been the chairman of several disputes committees of the T.U.C. in the past in which members have been approached by trade unions— wrongly, because the Bridlington Rules say that where a union is seen to have organising rights, where it is seen to have negotiating rights, it should have rights to the workpeople in that industry, and they should not be taken away or "poached" by any other union. I have sat on a disputes committee when unions have been told by the committee that they must hand back a large number of members they had taken from a responsible union in this way. It is also perfectly true—and I know I am repeating what has been said already—that there is a problem about the multiplicity of trade unions in this country.
The other problem which has been spoken about is that of a battle within the trade union movement. This is where the T.U.C. has to have some kind of power; and is it not rather remarkable that I cannot remember more than two decisions of a disputes committee being challenged by the unions concerned, even where they have been disciplined fairly severely by the General Council of the T.U.C. following the disputes committee. I believe that in the interests of the trade union movement, in the interests of industry, and in the interests of the country we should not, as a Parliament, do anything to undermine the power of the T.U.C. in this field. The simple point I am making—and if I am wrong I am sure I shall be corrected—is a point of fact. It seems to me that if Clause 5 is passed the T.U.C. itself and its disputes committee would be in contravention of the clause, and in contravention of any code that is produced. I think that would be harmful to the trade union movement, to industry and to the country. I am only speaking because I want noble Lords on both sides of the Committee to think seriously about it.
6.43 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I hesitate to intervene in a debate after noble Lords with such vastly greater experience than mine have addressed the Committee. I only do so in order to make a suggestion to the Government which I hope they may feel able to accept. At the moment we have not heard the reply from the Government spokesman, and I do not know whether or not the Government are disposed to accept the Amendment which is under consideration. Supposing they are not prepared to accept it, I am asking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—who from the activity of his pencil I assume is going to reply —
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, I think the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is going to reply, but experience shows that the Government speech does not always end the debate so I like to keep a note of what has gone before.
LORD STOW HILL: I can only express myself as deeply gratified that the noble and learned Lord should think it worth while making a note of the modest observations which I am addressing to the Committee, but modest as they be, these are they. If the Government do not feel able to accept this Amendment I wonder whether they could undertake, between now and Report stage, to see whether they can find some language which at any rate will go part of the way to allaying the very serious anxieties which have been expressed from this side of the Committee with regard to the dangers of splinterisation.
What is the position as the wording of the Bill at present stands? The choice which is given under Clause 5(1) paragraph (a) is absolutely unlimited; it is completely unfettered. If there are a number of trade unions which a particular disgruntled worker might join he can select the most disruptive, and there is nothing in the wide world which can stop him. Under the provisions of Clause 5(2)(a), if the employer seeks in any way to discourage the worker (as I read it) from joining a thoroughly disruptive and damaging small splinter union, the employer is guilty of an unfair industrial practice. I suppose the position is really this. There may be in a plant, or in a section of industry,

221
an approved closed shop entered into I after the procedure envisaged by Clause 16 has been gone through. In that case, as I understand it, (although I am not quite sure whether I am right in my reading of Clause 5) for the employer to discriminate against the worker if he re fused to join a union which was party to the approved closed shop agreement—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but he is trying to be helpful and so am I. I think if he will look at Clause 5 again—and this is one of the difficulties I have been in as I have listened to this debate—he will see that the effect of the Amendment, and of the clause, are approximately the reverse of what he is trying to put to the Committee now. If we omit the phrase about the workers' right of choice, that is to say he has a right as between his employer and himself to choose his own union, and if we omit the words that he can join the union of his choice (as in the Amendment), that means that the employer can choose for him. Therefore, to the contrary of what the noble Lord is saying about the legal effect of the Amendment, it would have the reverse effect: it would enable the employer to do the very thing that the noble Lord is afraid of.
LORD STOW HILL: I quite follow that, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. What I had in mind, in order to meet the point which he has just made, is some wording—and I do not seek to draft standing up—which would connote the idea of the union which is, broadly speaking, representative of the workers engaged in that particular plant or section of industry. I am sure the noble and learned Lord will give consideration to it, and if wording of that sort were to be incorporated I do not think the point he has just made would arise.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord is being so patient with me, may I intervene again for a moment? I think we are now discussing something real about this, and I would like him to know what is in my mind before my noble friend speaks on this Amendment. If the noble Lord will look first at Clause 63(2), about the right of a union to refuse a member of an inappropriate class to
222
its own membership, and then reflect that the Bill contains nothing which is adverse or hostile to the Bridlington Rules (to which reference has already been made), I think he will then reflect on this Amendment, first, that the words in this clause giving the worker the right of choice are essential to deprive the employer of the right of choosing for him. Second, if the union has the right of rejection in Clause 63(2) of an inappropriate worker and third, if the Bridlington Rules are then invoked to bring pressure on unions to exercise that right, it has exactly the effect for which he is pleading. If he thinks of a better solution, we will, of course, consider it, but I think he will see that much of what has been said in the debate so far is based upon the failure to relate the words giving the worker the choice to the words giving the union the right of rejection to the fact of the Bridlington Rules.
LORD STOW HILL: I am again very grateful for that intervention, and I am sure my noble friends on this side of the House will wish to study very carefully what the noble and learned Lord has just said. But, such as my thinking had been up to that point, it seemed to me, subject to what the noble and learned Lord has just said, that (a) you might have an approved closed shop in existence under Clause 16 and in that sort of situation perhaps different results arise; or (b) you might have an agency shop agreement. Under the terms of an agency shop agreement, of course, the worker is perfectly entitled to refuse to belong to (shall I say?) the representative union and, instead, to pay either an appropriate contribution to that union, without being a member of it, or alternatively a charitable contribution. Or there might be a case where there was certainly a representative union, well disciplined, well recognised, carrying great authority, and a number of the sort of people my noble friend Lord Douglass was describing, bent on nothing except disruption, who formed themselves into little dissident groups, bringing themselves into the definition, not of a trade union if they are not registered, but at any rate an organisation of workers, who sought to tempt the disgruntled to give his allegiance to them and not to the recognised disciplined union. When one comes back to Clause 5, and bears in mind what my noble

223
friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield was saying at the outset of the debate, if the choice is as wide as at present, the right to belong to such trade union as a man may choose, and if that right is supported by the sanction contained in subsection (2)(a), which expressly preserves that right under subsection (1), is not one really rather unnecessarily moving towards the danger of the wholly undesirable "splinter" unions?
If I may complete the argument that I should like to address particularly to the Government Benches, would it not be possible—again I am leaving out of account the case where there is an approved closed shop, and dealing with cases where there is not—so to qualify the words, assuming that the Government cannot accept the Amendment proposed in paragraph (a), as to limit the option of the worker in some way to joining the recognised union, however it is described in the definition which the Government would be able to devise, or not joining it? If that were the option made sacrosanct by the sanction contained in the next subsection of the clause, one would surely to a very large extent obviate the danger about which my noble friends are anxious. There would be a strong motive to join the recognised union, but at the same time, in so far as the Government are anxious that it should be a matter of free choice for the individual worker to join or not to join, he would not be compelled by that language to join the authorised union, but he would have no encouragement whatever, if he did not join the recognised union, to join some purely "splinter" union the whole purpose of which was to undermine the authority of what I call the recognised union. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, or whoever replies, will be kind enough to say to this side of the House that they will think very earnestly between now and the Report stage whether it is possible to devise some form of wording that will to some extent limit the conception of choice conferred on the worker by paragraph (a). I hope the noble and learned Lord will feel that that is a reasonable request, and will say that he will at least think about it.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY:May I come in very briefly on this particular point? It seems to me that we are
224
now discussing the crux of the whole Amendment and the clause. I was most interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, had to say and in the reply by the noble and learned Lord. I suggest to the Government that there is just one weakness in the noble and learned Lord's argument which can be called upon in support of Lord Stow Hill's plea that a little more thought should be given to this matter. The noble and learned Lord said, and I think absolutely correctly, that if you have the present clause as it stands, if you also have the right of the trade unions to refuse the inapposite worker, and you have the Bridlington Rules, you will avoid the kind of splintering about which noble Lords on this side have been talking for quite a time and which we all want to see avoided. But is not the weakness of this argument that the Bridlington Rules are not in the Bill; and that they are not statutory but purely voluntary? That surely is a weakness in this Bill, if it depends for its proper and best working on the continuation of a totally voluntary agreement which for one reason or another may disappear in whole or in part at any time.
6.55 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: It is a little time since the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, moved this Amendment, and when he did so I thought it was rather nice to see a hopeful I smile on his face because in the last Amendment he moved he had been successful, and it had been accepted by the Government. I hope that his smile will not be entirely removed by what I have to say on this Amendment. We have had a very interesting debate, and it has been notable for the fact that taking part in it we have had what I can describe only as a phalanx of trade union leaders, indeed of experience. If any noble Lord has experienced the thought of standing up before a firing squad the members of which have come in, one by one, each armed in his own right with a very fair weapon, he will have a fair idea what it feels like to have to reply to speeches made with a very great degree of knowledge and an unqualified degree of experience.
May I say at the outset that I feel that what has been said, extremely important as it is, results from a possibly incomplete understanding of the effect

225
that accepting this particular Amendment would have on the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and indeed others, begged the Government to have a look at this again; and of course we will always look again at any point on which we feel there is any likelihood of being able to help, or any likelihood that we have misconstrued the object of the Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, said, in support of the Amendment, that if there was a union which was no good the members of the union would disagree with what the union was doing, and the Bill would encourage splinters and encourage those members to go and start up another union.
LORD WILLIAMSON: I did not say if the union was no good; I said the opposite. I said that where it was a good union dissidents and disrupters would undermine it by saying that it had settled for something less than it ought to.
EARL FERRERS: I accept the noble Lord's point, but what I was suggesting was that it might be the members of the unions who, being dissidents, said that the union was no good. Of course, if union members wish to go and join other unions that may be so, but that is not the effect that this Amendment has. Indeed, a number of noble Lords referred to this clause and said that it would be encouraging the proliferation of unions. The noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, said that, and said he was very much against it. Indeed, so are we very much against the proliferation of unions. But this particular Amendment to this clause refers to the rights of the workers as between themselves and their employers. In this respect, the clause merely gives to the worker certain rights, not with regard to his union membership but with regard to himself and his employer. The effect of this is to allow members of trade unions to belong to whatever trade union they choose and, having so chosen, their employer cannot interfere with them.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: May I ask whether the trade union could interfere with them?
EARL FERRERS: Clause 5 relates to rights between the worker and his employer. Clause 63 refers to rights between a worker and his union. That
226
being so, it is up to the union to decide whether or not the worker in question should become a member of the union. Having become a member of the union, this clause merely states that the employer shall respect that member's right of membership and shall not interfere with him.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND:May I intervene again? Quite frankly this legal tangle is getting much too erudite for me to understand. If so, I do not think trade union men will understand it. If they do not understand it, then it can be destructive rather than constructive. If the trade union says that it will not work with a certain man (and it will say so), and it says that to the employer, is it the employer or the trade union which is telling the man that he has to join the union?
EARL FERRERS: I take the noble Lord's point, but what union the employer chooses to recognise as a bargaining agent, or as the union with which he wishes to do business, is something totally different from what is dealt with here and it comes later in the Bill. One imagines that in 98 per cent, of cases employers will decide which unions they will bargain with. There are provisions in Clause 43 dealing with cases where there is not agreement over this, and there are arrangements whereby it can be decided what unions the employers should bargain with. That is something totally different from what this Amendment says and what this clause deals with. This clause deals entirely with the rights of the worker as regards membership of a trade union, and as between himself and his employer, and the fact that, if he is a member of a trade union, he should be allowed to take part in trade union activities, and so forth, without any fear of interference from his employer.
The noble Lord, Lord Slater, referred to what would happen to a road sweeper who wished to join another union. That came up under Amendment No. 23, and really does not apply here. In this particular clause we are not concerned with the rights of workers to join unions; we are restricted solely, if I might repeat it again, to the person who has joined a union; that his membership of that union shall be respected by the employer. If we were to accept this Amendment, it would in fact have a fundamental influence on the Bill, and on workers and

227
employers. My noble friend Lord Balfour said at the very beginning that he was a little worried about what the word "independent" meant.
LORD BROWN: If I may interrupt, it may be helpful. "As between himself and his employer" is a piece of appalling drafting. It can have only one meaning. A right is something a person can exercise, or some entitlement, but if you add "as between himself and his employer" it can only have the meaning that he has the right to prevent his employer from doing something. If this clause started with the fact that he has the right to prevent his employer from doing something, then I believe we should begin to understand it. But it is such bad drafting, and this continued reiteration of the noble Earl—I can understand why he does it—of "as between himself and his employer", and the meaningless-ness of that term, is leaving us all in a sort of mystification.
EARL FERRERS: I shall try to explain it to the noble Lord and clarify the mystification which he is in. If it is any consolation to him, I was equally mystified for some time as I tried to understand it, but eventually I did understand it. I put my mystification down to my own rather limited powers of comprehension, and I am glad that at least they are shared by the noble Lord, Lord Brown. If you leave out these words it says that every worker shall have the following right; that is, to be a member of a trade union. The noble Lord, Lord Slater, asked how is one going to stop a road sweeper from becoming a member of another union. That would be precisely the effect if those words were left out. It is because these words "as between himself and his employer" are in, that a road sweeper has not the right to join, say, a mineworking union.
LORD BROWN: The noble Earl is not explaining the real meaning of the term "rights as between himself and his employer". If I said "rights as between me and you" I should imagine I would be murdering the English language, because it would be leaving it uncertain as to what is meant.
EARL FERRERS: I do not know whether we can really pursue this point
228
very far, because it was pursued in an earlier Amendment. Will the noble Lord bear with me a little, and realise that in fact this particular clause—if he will forgive my referring to it again—does refer to the person's right, with regard to his employer, to be a member of any such union as he may choose. If we accept this Amendment it would make a pretty substantial difference to the Bill, because it would allow rights under this clause which, at the moment, are restricted to members of registered trade unions, to apply also to the independent organisation of workers. Indeed, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, who said that that was really the object of the exercise in putting down the Amendment. As noble Lords know, under the Bill trade unions are invited to become registered. I am aware that there are many noble Lords and many trade unionists who have come out against registration, who dislike it and who feel that it is curtailing the powers, the influence and the effectiveness—indeed, many people would say the very independence —of trade unions. One can understand people who have spent a lifetime working in trade unions having that feeling and bridling at the thought of having to have their unions registered. I should be the first to accept that this is a fairly sensitive area of union feeling, and one in which fundamental loyalties and basic conceptions of trade unionism come to the fore. But I think that those fears—understandable and very real as they are; and I do not deny that they are both—will be shown to be not so troublesome as some people feel.
I do not want to get involved in a detailed discussion of the merits and methods of registration, because they come later in the Bill. But one must make it perfectly clear that, at the centre of the Government's industrial relations policy, is the belief that unions should be registered and that, in return for the relatively modest disciplines of registration, the unions, their officials and their members should be able under the Bill to enjoy legal rights and privileges and protections which will not be enjoyed by unions which are not registered. Put in another way, if organisations are to enjoy the very considerable benefits of registration they have a duty to their members, and to the community as a whole, to accept the responsibility of securing for their

229
members the protection which registration gives both to the individual and to the organisation. The requirements of registration are not onerous, but they will ensure that a union's rules conform to reasonable standards; and it is difficult to justify a statutory right to belong to an organisation which is not prepared to observe those standards.
One comes here to the real difference of opinion, because noble Lords opposite feel that this provision is curbing the powers of trade unions, whereas we on this side take the view that, far from weakening the trade unions, it will be a very real means of strengthening them. The idea of registration is not peculiar to this Bill nor is it peculiar to the Government, because it was proposed in In Place of Strife and by Donovan. So that the very centre-piece of the Bill, around which all of its provisions are constructed, is the registration of the unions. It is to the registered trade unions to which the privileges are given, and it is to the registered trade unions and their members that protection against dismissal, penalisation and discrimination are given. Yet the real effect of this Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has moved is to give a legal right for workers to join an unregistered trade union.
Here I should like to make a distinction. Of course a worker has a civil right to apply for membership of any union, whether it is registered or unregistered, in the same way that he has a civil right to join a cricket club or a golf club. But the legal rights which he will get by law, and which are conferred on him under the Bill, will accrue to him only if he is a member of a registered trade union. The drafting of Clause 5 does not leave the member of an unregistered organisation without any statutory rights or protections at all, because under Clause 22(4)(a) it will be unfair of an employer to dismiss a worker unless good reason for such dismissal is shown; and it is hardly likely that dismissal solely for belonging to an unregistered organisation would be construed as a good reason. In practice, therefore, those who elect to belong to an unregistered organisation will enjoy a measure of protection under the Bill. But it will not be so great as that for those who choose to belong to a
230
registered organisation; and I believe, in the interests of the workers and of the community as a whole, that neither should it be.
But, of course, the Amendment goes further than that. It takes away from a worker the right to belong to such trade union as he may choose. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, asked: "What does 'of his choice' mean?" It means exactly what it says: that he has the right between himself and his employer to join such trade union as he may choose. It does not give him an unqualified right to demand membership of a union; and if a worker chose to join some other union instead of, or in addition to, the union which was recognised by his employer then he would be able to do so. One of the effects of accepting this Amendment would be to take away a worker's legal right of choice to join a union, and it would replace it with a legal right to be a member of a union, which might be a union of his employer's choice. The Amendment would give the worker only the right to be a member of a union, which could be one selected by his employer; and if he chose to join another union he could be penalised, or dismissed, or discriminated against, and he would have no redress against such action. The Government do not believe that a worker should have to accept the union of his employer's choice. Needless to say, the employer, subject to agreement with the unions concerned and subject to the "recognition" provisions of the Bill, will be able to decide with which union he will bargain.
One comes back to the point at which we started. It will be up to the employer to decide with which union he bargains and that is something totally different—
LORD BROWN: Is the noble Earl really suggesting that employers commonly decide: "We will negotiate with that union, and will exclude all the others"? It is not so. Employers negotiate with the unions which have the most strength and the biggest claim to be the bargaining union for those employed. The employer does not choose which union he will negotiate with.
EARL FERRERS: This matter really belongs to a later part of the Bill. I

231
introduced it at this juncture merely to explain to the noble Lord—and evidently I have so far been unable to explain to him—that Clause 5 and the Amendment refer solely to the right of the employee to be a member of a union.
LORD BROWN: The noble Earl cannot brush away a statement which I believe to be fact simply by saying that it belongs to another part of the Bill. There is nobody in this Committee with any industrial experience who would accept the noble Earl's contention that an employer chooses with which union he will negotiate. The unions are powerful, and it is they who decide, not the employer. It is a mis-statement of fact to go on repeating that employers choose; they do not.
EARL FERRERS: The noble Lord. Lord Brown, can hold his view. All I say is that one of the effects of making this Amendment would be to curtail the right of the worker to choose which union he will join, because he may be in the position of joining a union which the employer chooses. It is our belief that the employee should have the right to choose which union he wishes to join, and that having done so he should have the rights and protections and privileges which this Bill gives. I believe that this is right. But the noble Lord's Amendment would have a very different effect from that which he thought it would have.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: May I ask the noble Earl whether he will answer some of the arguments that we have put forward, instead of answering those which we have not put forward?
EARL FERRERS: This is the trouble, because the arguments which have been put forward have been to the effect that this provision is encouraging "splinter" unions, greater unions and the proliferation of unions. What I tried to point out was that the particular Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, put down would have a different result, and does not incorporate the very pertinent arguments which were put forward. I have tried to show the effect that the noble Lord's Amendment would have, and what I have said is, I agree, different from the remarks which other noble Lords have made because this particular Amendment
232
does not allow the proliferation of unions which the noble Lord fears.
LORD COLLISON: I apologise, but I feel that we have not had a satisfactory answer to the rather direct question which I asked. I was speaking to this Amendment, not necessarily arguing for it, but arguing that the clause itself, Clause 5, should be looked at. I am not at all happy, because I believe that if, for instance, the disputes committee of the T.U.C. instructs a union to hand back members it has "poached" from another union, it will be argued in aid that Clause 5 says that which union a man shall belong to is a matter to be decided between the man and his employer.
I am sure it is understood that we trade union people are not arguing this in order to be difficult or contentious; it is because we have the experience, and we really are worried. I am really worried because I believe, again from experience, that in this particular field, and sticking to this point, the T.U.C. is about the only body (I was on the Donovan Commission and I do not like legislation in any way) who can keep the ring in matters of this kind, and whose authority is accepted by trade unions. If this provision undermines that, then what I am asking is that the Government should look very carefully at the implications of Clause 5. I do not think we have yet had a satisfactory answer on that aspect.
7.22 p.m.
LORD HOY: May I express my thanks to the noble Earl for the trouble he has taken to reply? I am afraid he did not satisfy anyone on this side of the Committee, but we are grateful for the patient way in which he made his case. When I opened this debate I used the words, "I cannot think of a better recipe for internecine warfare and industrial unrest". Those were the words I used in connection with what I interpreted to be the proposal in this particular subsection. If anyone had had any doubt about these remarks, they had only to listen to the powerful speeches of my noble friends Lord Williamson and Lord Popplewell, and, indeed, that most powerful speech from my noble friend Lord Douglass. One could not listen to his speech without being moved by it. And if one feels that I have named only trade union leaders, let me also remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury

233
put the point of view of the employer in this respect and said how essential it was not to have this Government proposal.
May I come first of all to the first challenge I got—and rightly so. I ought to have explained that part of the Amendment which says, "independent organisation of workers". The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, said that perhaps I might be able to explain what I meant. That is perfectly true, and the noble Earl had a right to ask me. Perhaps I may say straight away that the explanation was made by my noble friend Lord Popplewell. This is in fact to protect the trade unions which are not regarded as registered trade unions. Indeed, it does not matter which page of this particular Bill you turn to, you will always find an argument in support of the case you are at that moment making. No matter how varied the case is, any page of the Bill will give you a little support. So I do not claim any credit for turning to page 50, where at line 27 it says:
"(3) In this Act 'trade union' means an organisation of workers which is for the time being registered as a trade union under this Act".
So it is that section which we have covered, and the other sections which in fact might not be registered. It may be that the noble Earl does not like the words suggested in the Amendment. I want to say to him that, unlike the Minister, I am not tied to the words on the Marshalled List. If, without raising any difficulties, he can find words which do exactly what we should like to do, then I, and I am certain my noble friends, would be absolutely delighted to fall in with any suggestion. I hope that satisfies the noble Earl.
Some difficulties are going to arise unless the Government do something about this particular proposal. My noble friend Lord Slater spoke to this (and no one has a better right to explain what happens in the coalfields of this country) together with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield. They were able to prove that, even inside the mining industry, as miners move from one job to another, then, although this may not happen very often it results in a change even of union membership, if they are going to be properly represented. This has all to be done within one union: and I was interested when the noble Earl replied. He made no reply at all
234
to the argument about splinter unions. He said it could not happen. With all due respect to the noble Earl, he is begging the fact that, if unions can be split, there are certain workers inside industry (I do not want to specify them in case one is then accused of encouraging people to do something; but it must be known to noble Lords in every part of the Committee that there are such sections in certain very large works in this country) who could take advantage of this situation to establish another union inside the workshop.
EARL FERRERS: May I interrupt the noble Lord merely for clarification? He said that I remarked that splinter unions could not occur. I did not say that. What I said was that this clause, which the noble Lord and his friends say could encourage splinter unions, in fact would not encourage them.
LORD HOY: What the Amendment hopes to do is to put a stop to it happening. That is the sole purpose of moving the Amendment. What we are saying is that the Government proposal would do so. The noble Earl can shake his head as he likes, but I can tell him with all sincerity that in that situation you could have in very important workshops in this country a splinter union that could set up against the official union. It has been known to happen.
EARL FERRERS: This is perfectly true, but this particular clause does not in fact cover that problem.
LORD HOY: All I am saying to the noble Earl is that in my view it makes it possible. I hope we shall get credit for the fact that we are not accusing the Government of introducing legislation which says, "As from the 21st day of October, splinter unions will now be formed". We are not saying that at all. What we are saying is that in our view, as a consequence of the proposal in this clause, that in fact can happen. The noble Earl cannot say it could not, because it could. What my noble friends were saying to-night was that this was so important a matter that they were making an appeal to your Lordships, not only on behalf of the trade union movement but of the employers in this country. They do not want to be faced with contending forces, perhaps three or four

235
sections, inside either a workshop or a yard. That they want to prevent at all costs. Indeed, if we are to have the development of that sort of thing, then the outlook for the British economy will be exceedingly bad.
Because of that factor my noble friends and myself were begging the Government at least to say, "Well, there may be something in your argument". It is not asking too much of them to say, "You have these fears, and you have expressed them with all sincerity; and we have had the views of trade unionists"—the greatest trade unionists in the world, if I may say so. Our trade unions are second to none. We have had the views of leading business people who feel exactly the same way. Surely, as a result of all this, it is not asking too much of the Government to say, "If you really feel that way then we will look at this between now and the Report stage. If we come to the conclusion that your argument is correct we can deal with it then, or at least you can retain the right to put it forward again on Report." For the Government simply to reject this out of hand places a tremendous onus of responsibility, not on my noble friends on this side of the Committee but on any noble Lord who goes into the Lobby to-night against this Amendment. I beg the noble Lord to think of this before he goes out of his way to reject this Amendment.
7.31 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I intervene at this late stage in the debate, as my noble friend has put so well the Government case; but I think we must recognise that there is a degree of misunderstanding between the two sides of the Committee. It is in the desire to clarify the position as far as I am capable of doing so that I intervene. There are really two or three quite separate issues to be discussed. One of them is the Amendment and what will be its effect. My noble friend was quite right in saying that the Amendment, if passed, would have two effects: first, as I pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill—and I think that he was inclined at any rate at that moment to accept what I said—if you simply took out the words which are proposed to be left out, "as he may choose", it would give the employer the right to dictate what union the worker
236
was to join; because the clause reads— and I paraphrase—as between the employer and his worker, the worker has a right to join such union as he may choose. If you leave out that right of choice in the worker, and leave the rest in—and that is what at this stage the Amendment would do—it would leave the worker with only the right to join a union and leave it to his employer to say which.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, says that that does not happen. In that he is at variance with the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, because that was the point of what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was appealing to me to prevent. It is not for me to say. The point is that one must make up one's mind on the effect of the Amendment as drafted, and there can be no doubt that its effect would be to enable an employer to dictate which union a worker was to join. Clearly, that cannot be the intention of the Opposition, and I am bound to say that they have not argued for that position.
The second effect of the Amendment, if passed, would be to allow the worker to join a union or an independent but unregistered organisation but without allowing him to choose which. That again cannot be right. Noble Lords opposite have not argued for that position. I realise the motives lying behind the insertion of that. The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has just explained them, and the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, explained them also. But, first of all, to deny the right of the worker to choose which organisation he is going to belong to, and then to insert the proposition that he can join an unregistered organisation, means he can be compelled to join a specific unregistered organisation. That is something which nobody in the Committee would desire.
The second thing I want to say about the Amendment is that it would have this peculiar effect. Much of the anxiety underlined by the series of speeches by noble Lords opposite has revolved round the proposition that we do not want splinter unions—and I will come back to that in a moment. The effect of passing the Amendment as proposed would be that splinter unions, as my noble friend was trying to explain, must actually be encouraged—and for this very good reason. We know there has been a lot

237
of talk in the responsible trade union movement of not registering. I hope that when we come to that part of the Bill we shall be able to put an end to that, because I hope that all responsible trade unions will register. But a newly-formed splinter union, of which noble Lords have expressed an apprehension, will, at any rate in many cases, not be a registered union because it will not, and cannot, conform with the requirements of Clause 63.
If that is so, inserting "independent unregistered organisation" and taking away the right of the employee as between his employer and himself to choose between responsible organisations will inevitably mean that there will be splinter unions. They will be unregistered, will not conform to Clause 63, and will be given an escape clause through the amended clause that the noble Lords propose. The last thing of which I am accusing noble Lords opposite is that they are trying to achieve that result. But very much earlier this afternoon the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, said that I possibly knew a little more law than he did but that he had a great deal more trade union experience than I have had. I never try to "come it across" people by talking about law. I regard law as organised commonsense, and I try to explain it in those terms. What I am trying to say to the Committee is that, although they may not have intended it, this is the result which I think the Amendment will have. I want to say one more thing—but I think that this is the "commercial break" at which I ought to redeem my promise to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to give way. I will do so now, and ask his forgiveness for having kept him waiting.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble and learned Lord is most courteous, and I am grateful to him. I do not wish to add one word to the argument, because I do not think the argument could have been put better than it was put by my noble friend Lord Hoy and my noble friends behind me. But I want to seek the reasoning behind the statement of the effect of our Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has given. To simplify it, I want to assume that there were no such words as "independent organisation of workers" because that is a second
238
thought. I want to ask the noble and learned Lord about the simple statement that remains after you leave out these words: "the right to be a member of a trade union". Why does a simple statement like that mean "the right to be a member of such trade union only as the employer may choose"? I know that the noble and learned Lord made that point, that it is a fundamentally important one, and I understood it completely.
What I want is a little clarification. I can go with the noble and learned Lord if he says that if you merely say "a union" you do not say which party— because there are two parties to this right—has the right to nominate the union. You may say there is a difference of opinion: the employee may want to join union "A" and the employer may want him to join union "B". But what I cannot for the life of me understand is why the noble and learned Lord said that such words would mean that the choice is that of the employer.
LORD STOW HILL: Before the noble and learned Lord replies, may I intervene? I simply want to put the record right. If I may say so with respect, I entirely agree with the view implied by my noble friend Lord Diamond, as to what he thought the effect of the Amendment would be, and I do not accept that the view I formed of the effect is that which the noble and learned Lord thought I had formed. I had in fact formed the contrary view.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept the correction by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I am sorry I misunderstood him. It was perhaps the genial and friendly nodding of his head which misled me. Of course I accept that he took the position that he did. The answer to the noble Lord. Lord Diamond, is that he has not read the words in the context in which they would appear if the Amendment were carried, because the words would then mean not what he read out but would read as follows:
"Every worker shall, as between himself and his employer, have the following rights, that is to say,—
(a) the right to be a member of a trade union."

239
Now the effect of that must be that the employer is discharging the obligation he will have under Section 5(2) if he recognises the right of a worker to join any trade union. If the worker is not allowed to select the trade union for himself, which is what the noble Lords' Amendment seeks to achieve, it follows that the employer will be discharging his obligation if in fact he respects the right only in respect of some union not of the worker's choice—because that is the inevitable result of the words which the noble Lord proposed. I am not accusing noble Lords of wanting to achieve that effect. I have tried to answer the noble Lord's question, and whether or not he agrees with my answer, and whether or not the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, agrees with it, that is why I say it; and the argument can be either accepted or rejected.
LORD BROWN: If I may intervene briefly, I believe there is really the basis of agreement on this matter between the two sides of the Committee. If paragraph (a) of Clause 5(1) in the first place had read as follows:
"The employer may not dictate to the worker to which union he shall belong",
I believe that gives the Government everything they want, and I have the feeling that it might be acceptable to my noble friends on the Front Bench here. It deals strictly with the intention of the clause instead of going into other issues which are dragged into the discussion on the clause. I beg the Government to consider this short version of the real meaning of that clause and to say that they will consider it. Then, I think we may prevail upon our noble friends on the Front Bench here to withdraw the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Obviously I take careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said: it would be discourteous of me not to do so. May I issue this warning: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who has very great experience of Parliament, said he would not draft on his feet; but that is what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is asking me to do. That I am not going to do. All I am saying is that obviously I shall take careful note of what he said, but I do not wish to
240
offer any hope that Parliamentary draftsmanship is not more difficult than I believe at the moment he supposes it to be. But I myself am not without hope —that is why I trouble the Committee at this late stage—that on this particular Amendment noble Lords may not seek to go to a Division because, just as I have been trying to show my reasons for saying the Amendment would, in effect achieve a purpose which is totally different from that desired by noble Lords opposite, so I hope they will give me credit for saying that if the result of the clause as drafted would be what they wish, I should be the last person to support it. I should like noble Lords to clearly understand that whatever we want to do here, we do not wish to encourage splinter unions. They are not good things. We want responsible unions, exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, said he wanted. We want to support their authority and to see them impose their own discipline.
In a brief reply to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, we do not think that the Bridlington rules, knowing their origin and date and having read them, could possibly be embodied in the Statute; but we do not want to see them abrogated in the smallest degree. On the contrary, we shall applaud and encourage their use.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: If the noble and learned Lord acknowledges Lord Collison's point on the Bridlington agreement, it will help us to understand what the Government have in mind. Where there is a dispute as to which union a man should belong to, this would be settled by the disputes committee under the Bridlington agreement. It will have no power if the man has three choices of union. Please do not refer me to another clause, because we are discussing this one.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is so, but I think it is fair to refer the noble Lord to the context in which this clause appears. We do not see that the fact of a man having a right as between himself and the employer can affect the efficacy of the Bridlington rules, because the effect of the Bridlington rules, whether or not they are applied in their full severity, is as follows. I do not want to take the rather far-fetched example, if

241
I may say so, given by the noble Lord, Lord Slater, of a road sweeper trying to join the National Union of Mineworkers, because that is not a likely concatenation of events. Take the case of a man who, because he is disgruntled, applies to join a union which the employer does not recognise for membership. If the Bridlington rules are efficacious—and I speak for myself and also, I think, for the Government when I say that we want them to be—the ruling of the T.U.C. is that the union shall not accept membership because it is not the appropriate union.
If that is so, Clause 63 (I disobey the noble Lord with trembling, but I think I am entitled to do so) says that the union, if it is really inappropriate, should have the power to reject. So the position is that the man has not an unrestricted choice to join any union of his selection, which is really the basis of the noble Lord's fears. What he has the right to do is to say to his employer, "Look, it is no business of yours if I belong to a union that you do not like, because the Act says I can choose my union." If, in fact, the full Act is looked at in the context of trade unionism, as the noble Lord recognises, and wants it to be— and I agree with him—the answer is that the man has not an unrestricted choice because he cannot do it. There may be cases when he has a valid choice. There are many cases where two unions do co-exist in one shop; and although I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that this is not an attractive proposition, it sometimes happens. In such cases there is, so far as I know, no legal means, consistent with human liberty, of refusing the individual worker the right to select between them, although it may be a highly undesirable thing which the union movement as a whole would wish to bring to an end.
The real truth about this—and this is the point at which I hope we can come to a friendly agreement about this Amendment—is that you cannot conveniently discuss in the context of this Amendment, for the reasons which my noble friend and I have been trying to give, what are really the main issues hi this dispute. I suggest that we could get on to them rather quickly, because the closed shop is an issue between us. It is, in my opinion, the first great issue of principle to be
242
decided in this Bill. A great deal of what we have been discussing in the last week has been "shadow boxing", but the closed shop is an issue. I hope that it will lead to a great debate. The agency shop, which has not been fully understood, demands a great debate, in order that one may explain what exactly is implied; and why we say that the charge that this Bill will encourage "splinter" unions disappears if you recognise the full implications of the agency shop. Registration is a subject for a great debate. These are great debates ahead of us. But I honestly think that if we play a game of cross-purposes about an Amendment which, with great respect, is badly drafted and contains two extremely bad stable companions—the unregistered organisation and the taking away of the right of choice—and then try to attribute to one another false motives, we shall not get much further. It is not because I wish to challenge noble Lords, or because I will not look, among other things, at what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said; or because I will not consider the arguments of substance and policy put by noble Lords opposite, that I think we might now be able to move on from this Amendment.
LORD HOY: May I say to the noble and learned Lord that we are grateful for what he has said? Sometimes he says things in such an irrational way as to provoke a response from this side of the Committee. When the noble and learned Lord says that he has now talked sufficiently to "get it into our heads", we do not look on it too kindly, and in selecting his words on another occasion he might well select better ones.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have tried very hard indeed to do so but I thought that the head was the place where I was trying to get it.
LORD HOY: The noble and learned Lord does not have to tell me that he finds it difficult to select the appropriate words. I have known him for a number of years, and that is one of the things for which he has been famous; so he is living up to his reputation. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord should have taken the view he has done of our Amendment. I am grateful to him because he accepts that we have moved it with the best intention. I repeat what

243
I said before. The noble and learned Lord has said he will look at the arguments we have produced, and at the case we have sought to make, just as we shall look at his case. In these circumstances, I would advise my noble friends that we might retain our right, as the Government have retained their right, and not divide to-night, but on the understanding that we retain our right to introduce an Amendment, if we feel it necessary, at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.55 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 3, line 37, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friends. A moment or two ago the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to one or two great debates which he expected would arise in the course of the proceedings on this Bill. I think that, in a sense, this Amendment may lead to one of those great debates, because it raises an issue which tends to provoke strong feelings in the parties who take part in controversy upon it. It is clear that many of the complexities, undesirable features and unnecessary complications about this Bill have their origin in the fact that the Government have chosen to state, at this early stage in the progress of the Bill, as one of the fundamental propositions, that the right not to be a trade unionist should have equal standing with the right to be a trade unionist. The fact that they have sought in this way to import into the Bill the principle of the statutory right not to be a trade unionist has led them into the very novel and—as I think we shall be able to show later in the proceedings—the undesirable device of an agency shop. And, of course, it has greatly complicated their handling of the closed shop issue. They have found it necessary, to a greater and greater extent as this Bill has proceeded through the Parliamentary process, to qualify the principle which they were originally enunciating in the subsection which I am moving to delete.
The assertion of a statutory right not to be a trade unionist is put forward on a
244
broader basis even than the right to be a trade unionist, because the statutory right which the Government have embodied is one not to belong to a trade union or an organisation of workers; save, of course, in so far as this right is qualified in later clauses in the Bill. In a sense, and in principle, they have sought to put the right not to be a trade unionist on a broader basis than the right to be a trade unionist. I urge the Government very seriously to consider the acceptance of this Amendment. The argument which they have put forward is the argument of the civil right that no individual should find himself under pressure to become a member of a trade union or an organisation of workers. I wish, first, to face fairly and squarely whether this attitude of the Government is justified on the broad grounds of civil liberty.
Trade unions cater for a section of the population which suffers from an inequality of bargaining power if it does not unite in a trade union. That is true historically and as a matter of observation. Before trade unions came into existence there is no doubt that the individual worker was at the mercy of his employer, for his need of a job was inevitably so much greater than the need of the employer for that particular worker. Experience has shown that if indeed the rights of the individual worker were to become any kind of a reality, they could be made so only by the workers banding themselves together in trade unions, to establish by their collective action the individual rights of each. This is the fundamental principle upon which the trade union movement has grown up, and it is an inescapable principle. Therefore trade unionists have always looked, I think rightly, with some scepticism at the best, and in some circumstances with hostility, at the individual who chose to assert that he would not be a trade unionist, although he never had any hesitation in accepting the benefits which the collective efforts of his fellows secured.
I think the Government really must tell us, in the debate on this Amendment, whether or not they want to promote collective bargaining. Do they regard collective bargaining as the best available course for handling industrial relations problems?—because if they do they must recognise that collective bargaining is quite inseparable from the existence of

245
strong trade unions. The Donovan Commission made this point on more than one occasion in their Report. Indeed, there is one paragraph in the Report, paragraph 599, in which they examined, not precisely in the terms which appear in the Government Bill but in very similar terms, the issue of whether the entitlement not to be a trade unionist was on a par with the entitlement to be a trade unionist. In paragraph 599 they said:
"The two are not truly comparable. The former condition "—
that is, the right not to be a trade unionist—
"is designed to frustrate the development of collective bargaining, which it is public policy to promote, whereas no such objection applies to the latter".
The Government are, at best, putting these two rights on an equal footing and indeed, as I have suggested earlier, giving rather more emphasis to the right not to be a trade unionist.
The second major point which must be made is that if we leave aside for the moment—and we shall have ample opportunity to discuss this later—what I will call the genuine conscientious objector, a man who on religious grounds declines or objects to joining a secular association, whatever it may be, and includes a trade union in that description, if we leave aside that very small group, I think noble Lords opposite ought to recognise that the non-unionist is not in any way a hero. A non-unionist is not a man who is willing courageously to stand on his own feet; he is not a man who stands up for some abstract principle of civil freedom. Let us make no bones about it, my Lords, the non-unionist— and as I say I am excluding the very tiny group of genuine conscientious objectors—is the man who wants the benefit of collective action without making his contribution to it.
I know it will be said from the Government side that by this ingenious idea of the agency shop they are proposing to take the financial advantage out of non-unionism. There are still, I think, grave difficulties and objections to the agency shop, to which I will come later on in our proceedings. But that really is not the whole of the story. It is not only the money of the non-unionist that the trade union movement needs. I say, quite genuinely, that the trade union movement
246
wants the participation of the non-unionist too. There are many examples which can be quoted of men who perhaps came into industry with prejudices, with misunderstandings about the trade union movement, who have entered a trade union with some degree of pressure, because it was the thing to do, because they were unpopular if they did not, possibly because it was a condition of employment, and who, having participated in the trade union movement, became enthusiasts. Example after example could be quoted of that.
Surely it is public policy not only that we should promote collective bargaining but that we should promote the greatest degree of participation by the workers in industry, in the regulation of the industry in which they work. That, so far as an ordinary worker is concerned, can be done in one way and in one way only, and that is by becoming a member of his trade union. I do not know a single trade union official or a single trade union representative who does not devote at any rate a part of his time to trying to stimulate more interest by his members in the way the trade union is run and in the work which he is doing. Trade unions do not want just the contributions, they do not want just the finance; they want the participation of the trade unionist, both from a practical point of view and from the point of view of principle.
But this argument is taking me too far; it is taking me further than is proper at this stage into the consideration of the agency shop. I want to conclude by saying that there is no valid ground, on civil liberty arguments, for the course which the Government are taking. They are quite inevitably by this course tending to weaken the trade union movement, because they are suggesting to the potential trade unionist that there is something quite as good, something quite as public-spirited, something quite as desirable in being a non-unionist as in being a member of a trade union. If that is indeed their case, then they cannot possibly hold that view and at the same time claim in this Bill to be either strengthening the trade unions or promoting as a matter of public policy the spread of collective bargaining. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I do not suppose anything I can say

247
will affect those who support this Amendment, but I should like to nail my flag on this issue very firmly to the mast. I think this Amendment is utterly wrong when one considers the provisions of the Bill, which mean that nobody can escape without at least making a payment. Maybe in the past, when the unions were fighting for recognition, the closed shop practice of forcing all workers to join was justified; but to-day I am afraid that it represents a hang-over from a bygone age. In my view, it is important to-day —and I am going to put this quite frankly —that unions should be careful with the immense power which they have gained and the power which their shop floor members have. If we look at the recent disputes—and I hope that all your Lordships will have read about the latest results of the Ford dispute—we must realise that this is a real danger to-day. I would once more say—and I have already said it three times on this Bill— that I hope noble Lords will try to see these problems in to-day's context, and not once again in the context of the battles they fought 30 years ago.
8.10 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, always speaks with so much knowledge, persuasiveness and experience as a trade union leader as to command the ready attention of all those who study the subject, and I feel the greatest respect for the views he puts forward. In fact, some of the grounds he mentioned for joining a trade union are grounds that I ventured to put forward myself years ago when, from time to time, I used to be consulted in my constituency by men who faced some of these problems. If I differ from him, it is not from any lack of respect for anything he said or from any lack of recognition of the difficulty of this problem. It is because I think he overlooks the fact that vital questions of human liberty are fundamentally affected. This is shown not merely by the discussions that we have from time to time in Parliament, in the Press and in the country, but by the provisions in international documents. I am always astonished in this connection that there is scarcely ever any mention made of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was approved by the General Assembly of the United
248
Nations on December 10, 1948, quite a long time ago.
The noble Lord complained about these two rights, to join and not to join a body, being mentioned as though they were of equal importance, in a single clause of this Bill. But that is precisely what is done in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. May I remind the Committee of two provisions in the Universal Declaration? Let me give, first of all, the recognition of the right to be a trade unionist. That is to be found in Article 23, paragraph 4, in these words:
"Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."
Incidentally, the Article is not brilliantly drafted: "everyone" is singular and "trade unions" is a plural, and this implies that everyone has the right to join two trade unions, and I rather doubt whether that was intended. But the Article clearly recognises the right of trade unionism. In an earlier Article, Article 20, 2, the Declaration says:
"No one may be compelled to belong to an association."
Of course it may be said that nobody is compelled to enter industry, but I do not think that that is really an escape. There is a complete recognition in the Universal Declaration of the right not to belong to an association.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: Will the noble Lord go back to another Article (I forget which one), which says that a man has the right to withdraw his labour? Is not this what we are talking about?
LORD CONESFORD: No, I do not think it is. What we are talking about is a provision in this Bill which recognises the right not to belong to an association. What is stated in Article 20 of the Universal Declaration is that no one can be compelled to belong to an association. I am not denying for one moment any points of difficulty that this creates. Of course there are great problems; but they are not solved by ignoring a great human right recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations.
I have never pretended—members of the Committee on all sides will bear me out—to have as much admiration for universal declarations of human rights as I have, in the tradition of English lawyers,

249
for the provision of remedies for the breach of human rights. I think that this country owes a great deal more to the existence of the Writ of Habeas Corpus and the Statutes of Habeas Corpus than it does to all the universal declaration of human rights. Nevertheless, when this country enters into a Universal Declaration and constantly expresses its respect for it, we simply cannot ignore the existence of this provision as though it were not there. Therefore I say that Her Majesty's Government, whatever may be the difficulties that are caused thereby, are quite right in recognising in this Bill that there is a right not to belong to a trade union, just as there is a right to belong to a trade union.
The consequent difficulties, of course, have to be worked out, and I am not denying this. But I beg trade union leaders of the type of the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment to realise that this is not put in wantonly by the Government because they do not care about any of the considerations to which the noble Lord has drawn attention, but because really great questions of human rights are involved. The noble Lord says that the trade unions will be very much weakened if this appears in the Statute. I honestly believe that he is wrong. I believe that the bulk of men will join trade unions and that, if they do, the strength of the unions will not be weakened by the fact that joining is not compulsory on everyone. I am trying not to deal in advance with clauses to which we have not come, but, since this is the first mention in the Bill that raises in my opinion one of the great principles, I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, to believe that some of us, who are not at all anti-pathetic to trade unionism, yet think the Government right in recognising in their Bill what is already recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Before the noble Lord sits down, I must ask him: does he see some of the provisions which the Government are putting forward covering the closed shop as consistent with the Declaration to which he is referring?
LORD CONESFORD: When we come to them, I may have quite a lot to say on that subject.
LORD BLYTON: One noble Lord said to-night that we are utterly wrong in putting down this Amendment; but in my opinion we are absolutely right. The main theme of the noble Viscount who spoke about our being utterly wrong was that he wants to reduce the power of the trade unions. Most certainly that is the reason for this subsection (1)(b)—
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I must interrupt the noble Lord. I did not say that. I said they had increased power and they ought to consider the importance of using it wisely. I did not for one moment suggest that that power should be reduced. Furthermore, my own view is that it should be increased, because I think that this is the only way in which the members on the shop floor, which is the site of some of the trouble, can be brought into comprehensive industrial peace. So let that be quite clear.
LORD BLYTON: I apologise to the noble Viscount if I have taken it up incorrectly and I am glad to hear him say that he hopes to see trade union power increased. I hope to see him with us in the Lobby to-night, voting for this Amendment.
This particular clause is intended to reduce the power of the trade union movement. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, talking about human liberty in the context of subsection (1)(b). If a man is not to join a union, why do you not say that he should not pay to the sick fund in the place in which he is in employment or that he may withdraw from the superannuation fund? The only body you are picking out in any industry is the trade union and not any other thing to which he may have objection. This is one of the major issues in this clause and one of the most controversial features in it. This clause is to outlaw the closed shop, either pre-entry or post-entry. It strikes a crippling blow at trade union membership and recruitment and wherever trade unions operate, and is in conflict with the Government's claim that the Bill strengthens the unions. It is certainly not in harmony with the Donovan Report and makes a mockery of the declared aim of strengthening the hands of the trade union official. Donovan records in his Report:
"No reasoned case has been put to us in evidence for prohibiting the closed shop, even by those who strongly object to it".

251
The clause goes far beyond the closed shop. It gives to the non-unionist a legalistic virtue, and it does not give any right to a trade union workman as to whom he should associate with. This right of the trade unionist to choose whom he works with is of special significance in hazardous industries like mining and seafaring. What may the effect of this provision be? It will diminish deliberately the pressures on non-unionists and have the effect of destroying some unions like the Seamen's Union, Equity, the Musicians' Union, the Constructional Engineering Union and many others. The Government's case is that this Bill will reduce unofficial strikes by concentrating greater authority at the centre and within the official structure of the industry. The Bill certainly imposes on trade unions and officials the job of being industrial policemen, yet the Government, by this subsection (1) (b) are diminishing the only effective sanction they have of disciplining their members by expulsion from the union. By removing the force of this sanction, the Government are weakening those whom they claim to be strengthening.
The Bill as a whole places obligations on the trade unions and trade unionists, and we are entitled to know whether the non-unionist is to be exempt from them. Is the person who evades his responsibilities to his workmates by being a non-unionist to be given a reward by being free from the punitive provisions of this Bill? If that is so, as it appears to me, it will be a great incentive for him to respond to the provisions of Clause 5(1)(b). Those of us who have had long experience with non-unionists know that they conduct campaigns to prevent others joining; yet there is no sanction on them in conducting an unfair industrial practice. This subsection (1)(b) strikes at the pre-entry closed shop and most certainly creates huge problems for employers and trade unions.
I will take the shipping industry as an example. Agency shops under Clause 6 are no substitute for the closed shop, because the agency shop is subject to qualifications. The prohibition of the pre-entry closed shop is a most important matter to both sides of the shipping industry, and it is important to note that
252
their pre-entry closed shop was freely negotiated rather than negotiated by what the Conservatives might call "coercive trade union activity". Its introduction was preceded by several years of inter-union rivalry coupled with much industrial unrest. For fifty years in the shipping industry agreement has largely been abided by with the result that seamen's conditions have progressly improved and the number of days lost through official or unofficial strikes is very low indeed. Here, in this instance, without the intervention of the law, one of the Bill's main stated objectives—that is, the encouragement and development of free and responsible collective bargaining—has long been achieved within the shipping industry. Yet all this is now put in jeopardy by this particular clause which states that a worker may, by law, be a member of no trade union. The essential truth about this issue, especially in the shipping industry, is that the pre-entry closed shop is the most efficient method of providing stable employment and responsible conduct of industrial relations in a markedly casual industry.
It is therefore in the interests of both sides of this industry to maintain its present balance. This proposed legislation will have the effect of undermining the organisation capacity of the Seamen's Union, and the industry in the future will be all the poorer for it. Without the closed shop it will be difficult to recruit and maintain in membership a highly mobile work force. This industry attracts a temporary labour force which owes no particular loyalties to employers or union and no general loyalty to this industry, and any attempt to undermine this particular union's capacities in maintaining such a labour force as a coherent whole will undermine the whole industry's system of labour relations. This clause contains the proposal of outlawing the pre-entry closed shop and this will have the effect that I have stated. The proper conduct of industrial relations in shipping, as in the other industries, rests primarily on organisation. The effect of Clause 5(1)(b) will be to do away with the closed shop; it will destroy this essential element, and pave the way for the supremacy of employers' power in the determination of conditions and pay of the members of those unions affected.

253
In seafaring, stable industrial relations depend largely on the closed shop agreement. It not only aids the engagement of an efficient labour force, but contributes to the maintenance of national security, as well as to the prosperity of our national income. Any erosion of this union's authority could lead to a tremendous increase in unconstitutional workplace action by the men, with all the consequences for the nation at large that such activities would entail. There is no doubt that in other unions, and especially in the Seamen's Union, pre-entry closed shop agreements in shipping have been a major break-through in preventing industrial anarchy at sea.
The Government say that there must be freedom for the individual to join or not to join a trade union. This argument has gone on for many years. Yet I do not know of any employer who would dispute the fact that without the co-operation of the trade union movement he could not run his business efficiently. Trade unionism is now accepted as being part of industry, and it is essential for increased efficiency throughout the whole of industry. If this be the case, to try to eliminate the power of the trade unions must result in industrial chaos. It is rather fantastic that in a Bill which we are told is necessary to deal with unofficial strikes we should, for the first time, be asked to enshrine in the law the giving of equivalent status to the non-unionist and the trade unionist. To try and hold the scales of justice between these two is really an Alice in Wonderland attitude to take. It just cannot be done. You can never alter the attitude of a trade unionist to a non-unionist by law: there is no equation as between the two.
It is a fact of life that trade unions are established, and the authority of a trade union leader when he negotiates resides in the fact that he speaks for a number of people at a pit or factory, or at national level for his members. Yet here is a Bill which not only threatens all sorts of sanctions on people who break contracts, but makes it almost obligatory for a trade union official to get full agreement with all for whom he negotiates. Yet it makes it illegal for his trade union to try to get non-trade unionists into his union. I repeat that industry in Britain cannot function with
254
out responsible trade unionism. How can you negotiate agreements knowing that you cannot get them honoured, if people are to be encouraged not to join a trade union, and are to be completely outside the control of those who make the agreements? To give to non-unionists a status equivalent to that of trade unionists, without whom industry could not function, is to stand freedom on its head.
The serious thing about Clause 5(1)(b) is that it is elevating the whole basis of non-unionism at a time when trade unionism is accepted in nearly every industry. Industry depends on the cooperation that it can get from trade unions. Yet this clause will denude the representatives of trade unions of their personnel in industry by an Act of Parliament. I have said before what I think of non-unionists, who will take the rewards of collective bargaining—and I have never seen one who refused—but pay nothing towards the cost. In strong trade union areas they are regarded as people outside the pale. However, it is wrong under this Bill to coerce them to join a union, but if workmen refuse to work with them they can finish up in the Industrial Court.
This is the Government's conception, and no one should be surprised if industrial relations get into an awful mess in the future. If subsection (1)(b) is left in the Bill it means the end of pre-entry and post-entry closed shops, and the 100 per cent, trade union shop will be weakened. It puts the non-unionist in a privileged position that trade unionists do not have. It will inflict great strain among trade unionists in their everyday work. It is a clause intended to weaken the unions against the employers. For all these reasons, I support the deletion from this clause moved by my noble friends.
LORD BROWN: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my noble friend. I will not take long. I recognise the arguments used by the Government in support of the Bill in its present form. I am extremely anxious about the liberty of the individual. At an earlier stage, on another Amendment, one of my noble friends sought to use as an argument the fact that barristers were a closed shop, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—and we must

255
accept what he says—discarded that example. He gave grounds for doing so, and I accepted his reasoning. But that is not the only example which can be quoted. I should like to quote from section 161 of the Companies Act 1948. The rubric at the side says:
"Disqualifications for appointment as auditors."
Then it says:
"A person shall not be disqualified for appointment as auditor of a company unless either—

(a) he is a member of a body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purposes of this provision by the Board of Trade; or "—

and then paragraph (b) provides an escape hatch, by which the Board of Trade may agree to the appointment without the person being a member of such a body under certain stated conditions. So that he either has to be a member of a specified body, or he has to be approved by the Board of Trade, if he is to be appointed an auditor to a public company. There may be other examples.
I quote this for this reason. In the event, people will not be forced to join a trade union if the Amendment is passed, because they can refrain from seeking that type of occupation. In contradistinction, one has to face the fact that there have been times when the Legislature has had to ask that absolute freedom of the individual should be given up in the interests of society. I think this Amendment seeks to curtail the freedom of the individual largely in order to create a situation in society where we might avoid a great deal of trouble. It is for these reasons, in spite of the fact that I recognise that this is a marginal curtailment of the freedom of the individual—it is not an absolute curtailment, because he need not take up that form of employment—that I would support the Amendment; and I would support my case by pointing to the fact that this House has in days gone by passed legislation which has exercised on the individual an analogous degree of limitation of freedom.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord really must accept that whether he is dealing with barristers, or
256
graduates, or accountants, or doctors there is all the distinction in the world between belonging to your professional association, which up to a point is analogous to a trade union, and receiving the qualification for which you have to pass an examination. It is of course perfectly true that again and again Parliament has legislated, and I hope it will continue to legislate, to insist on professional qualifications before you can enter one of the established professions, but that does not mean that you have to join the union which is appropriate. That is a totally different type of association, and very often is exercised by a different body. Therefore there is no analogy at all.
LORD BROWN: I think I have the right of the matter here. I was a Minister at the Board of Trade for a period of five years, and it is a fact that at least two groups of people who were qualified in certain ways were excluded from the right to audit the accounts of a public company because they belonged to one association rather than to another. It is not merely a matter of the qualification; it is a question of being a member of, for example, the Institute of Chartered Accountants which qualifies one to serve as auditor of a public company. I am familiar with the administration of the law in this respect.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The
noble Lord may be familiar with the administration of the law, but he overlooks the fact that the basis of it is that the qualifications of certain types of accountancy organisation are not accepted as adequate. The Board of Trade may be wrong for all I know in not accepting them, but the basis of a qualification remains totally different in type from membership of a trade union and, however long the noble Lord was at the Board of Trade, there is a distinction.
LORD BROWN: There is no distinction between saying to someone who is not a member of a particular trade union, "You may not work here", and saying to somebody who is not a member of a particular association of chartered accountants, "You may not do this job for this company". I am afraid the noble and learned Lord's comments on this matter are very unconvincing.
LORD BYERS: With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for whom I have the greatest possible respect, this matter was dealt with in another place by my honourable friend, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, who made absolutely clear that there is a difference between a professional qualification and membership of an association. This has to be made absolutely clear; otherwise we confuse the whole of the argument. I ask the noble Lord to get this straight because it is a very important and fundamental point.
8.44 p.m.
LORD BERNSTEIN: One sees how we are again getting into the legal question of the legal framework of this Bill.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BERNSTEIN: Yes, I notice the comments by noble Lords opposite, and I apologise to noble Lords on the other side of the Committee. I do not think noble Lords on this side realise how dedicated the noble Lords on the other side are to the working people of this country and the 10 million people who are members of the trade unions.
American and German experience appears to show that a legal bar on the closed shop has very little effect on the factual position so far as it concerns trade unions. Of course the closed shop has produced problems for management here. I have suffered from them. But the benefits for negotiating with a 100 per cent, union shop are not to be overlooked. You cannot exorcise a right enjoyed by millions of people by Bell, Book and this Bill.
We are dealing with the provisions of Clause 5(1)(b) and I want to support the Amendment. I do not think this is compatible with the principles of the Bill which are liable to disrupt good industrial relations. I want to put a case, which is not invented, either to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and ask what action under the Bill he considers could have been taken and against whom action could have been taken. This is a complicated question, and I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to bear with me because in my opinion it is a question of fundamental importance.
258
The case I refer to is about the lock-men in the Port of London. Six hundred and fifty men had it in their power to close the locks in the Port of London. For many years all labour had been organised by the Transport and General Workers' Union, and the Transport and General Workers' Union had, in cooperation with the employer, the Port of London Authority, managed to keep the peace and ensure the uninterrupted operation of the locks. In 1962 a disaffected minority, who considered that the Transport and General Workers' Union were not sufficiently aggressive, broke away and formed a breakaway union, the Union of Port Workers. There were about 30 members of that group, enough however to frustrate the Transport and General Workers' Union policy.
To cut a long story short—whether we should have a long story at this time of night or not I am not sure; it might be a good idea—both the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Port of London Authority made all sorts of attempts to get those 30 men back into the Transport and General Workers' Union. This was to no effect, and finally the representatives of the Transport and General Workers' Union, acting for their members, declared that if after a given date those 30 did not rejoin the Transport and General Workers' Union the Transport and General Workers' Union men would refuse to work alongside them.
Now note this. This meant that the Port of London Authority had no option but to dismiss the breakaway union. I should report that legal action against the Transport and General Workers' Union followed, but the legal aspects do not matter here. What matters is the situation in which the Transport and General Workers' Union would have found itself had the Bill we are discussing then been in force. It would seem that under this Bill the action by the Transport and General Workers' Union would have been an "unfair industrial practice", and this of course irrespective of Whether the Transport and General Workers' Union had registered as a trade union.
Am I right in saying that under this Bill the Industrial Court would have directed the Transport and General Workers' Union to refrain from further attempts to re-establish the closed shop, and could have assessed compensation against them in favour of the militant

259
minority? If, of course, the Transport and General Workers' Union were a registered union the compensation would be limited. In the second place, the Port of London Authority could also have committed an unfair industrial practice, and compensation could have been assessed against them in favour of the breakaway union.
Thirdly, the Transport and General Workers' Union, but not the employer, would have been exposed to the penalties for contempt of court in the event of disobeying the order of the court. This is because the union, but not the employer, can in this situation be subjected to an "order to refrain" which is a euphemism for an injunction. Fourthly, to avoid all this, the union would have had to induce the employer to enter into an agency shop agreement which, however, could have been upset at any time if any one of the militant minority had got the concurrence of one-fifth of the workers to initiate a ballot, and if as a result of the ballot the Transport and General Workers' Union had not succeeded in getting the majority of all—I repeat "all" —the workers involved to vote for the continuance of the agency shop. Alternatively, the union could, in co-operation with the Port of London Authority have tried to obtain an "approved closed shop agreement." Would the Minister care to answer my questions?
8.49 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, Members of the Committee will be glad to know that I come equipped, fortunately, to answer the general question which the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, has placed before us: what happens if trade union members refuse to work with a non-unionist? That is a question which can be put and it is a question which can be answered. I will answer it in the technical terms in which the noble Lord has put it. Members of the Committee might like to look at it in Hansard to-morrow. Under Clause 31(3) it is an unfair industrial practice for any person, including a trade union or other organisation of workers or any official of such an organisation, to call, organise, procure or finance a strike, or any "irregular industrial action short of a strike", the definition of which is in Clause 31(4), or to threaten such action, if the action is intended to
260
induce an employer to infringe the rights conferred on the worker by Clause 5(1) (see Clause 31(3)(a)). An employer who is induced to dismiss the worker or otherwise penalise him for exercising his rights under Clause 5(1) would be liable under Clause 5(2). The employer who withstood the pressure to dismiss the worker could seek a restraining order or an award of compensation, or both, against the inducer under Clause 37.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I have not intervened before in this Committee because I have not been altogether in line with some of my colleagues over some of the Amendments that I have been asked to support. However, I am wholeheartedly behind them with this Amendment. It is a particularly difficult Amendment; it is the essential one of Clause 5. If you say a man has the right to join a union, which we all agree upon, is it not restrictive not to say that he has the right not to join a union? From the ordinary liberal point of view the answer is clearly that he should have this negative right. The background of my thinking is that one believes in the rights of individuals and does not want to see people oppressing others.
It seems to me perfectly clear that the trade union movement was begun in a period when there were more men than jobs, and without the exercise of the closed shop they would never have had the strength to deal with this situation in an efficient way and make reasonable conditions for their men against their employers. It is also perfectly clear that when there are more jobs than men this situation is liable to go into reverse and may not work nearly so well. The position at the moment, as the result of either careful manipulation or perhaps historical carelessness on the part of the Tory Party, is that there are rapidly becoming more men than jobs, and this is the wrong moment to start threatening the very basis on which the trade union movement built itself up.
I feel one is liable to look at this subject look much from the point of view of the craft unions, which have become strong, and not look at it enough from the aspect about which I know, which is Equity and the Musicians' Union, and people like that. Equity is terribly worried about the situation of a travelling

261
impresario who engages a few employees to act some simple musical and then cannot pay them. Equity at the moment is able to prevent its members from taking a job with this man until he has paid the people to whom he owes money. Generally speaking, the Musicians' Union, though in a rather stronger position, are a similar case. I am the director of two London opera houses, and in both the Musicians' Union and Equity operate a closed shop entirely to our satisfaction. Donovan has made it perfectly clear that he thinks it would be wrong to interfere with this right. He thinks that the proper way to deal with it is to provide protection to those people who may suffer under it. That is the line we should take. People keep on saying that you must have some sensitivity to the background of the people on this side of the House—not mine, alas!; I cannot claim anything except a silver spoon. But the entire working class movement is very sensitive to this particular point. This Bill can work perfectly well without it.
What you are trying to do is put a background of law to enforce the sanctity of contract, with which all the trade unionists agree although they do not always agree with the enforcement of it, and the closed shop is not an integral part of this question. It is very foolish, when you consider that once this Bill is over and things have settled down somebody has to produce an act of statesmanship to get the people with whom we are working to work with us. Is it going to be easier or more difficult if you strike at what they regard as their very roots? I am in favour of the freedom of the individual, and I do not suppose the noble and learned Lord, who does not agree with my morals on other occasions, will agree with them here. But this is a moral judgment, and I believe right is on the side of the people who have had to use this method to get power. In so far as they use it too much, I think you could have my support and I think the support of my Party in curbing local injustice to individuals. To enforce the abolition of this existing situation, which is anomalous but means so much to these people, is really asking for trouble. I hope that noble Lords on the other side will think again.
LORD HENLEY: I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to an Amendment in the name of my noble friends and
262
myself dealing with Equity. It will be able to deal with the Seamen's Union as well, where there is clearly a case for a closed shop. I hope we shall pay particular attention to that Amendment, No. 54.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: I always pay particular attention to any Amendment from the noble Lord.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I shall be brief in supporting my noble friend because I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that have already been made. The freedom to join or not to join a union is not the same, and I believe that the Government has just a glimmering of the fact that it is not the same. I believe they are beginning to understand it. A man has the right to unemployment, but one would not like to promote that kind of right. The Americans, from whom we have taken so much of this legislation, understand that the right to join is not the same as the right not to join a union. They know that for a man to contribute to a charity in lieu of his trade union dues is just complete nonsense. It is the trade union which is doing the service, not the charity, so the fact that they have to say that a man will have to contribute to a charity makes nonsense of the whole matter.
Who are the employers going to negotiate with? I should like to know what numbers the Government have in mind when they say that a man has a right not to join a trade union. Is it one in ten? One in a hundred? One in ten thousand? It is the numbers that are going to make a difference to the whole business of this Bill. The Government keep on protesting that they want to strengthen the trade unions. But supposing a large number of people opt not to join a trade union: is that going to strengthen trade unions? Is that going to make for more industrial peace? Surely it is going to make for greater industrial unrest. It is going to increase tension, and the whole matter seems absolutely absurd. There is this sloppy use of the word "freedom". We are all in favour of freedom—there is nobody in this House who is not in favour of freedom. It is a question of how we organise our work, our industry, our lives generally; and this over-simplification—this woolly concept—is something

263
which really makes a political and legal hotch-potch of this Bill.
It is all right for election meetings and in an election manifesto to talk of freedom in this broad sense, but it is absolutely no good when we come to discuss this Bill really seriously, and come to discuss industrial relations seriously, to come forward with this vague idea that a man has a freedom not to join a union. I am not saying there are no abuses in trade union practice; or that we have no problem of anarchy among some of our workers. But are there no abuses among management, no abuses among employers, when we speak about these things? At all events, this freedom not to join a trade union will only make things worse and will not make things better in industrial relations. I support the Amendment.
LORD PLATT: It seems to me, as one who is not expert on these subjects, that the stronger argument at the present moment is on the side of the Opposition. I did not rise to say that, because I can register my thoughts on that if the Committee divides. But I should like a little clarification. First of all, what would be the effect of leaving out this paragraph? The fact that the worker has a right to be a member of a trade union surely does not mean that he has not the right to be not a member of a trade union, does it? Would the omission of this paragraph really achieve what the Opposition want? This is one point, which I suppose is a legal point, on which perhaps I am particularly dense, but it is one on which I should like a little clarification.
The other matter is that I should like to support the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, when he says that because a man requires certain laid-down qualifications, and so on, he may have to be a member of a profession, and that in order to take certain jobs he may have to acquire higher qualifications or be a member of some body which demands that he has reached a higher status in the particular profession, this has nothing whatever to do with the closed-shop argument. I agree with the noble and learned Lord there; but I am not going to miss the opportunity of asking him whether this is not another argument for leaving the professions out of the trade union argument.
LORD STONHAM: May I also ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for clarification? He answered my noble friend Lord Bernstein on the spot, which was a most refreshing experience—to get an answer so quickly; or indeed at all. My preoccupation in considering the deletion of paragraph (b) of Clause 5(1) is the fact that it is in any case subject to Clause 16. In Clause 16(2) we read:
"Where an approved closed shop agreement is for the time being in force, the following provisions of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything in section 5(1)(b) of this Act."
So to a large extent the paragraph already has its effects weakened if it does not disappear. Then again, in the near future the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be moving an Amendment to delete subsections (3) and (4) of this clause. So we shall not have this limiting factor on I subsection (1)(b). I am trying to understand this point, but I should be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when he eventually comes to reply, would kindly sort this out so that I might at last understand this rather tricky point.
9.5 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Perhaps I might deal with that specific question, as it may be worrying other members of the Committee, before I reply generally, because I should like to reply in terms of general principle, as I think that that is what the debate is about. Clause 16 allows certain approved "closed shop" agreements, but these are subject to Schedule 1, in which five criteria are set out. So Clause 16 has to be read together with criteria in Schedule 1. Although it is true to say that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be moving the deletion of subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 5, he is also moving Amendment, No. 53, for the reinsertion of a new clause after Clause 5, which contains subsections (3) and (4) within it plus additional material. He will be discussing that when we get there.
LORD TEVIOT: I apologise to the noble Lord who moved this Amendment because I did not listen to his speech. I was waiting to speak on the Motion, Whether the clause shall stand part?, but as this is the very crux of the matter—whether to belong or not to belong—I should like to throw a little different light on the matter, unless some

265
other noble Lord has brought this up before. Of course, I think one should have the right not to belong, but surely we should find the cause which is so often expressed by trade union leaders in disputes. So many industrial disputes would not have occurred if the cause had been found beforehand. In this case, too, if we find the cause why people do not want to belong to trade unions and look at the situation on those lines, we can then go on from them.
From my short experience of having been a trade union member, I know that the fellows who did not belong were the ones who just did not want to pay. They got into arrears. Perhaps a collector was not available—and that is a point I wish to come to—or they just dodged the collector. This went on ad infinitum and then they said, "What's in it for me?". Then they did not want to belong. If they belonged to a trade union from which they obtained certain benefits, as in the case of my own trade union—if you were involved in a motoring accident, for example, the union paid your solicitor's fees—these members might have been out of compliance by six or eight weeks (they had a family to support), and therefore the union were not going to pay out more, and they used to make the most stupid fuss imaginable.
Returning to the question of finding a cause, surely one must consider the question of paying. I know that it is in some ways unpopular for employers to deduct trade union contributions from workers' wages. I can see disadvantages against that, as well as advantages for it. I think that possibly in the code of practice it is laid down that people must pay their dues. For that reason the workers will probably want to belong, because the whole subject is dealt with piecemeal. It is important that it should be in the Bill, but I do not think it should have such a high priority. I came in to the Chamber just in time to hear the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, both of whom made excellent speeches.
On the question of charities, noble Lords opposite have said that the whole idea of paying to charities is ridiculous; but we have not really come to the point when we can discuss that. I am not going to say at this stage whether it is
266
possible, although in fact I think it is possible, but we must give more thought to it. Also we have heard of unions like Equity, and the professional unions, which I agree are important and have a lot to do with the membership of your Lordships' House. But they represent a small minority of the mass of workers, and I do not think that so far in our debates their interests have been fully discussed.
9.9 p.m.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: I should like to follow the noble Lord in his analysis of why we have this problem of non-unionism. By and large, it is because if the mass of people can get away with it they will take what they can get and pay nothing for it. I have always said that there is nothing greater than the ability of the British working man to find reasons for not paying his trade union contributions, and this provision is encouraging that situation. I want to be as fair as possible, and I know it is not easy if one is involved. But I am trying all the time to see how this legislation will do what it is intended to do, which is to help the trade unions. I was not particularly encouraged when the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, gave us, quite properly, the legal situation, that if a trade union does anything to compel, or brings pressure to bear on, a person to pay trade union contributions, it will be liable to prosecution. That will not help the trade union movement.
I suppose one could go on for ever about the subject of freedom—and I think individual freedom is very important. I have been about long enough to understand that there is no such thing as absolute freedom. All freedom has to be conditioned and the person has to behave in such a manner, even when he is free (and I think we can do with a little more of this to-day) so as not to interfere with the freedom of someone else. If you have a factory employing 500 people, 490 of whom are paying trade union contributions, the 490 may say, "We are not going to work with these ten 'odd bods' who are not paying the trade union contribution." How do you assess freedom there? Is that unreasonable? What about the freedom of the 490 to say that they are not going to work with the ten because the ten refuse to pay towards the

267
collective effort that the majority of them have made?
Then when we hear the argument from the Liberal Benches; and really it is surprising—
A NOBLE LORD: Never be surprised!
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: Usually the Liberals oblige by dividing evenly and leaving the whole thing in doubt, but when they say that there is a case for the Seamen's Union, Equity or the professions, or if, as some one has said, you have been born with a silver spoon in your mouth, or you have been lucky and had the right training and passed your examinations, from then on you can exploit the community. Architects can fix a price, as also can surveyors—
A NOBLE LORD: And lawyers.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: Well, I have a great respect for the law so I do not want to go into that. But I must say that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor quite properly said that only 80 per cent, of the law was organised, my feeling was that if I were operating that I should be able to work a pretty closed shop—indeed, I am sure they do; and quite right: I am not grumbling about it. As a matter of fact I am advocating it. But when people try to draw these fine distinctions between certain sections of the community, and because working people by dint of their own endeavours have achieved what they sought to achieve—and I think this is something about which England can be proud, with all our problems—do any of them understand what it means to keep a stable force of 10 million people stabilised in trade unions?
May I turn for a moment to my own union, with 850,000 members. The annual wastage amounts to 120.000. This calls for a terrific endeavour on the part of those concerned who are constantly recruiting just to keep level the membership figures. We are sensitive about this. It is very hard to assess the precise outcome, but we have made agreements (I am sorry about the repetition) on the closed shop basis, and in fact they have worked remarkably well. I agree there have been some abuses; and I agree with another noble Lord that we ought
268
not to be looking at the method as such, but that we ought to watch individual liberty and, as the Americans say, "put the checks in". There is a case for the checks. The situation should be such that an individual can go somewhere outside if he is not properly treated. That I go along with 100 per cent. But to suggest that certain things are allowed to be done but not by the trade unions, I think is a grave mistake. For that reason I support the Amendment.
9.15 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: About half way through the debate the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said one thing that I think struck the theme for this long debate on a very important Amendment; namely, that we were all in favour of freedom, and of course we are. It is very easy to say this. But we must not fool ourselves. Individual freedom is never easily achieved; it is something that has to be fought for. It is extremely easy to be aware of the immediate reasons for not making a change in any well-established practice, but it is necessary from time to time (especially, I suggest, when Parliament is considering legislation of this significance) to go back and consider the first principles.
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, in moving this Amendment, said that he saw no valid argument on grounds of civil liberties in favour of this provision in the Bill, and it is that assertion that I want to question. He was followed by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, speaking with considerable first-hand experience of consumer interests and of international law. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in fact referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, spent a good deal of time in his closely argued speech discussing seamen, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, referred to Actors' Equity and the Musicians' Union. In Clause 16, which was added in the course of the passage of the Bill through another place, certain approved closed shop agreements are possible, if they meet the criteria which are contained in Schedule 1, and it is employment of this sort, seafaring and Equity, which may well satisfy those criteria. It is not for me to say whether they will or will not, but they will, at any rate, have a

269
good chance of doing so, because those employments have certain special characteristics: the jobs are of short duration and the attachment to a particular employer is an exception rather than the rule. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, also I think, showed some sympathy for the fundamental arguments that there are here. He came down against this course in the end, saying that he had thought a lot about it. His opposition was partly on the grounds, it seems, of timing—that this was not the opportune time. Those of your Lordships who are familiar with Bentham's book of political fallacies will know that high on the list is the argument that the time is not ripe.
Let me move on to the central issue to which we have to address ourselves here. That is the argument of civil liberties. Why should personal injustice, which was described by the Royal Commission under Lord Donovan's chairmanship as substantial and without effective means of redress, be tolerated as a necessary part of the union solidarity and collective strength? Why should a person lose his job, and perhaps be prevented from earning his livelihood, just because he is not willing to join a union?
I said it was easy to talk in terms of generalisation, so let us look at just one or two examples of where there have been abuses. They are examples taken from the courts, because when people have a grievance which they feel strongly, it is natural that it should be taken up through the courts. One case concerned the Musicians' Union. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, said mat he was well satisfied with their closed shop agreement. In 1955, Mr. Bonsor, a professional musician and a member of the Musicians' Union all his working life, was expelled from his union because he fell into arrears with his subscription. The union operated a closed shop, and Bonsor could not be engaged in his usual occupation as a musician.
There was the famous case of Rookes v. Barnard. Mr. Rookes was a draughtsman employed by B.O.A.C. in 1964, and was subject to a closed shop agreement. He was a union member, but he resigned his union membership. This caused the union to serve a notice on B.O.A.C, that unless Mr. Rookes was dismissed it would call a strike, and would not go to arbitration, even though an arbitration agreement
270
was in force. The union was thus inducing breaches of contract and, as a result of 'the trade union's pressure, B.O.A.C. terminated Mr. Rookes' contract of service.
Then in 1957—and this is the last case I shall mention, but in a little more detail because it brings these cases to light— there was the case of Huntley v. Thornton. Mr. Huntley was a fitter and turner, and a member of the Hartlepools No. 5 brancn of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, as it was then called. The union called a 24-hour strike in consequence of a refusal by the employers of a wage increase. Mr. Huntley did not obey. He later became involved in a dispute with the union, and in particular with the officials of his local branch. During the long dispute which followed, both local and district levels of the union made recommendations for the expulsion of Mr. Huntley.
It so happened that the proper procedures were not followed in certain of these meetings. The Executive Council of the union refused to expel Huntley, but the committee of his local branch continued to treat him as no longer a member of the union. Whenever he sought employment in the district, local officials of the union either prevented him from obtaining work, or hounded him out of any job he succeeded in obtaining. This resulted in an action by Huntley for conspiracy against 13 officials of the union. It was held by Mr. Justice Harman that although two of the officials had pursued throughout what they conceived to be proper union objectives, 11 others had gone beyond this, thinking only of their own dignity and pursuing a grudge. In the face of the evidence—and there is more evidence than that, but there are three cases which are on public record already—there need to be powerful justifications for the closed shop, and for compulsory membership of trade unions. It seems to me that these justifications which have been put forward in the debate fall under three heads.
LORD SAINSBURY: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, and I am not questioning the facts he is giving us. However. I could equally, after adequate preparation, give an endless list of cases of employers who since I entered the business world many years ago have dismissed people for suspected union membership. But that does not prove that

271
all employers get up to practices of which nobody in this House would approve. I believe that it is equally wrong to quote abuses, which we all admit have happened in the past, as examples of the trade union movement.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am trying to make a considered speech in reply to what has been a very good debate. Of course, the Bill will prevent conduct of the type which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has mentioned. There will be safeguards for people against victimisation, both by their employer and by the union. That is the purpose of the Bill. But let me move on, because there is a real issue of principle here, and the arguments can be put into a coherent shape for the benefit of the Committee at the end of a debate of this kind.
I was saying that there need to be powerful justifications, and that they seem to me to fall under three heads. The first is the argument advanced very reasonably by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, at the start of the debate, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, and others, that the collective strength of workpeople is so much greater than that of individuals and that that strength is necessary if their standard of living and their security of employment are to be achieved. This is a historical and a traditional argument of very great importance indeed, and we should be wrong to under-rate it. Secondly, there is the argument that all employees, and not only those who are union members, benefit from the efforts of trade union negotiators, and that their wages and conditions of employment would otherwise be affected. Therefore, it is only right that all employees should make their contribution towards the benefits which they obtain from trade union negotiation. The third argument, on which I think the noble Lord, Lord Brown, touched—and it is often advanced—is that of industrial convenience; that some employers are in favour of closed shop agreements, because in some circumstances they lead to greater stability. Those are the three main justifications.
But against those, is it really right to compel a man to join a union, or to remain a member of the union, because
272
otherwise he could not continue to work in a certain employment? I suggest that a union with a high degree of voluntary membership—95 per cent, or more—will in any event be in a stronger position than a union with 100 per cent, membership in which the last 5 per cent, have been forced in against their will. I hope that I am not being too dogmatic here. It is easy to fall victim to our own backgrounds, our own ideals, our own values in a discussion of this sort. It is very important to try to understand that there are two contrasting sets of arguments here.
Let me emphasise one point which I do not think has been raised in the debate. The Bill does not ban the closed shop—with the exception of those special agreements which will be allowed under Clause 16—without putting something in its place. The agency shop provisions recognise the fact that effective union organisation and constructive union leadership can be assisted by arrangements under which a union has exclusive bargaining rights in respect of certain employees in an undertaking, and under which it is financially supported by all those employees, with the exception of a handful who may have conscientious objections. Having listened to these arguments with considerable interest and attention, we believe that the agency shop proposals represent a fairly and carefully balanced compromise between the right of the individual to choose not to belong to a trade union against his will; between his social responsibilities as a member of a group whose standard of living may depend on the effectiveness of union negotiations; and between the need for stable and collective bargaining machinery, for the sake of good order in industrial relations.
It is these three factors which have been taken into account in reaching the solution—for that is what it is—of the agency shop. We have avoided extreme positions; we have avoided sacrificing! individual liberties on the altar of industrial convenience. We have not accepted that nothing can be done to improve the situation. We have not accepted that, because the closed shop has gone on for so long, it must be all right to continue. This clause is crucial to the Bill, and I am confident that it will be strongly supported.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am a little surprised at the speech of the noble Lord, because he addressed himself in very large part to the shortcomings as he saw them of the closed shop; and, indeed, I am bound to say that noble Lords on both sides of the Committee have tended to debate this Amendment as though it was an Amendment which introduced the closed shop. Of course, let us be quite clear that the Government's proposals, as they are before us at the moment in other parts of the Bill, envisage the continuance of the closed shop. In certain circumstances it will be a condition of employment that a man should be a member of the union, and if he is not a member of the union he must go.
They envisage in other parts that we should have this quite new provision whereby, in certain circumstances, a man who does not wish to join a union should be levied for the benefit of the union. I am not surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, gave a very broad hint that he finds these provisions to which I have just referred unpalatable, because, making the approach that he did, basing himself upon the absolute right as he quoted it from the International Declaration of Human Rights, I would have been surprised if he had taken another view of the provisions which we are going to consider later in the Bill.
But those provisions—the advantages and disadvantages of the Government's conception of the closed shop; the advantages and disadvantages of the Government's idea of the agency shop—are not before us in this Amendment. They are made necessary, perhaps, by the existence in the Bill of the provision which we are seeking to remove, but the provision which we are seeking to remove is one which should be removed, quite apart from these other provisions which the Government envisage later in the Bill's proceedings. For, after all, we are here asserting a positive right. We are balancing—and, as I suggested earlier, more than balancing—the statutory right to be a trade unionist with the statutory right not to be a trade unionist.
This is not a question of the Bill saying, "Nobody shall be compelled to be a trade unionist". That: would be a very different emphasis, and I think, if I may
274
say so, rather more consistent with some of the international declarations which bear on this subject. But that would be quite different from what is here. What is here, and what is objectionable in this particular wording which we are seeking to remove, is the exaltation of the right to be a non-unionist as though there were something admirable and to be defended in it. We do not everywhere have to balance a right to do something with a right not to do it. Everybody who comes within the Representation of the People Act has a right to vote. We do not say that a citizen has a right not to vote. Everybody has a right to go to public meetings. We do not assert the even more necessary (and some of us might think desirable) right not to go to public meetings. Why, then, have we, in this particular case, to balance the right to be a trade unionist not with the right to be free of compulsion to be a unionist but with the right not to be a unionist at all?
Some noble Lords speak in this Committee as though the industrial relations of this country were dominated by closed shops. On any showing, closed shops cover a minority of trade unionists. The majority of trade unionists are organised on a basis where there is no element of compulsion, no danger of losing one's job; and that situation has to be maintained by the constant recruiting pressure of trade unions. My noble friend Lord Cooper gave us, in the graphic figures he quoted, an idea of the immense effort that is expended by a trade union (and particularly a trade union catering for the categories of workers for which my noble friend's union caters) in keeping up membership strength by the recruiting process. I am bound to tell noble Lords that there cannot be the slightest doubt that, in the context of the maintenance of voluntary trade unionism (which many people have spoken of so approvingly) this exalting of the right to be a non-unionist as though it were as meritorious as being a trade unionist will be a positive impediment. Anybody who has had to be involved in the practical job of recruiting people into trade unions will be aware that this will be a ready argument in the mouths of those people whom, as my noble friend said, one goes to recruit and who always find ingenious

275
reasons for not paying their union contributions.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, covered a number of points which were raised in the debate—and, if I may say so, some which had not—but he did not cover one which I want to press him to pronounce upon. Do the Government accept that it is in the public interest positively to promote collective bargaining? If so, do they accept that there must be trade unionism and strong trade unions as an essential ingredient in that collective bargaining; and do they not recognise that by framing their proposi
tion in this way—not, as I have said, in terms even of there being no compulsion on individuals, but on the assertion of the right to be a non-unionist as though it were as meritorious as to be a trade unionist—they are militating against trade union organisation, certainly on a voluntary basis, and so militating against the development of collective bargaining?
9.39 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 128.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peddie, L.

Archibald, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Ardwick, L.

Fiske, L.

Platt, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Rusholme, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gardiner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Hall, V.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Hamnett, L.

Serota, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brown, L.

Hoy, L.

Sherfield, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Jacques, L.

Slater, L.

Burntwood, L.

Janner, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Kennett, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Lindgren, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

White, Bs.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Mais, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Craigavon, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Ailwyn, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Gowrie, E.

Allerton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Gray, L.

Alport, L.

Cromartie, E.

Greenway, L.

Balerno, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Grenfell, L.

Balfour, E.

Daventry, V.

Gridley, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

De La Warr, E.

Hailes, L.

Barnby, L.

Denham, L.

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

Barrington, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Bathurst, E.

Dulverton, L.

Hankey, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Dundee, E.

Harcourt, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Belstead, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Hastings, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Eccles, V.

Hatherton, L.

Bessborough, E.

Effingham, E.

Helsby, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Henley, L.

Bradford, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Hives, L.

Brecon, L.

Essex, E.

Hood, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Exeter, M.

Ilford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Falkland, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Falmouth, V.

Kemsley, V.

Buchan, E.

Ferrers, E.

Kilmany, L.

Byers, L.

Ferrier, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Fisher, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clwyd, L.

Fortescue, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Coleridge, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Margadale, L.

Colyton, L.

Gage, V.

Merthyr, L.

Conesford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Milverton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Glasgow, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cowley, E.

Glendevon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Sandford, L.

Swaythling, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Sandys, L.

Templemore, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Savile, L.

Teviot, L.

Pender, L.

Selkirk, E.

Teynham, L.

Radnor, E.

Selsdon, L.

Thomas, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Thorneycroft, L.

Redmayne, L.

Shaftesbury, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Rochdale, V.

Somers, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Rochester, L.

Stamp, L.

Vivian, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Strathcarron, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

St. Helens, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Windlesham, L.

St. Just, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Wolverton, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Yarborough, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.50 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 37, leave out from first ("to") to ("16") in line 38 and insert ("sections (Modification of rights by agency shop agreement) and")
The noble Lord said: I would invite your Lordships to turn aside for a moment from considering the right not to join a trade union to a particular aspect of those cases in which the Bill provides that a man's freedom of choice will be to some extent modified, in which if he chooses not to join a particular union, or one of a particular group of unions, he will have to contribute either to the funds of the union or, in the case of an objection of conscience which would preclude him even from contributing to the union, to a charity.
Amendment No. 28 is a paving Amendment for the new Clause standing as Clause 53 in the Marshalled List to be introduced after Clause 5. The Amendments which go with this one are Amendments Nos. 40, 43, 48, 52, 53 and 75. I do not propose to discuss the clause at this stage, but if your Lordships agree I propose to discuss these other Amendments to the extent simply of indicating how the mechanics will affect them. I think it may also be for the convenience of your Lordships if I just explain what this new clause would do, without discussing it, because otherwise I do not think noble Lords will understand at all what I am trying to do. It will first of all reproduce in what we regard as an improved form subsections (3) and (4) of the clause we are now discussing, and it does that in subsections (1), (2) and (4) of the new clause. Secondly, it will introduce a new subsection, subsection (3), which is perfectly straightforward, and
278
thirdly it will introduce another subsection, subsection (5). It will also involve a linked Amendment No. 75, in Clause 10, at page 8, line 20.
The main purpose of the new provisions is to meet representations which have been made to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to extend to employers' associations the power which is given in the Bill to employers individually to negotiate agency shop agreements with trade unions. It seems sensible and reasonable that closed-shop agreements which have been negotiated and entered into by an employers' association and are in existence before the Bill becomes operative should, like closed shop agreements between one employer and one or more trade unions, be capable of being readily transformed into an agency shop agreement. I would suggest that, whether or not noble Lords agree with the principles of the agency shop—and that is a matter which we can come to discuss later—it can hardly be denied that if such agreements are to exist then employers' associations, as well as individual employers, should have the right to negotiate them. Employers' associations would do this either on behalf of all the members of an association or on behalf of one or more employers specified in the agreement. At present, in the Bill, subsections (3) and (4) restrict the right of an individual not to belong to a trade union, and the words which I am moving to leave out pave the way for that restriction. The Amendment paves the way for the new clause.
I am not asking your Lordships to discuss the Amendments I have mentioned with this Amendment. I am merely pointing out that this Amendment paves the way for the Amendment to Clause 53, which is designed to replace subsections (3) and (4) of this clause and also involves Amendments Nos. 40, 52, and 75. That is why I am referring to

279
them now. I suggest to your Lordships that it would obviously be undesirable, even if it were in order—and, with all respect, I do not think it would be—to debate twice over the subject matters of subsections (3) and (4) and the new clause which is designed to replace them.
Perhaps I might say that, as your Lordships will probably have noticed from the Marshalled List, I had added my name to the names of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, and his noble friends, on Amendments Nos. 43 and 48, from which in due course he removed his name, suspecting no doubt, correctly, that my reason for adding my name to his Amendments was not quite the same as his. As I say, these are matters we can discuss when we come to the new clause. I would add, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Barnsley—I beg his pardon: Blackburn—that I do not know whether we shall reach the new clause to-night and it would be possible for him, if he so wished, to move his Amendment to subsection (3) with different lines on the page on the basis of a manuscript Amendment. This would be perfectly in order. Otherwise, if we do not reach the clause to-night, may I suggest that he might wish to put down the Amendment again so that it will appear on the Marshalled List as an Amendment to the new clause, should your Lordships agree with the proposals I now make. I beg to move.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: As the noble Lord has explained, this is a paving Amendment. We should prefer to reserve our observations on the substance until we reach the new clause itself. The noble Lord is right in saying that what the Government have done has produced some rather bizarre results on the Marshalled List and there appears to be a great deal of levity, which I fear is likely to be short-lived. We removed our names in the interests of the expediting of business and not in any way analogous to the desire of trade unionists not to work with non-unionists.
The only other observation that I would make to the noble Lord, who has put forward this Amendment with such a full explanation, is that we welcome any desire of the Government to make modifications in this Bill, although
280
naturally we are anxious about the direction in which they are being made. I am bound to say that in our consideration of the Bill, our task, already a difficult one, has been made more difficult by excessive hurry in the early stages of drafting.There was indeed a point at which, to mark our feeling on this, my noble friends considered whether we should not divide the House on this paving Amendment; but we reflected on the situation of the noble Lord, with this albatross of a Bill round his neck, and decided that we should not divide the House but agree to the paving Amendment.
10.0 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not know whether the noble Lord is going to comment, but in my Parliamentary experience this is one of the most astonishing performances by any Government. It is difficult enough for the Opposition to try to understand what has been going on in the minds of the Government, but how Members of your Lordships' House can possibly hope to understand a new clause, which either ought to have come in another place or ought to have been in the Bill when it appeared if the Government were not in such a hurry, I do not know. Furthermore, it becomes very difficult for us to judge what stages we are going to get to.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, with his great experience of the London Government Bill, may say that he did as wicked things as this on the London Government Bill, but he was better prepared, which was how he got that very contentious Bill through your Lordships' House. I do not know how long we are going to take on this. My noble friends are very co-operative. We do not know whether to be pleased at the signs of some slight movement in Government attitudes or even more confused. If the Government—and far be it from me to discourage them!—are seeking to modify this unsatisfactory Bill they are going to make it very difficult for us; and as my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith made clear, it shows all the signs of hasty drafting and of the failure to consult. It is absurd that on this particular matter they have not taken the mind of employers' organisations. I think that, with that protest, we will let

281
it go, unless the Leader of the House has some apologia he wants to make. He may sit there feeling reasonably satisfied, but I do not know what he has to be satisfied about.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thank noble Lords for agreeing to this procedure. I think the noble Lord is quite entitled to make a little play with this kind of Amendment that takes place, but, my goodness! my Lords, he and I have shared some experiences at the receiving end in the 1945–1954 Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, was there too, when we had the most extraordinary confusion, and this is nothing whatever to it. He may remember a
282
little Bill called the Town and Country Planning Bill. But I will say no more.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may say to the noble Lord, that was done in another place. This ought to have been done before it ever got here and it inevitably prolongs our proceedings. The noble Lord is being so amiable and I hope that this perhaps is a sign that the Government are going to be a little more willing to listen to the Opposition.
LORD BYERS: May I ask why the two Parties should be competing with one another to see which can get the greatest confusion into our Parliamentary Legislative Assembly?
10.4 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("if he so desires") and insert ("on grounds of conscience").
The right reverend Prelate said: I move Amendment No. 29 standing in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and the Lord Rochester, and may I introduce myself correctly as the Bishop of Blackburn, not the Bishop of Barnsley. The Amendment arises from the fear expressed to me by a number of trade union officials with whom I met in my diocese concerning the possibility of many of their members opting out of trade union membership if the law gives them the right, and rather encourages them, so to do.
I want to say a word about the motive of fear which bedevils many situations in industry and elsewhere. Let me digress for a moment. The racial conflicts of which we are all aware, so often arise from the root cause of fear. I believe this to be especially true in South Africa, and I believe that if fear could be eliminated there, there would be a reasonable chance of finding a solution to their problems.
To return to our industrial field, the Government must surely be aware of the sincere and genuine fears that exist in the minds of those who are opposing various sections of this Bill. It is not only the fears that exist in the minds of some noble Lords in this House and Members in another place, but those which exist in the minds of hundreds of thousands of trade unionists throughout the country. They are really afraid.
Up to the point of Amendment No. 24, I had become increasingly disturbed in my mind and, I may also say, in my conscience that there was so little evidence of the Government making any serious move to allay the fears which are in the minds of so many people. To use a censure from the Bible, I find that they are being "stiff necked": and the New English Bible translates that as "stubborn". Or there was a gentleman called Pharoah, who continually hardened his heart against the children of Israel when they sought to be delivered from bondage. If the Government refuse to listen to any
284
of the pleas that are being made to them I only hope that they will not bring down a series of plagues and pestilences upon their heads.
Having said that, I am also bound to say to the representatives of the trade unions, and to noble Lords who sit opposite, that I believe that many of their fears are exaggerated—I do not say all of them—and sometimes misplaced. It is evident that many noble Lords have made up their minds, despite all that has been said to the contrary, that this Bill is "union bashing". The right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State and the leaders of the Government in this House have repeatedly declared that they want to strengthen the trade unions; that they believe in collective bargaining, in which strong and representative trade unions are necessary. What they seek, as the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, is responsible cooperation. This is what is needed.
I beg your Lordships' pardon for sketching in the background for what I want to say about this Amendment in what sounds rather like a Second Reading speech. It is not unrelated to the closed shop which we are not debating, and which I do not propose to deal with on this issue. I want to confine my remarks to the words "if he so desires", which I wish to omit and for which I want to substitute the words "on grounds of conscience". I have already referred to the fears that numbers could opt out of their union membership on personal grounds of whim or fancy. There is a member who has a row with his local secretary, in language which may not be so polite as that I am going to use, and says that he is going to leave the union to which he belongs. There could be an increase in the dues—and I often say to my friends in the trade union movement that if they are going to be effective they must put up their dues, and pay their officials proper wages as well. There may be some dissatisfaction at local level with union action.
There are all kinds of reasons why members will feel free under the terms of this clause to withdraw from membership. This can have the overall effect—this is what I am worried about, genuinely worried, and I want the Government

285
to be genuinely worried about it, too—of weakening the unions. The Government say that they want to strengthen the unions. I believe Mr. Carr has made a claim that he will be regarded as the great recruiting sergeant for the unions. I think noble Lords opposite will hope, almost against hope, that this will prove true.
If a man can insist upon his right to belong to a union another man could also have the right
"to be a member of no trade union".
Do those words make sense, that you "be a member of no union "? What sort of language is this? We know what they are supposed to mean. The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights has been called in support of this contention, but I remind your Lordships that what that Declaration says is that a man has the right
"not to be compelled to join a union"
which to my mind has an entirely different emphasis. That brings me to my second point: that in accordance with this statement he should be allowed to withdraw from a union or not to join a union on grounds of conscience. This is a generally accepted practice already. It is included in the provisions of the Bill in regard to the agency shop. You might well ask: me, as a Prelate, to explain why a man's conscience should preclude him from union membership. My Lords, I cannot. I am not the guardian of other people's consciences. My conscience does not preclude me at the moment from being a paid up member of the General and Municipal Workers' Union, but I think I am entitled to say this. The noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, the General Secretary, is not in the House at the moment. It might be that if this union decided to adopt a policy of non-co-operation I should want to review my position as a member of the union, because I passionately believe that what we must seek, on both sides, is to co-operate.
I understand that there are those who belong to a sect called Jehovah's Witnesses. I do not know whether there are any among your Lordships. Perhaps they would explain why they find it necessary to abstain from trade union
286
membership—I do not know why—on conscientious grounds. There may be others. I remind your Lordships that conscience has rightly been accepted in this country as a proper reason for refusal to take the Oath in your Lordships' House, to serve in the Armed Forces, and also to be a member of a trade union. There seems to be no problem about this. It is the omission of the words "if he so desires" that we are claiming, and also prepared to fight for, because it is fairly obvious that as it stands this clause could weaken the trade unions.
Let the Government stand by their word. We challenge the Government about this. They want to strengthen the unions. Let the trade unions so reform themselves that men and women will flock to join their ranks. I believe the unions will best reform themselves by learning first to discipline some of their more militant members, and by giving up the policy of obstruction which has been far too much to the front in their general policies, and by dedicating themselves to be the agents of co-operation. If we expect the trade unions to do this, then we must look for co-operation from the Government as well as from management.
10.15 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER: I should like to support this Amendment from my experience of everyday industrial life. Unlike the right reverend Prelate, I should like to try to relate the question briefly to the issue of the closed shop. In recent years a number of companies have entered freely into post-entry closed shop agreements with the unions as a part of their productivity bargain, or in some other way. I assure your Lordships that to the best of my knowledge these arrangements are, on the whole, operating smoothly and without affront to individual employees.
On this particular point I have considerable sympathy with some of the things that were being said earlier this evening by people who, like the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, have long experience as trade union leaders. In practice, the most telling point in favour of the retention of existing post-entry closed shop agreements, under the safeguards proposed in this Amendment, is that our present troubles are made worse by the apathy of so many trade union members.

287
What is needed is not less involvement in their part in union affairs, but a great deal more. To do away with our closed shop agreement will do nothing to improve matters in this respect, but rather the reverse. On the other hand, this Amendment may help if it is accepted.
The principle of freedom is upheld in the Amendment by ensuring that a man is not compelled to join a union if conscience forbids. This is a rather important point and distinguishes this Amendment from others seeking to retain closed shops without conditions. At the same time the Amendment suggests that a man is expected to face up to his responsibility by playing an active part in the affairs of his union. By accepting this Amendment we can at least go some way towards repairing what is in my mind an unfortunate omission in the Bill as it now stands, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was saying on this matter earlier.
LORD JANNER: Can the noble Lord, in the course of his argument, explain how this question is going to be resolved? Who is going to decide whether the question of conscience is at issue? Is the individual going to be allowed to say that his conscience tells him that he should not act in a certain way, without any inquiry at all? That is quite different from the question of conscience in respect of service in the Army, and so on.
LORD ROCHESTER: I see no particular difficulty on this point. As the right reverend Prelate has already said, this is the position as it now operates in industry to-day. I think all I want to say in closing is that nowhere in the Bill, as I read it, is the Government's professed desire to strengthen responsible trade unionism demonstrated by the explicit encouragement of union membership; and it is on this practical ground that I should like to support the Amendment and ask your Lordships to vote for it.
10.21 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sure we have all listened with the very greatest interest to the debate, and particularly to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn. If I may perhaps enlighten
288
him, I do so with the utmost respect. If he can recall the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter VI, verse 14, he will remember that one there finds that believers are enjoined to
"Be … not unequally yoked … with unbelievers".
I am quoting from Donovan, not from my own personal Biblical knowledge. This is said to be the ground on which the group of persons called Jehovah's Witnesses take exception to being compelled to join a trade union.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: And Plymouth Brethren.
BARONESS WHITE: And Plymouth Brethren also—I am obliged. There may also be some other sects or groups who base their objections on similar scriptural authority. But I am sure that we are all aware that the number who object on this ground, or on comparable ground, must be very small indeed. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, rightly says, there has never in practice been any great difficulty over the genuine conscientious objector. Such a person is recognised best of all by his own workmates who know him intimately as a person. If such a one has genuine conscientious objections, in the sense in which we normally use the word "conscience", then I think it has been found in practice that arrangements are made for him. There has not in fact, as the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, remarked, and in practice been difficulty over a person of this kind.
The person for whom difficulties may arise is not the person who has a conscientious objection, in the sense in which we are using the word now, but the person who is anti-union. That is quite another matter. That is a matter, one might possibly say, of intellectual conviction; it is not really a question of conscience. I think one can draw a distinction between the two. We in the Labour Party have often had to do so: We have a "conscience" clause. The Conservatives may not worry about their consciences. We have often had very considerable debates as to whether a matter was a question of intellectual argument, in which one took one side or

289
the other—and one might take it very forcefully—or whether it was what we would call a deeply felt conscientious conviction. Most of us can recognise the difference between the two, although it may not be easy to define. Therefore we have considerable sympathy with the thought behind the Amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate.
Our difficulty, on the other hand, is in the totality of the approach; in other words, the desire to put this provision into subsection (1)(b), which we have already fully debated. We are by no means averse to some reference in the course of the Bill to conscience, but we feel, quite frankly, that it is very unfortunate that the reference should come in this particular place. Obviously, the aim of the Government is to elevate as a respectable principle the principle of not joining a union, and it is this that we bitterly resent. This has been made very clear by my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith, in particular in the last Amendment.
Perhaps I may be permitted to say how deeply I sympathise with the trade union leaders on our side of the Committee who have indicated, I think with great restraint, what trade unionism really means to them. Until I came to your Lordships' House, and was therefore non-employed (although doing a double shift at the moment), I was for over 20 years a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, and for a while I was also simultaneously a member of the National Union of Journalists. One was affiliated to the Labour Party and the other was not, and therefore I was entitled to dual membership. If I may be allowed a brief digression, as a member of the N.U.J. I first entered this noble building in the corner of the Press Gallery, working for the Manchester Evening News, and I may perhaps be allowed to say that I was trying to keep The Guardian alive and I am most happy that it is to celebrate its 150th birthday to-morrow. I hope your Lordships will pardon that digression.
From my own experience, not only as a trade union member but also in my constituency work as a Member of the other House for many years, I know what trade unionism means to those who are active
290
in it; and it is not just a question of paying dues. We feel that there is a fundamental misconception in this Bill that if you just pay the equivalent sum—whether it be the union subscription or to charity—you have discharged your obligations. That is not so; it is much more than that. I know many people who have given a great part of their lives and of their whole effort in working for their trade union. I am not now speaking just of the paid officials; there are a very small number of paid officials in any union. The great bulk of the work is done by people on a completely voluntary basis, and I feel that one of our great differences with the Government is that they seem entirely to overlook this. If they really felt this in the way we do they would not elevate as a principle in this subsection the right to be a member of no trade union. The right reverend Prelate rightly asks what that means—what are you joining, the "no trade union"?
It is largely for that reason, although we appreciate the analysis of the situation given by the right reverend prelate and by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and feel it is so much closer to the verities than the analysis of the Government, that we feel it is unfortunate that they should have sought to do this in this particular clause. We wish they had supported us in deleting paragraph (b) altogether. I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate did—he shows a very proper appreciation of the priorities in this matter. Therefore while we sympathise with the thought behind this Amendment we do not feel in the present context of the Bill, and particularly of this clause, that it is entirely satisfactory. I am quite sure which of the Government Front Bench the right reverend Prelate was casting as Pharaoh, but perhaps it is the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who is the Pharaoh pro tem. If we felt that he was prepared to meet us on the main principle we should be very much happier.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I want to make just a brief intervention in response to the noble Baroness, Lady White, because it seems to me that she has made, with the exception of four or five comments which appeared to be slightly extraneous, an extraordinarily good speech on behalf of this Amendment. I cannot imagine that what the

291
Opposition are doing, because they are not able to get everything they want, is not to support the next best thing from their point of view. From our point of view it is not the next best thing, it is the best thing; but from their point of view it is certainly the next best thing, and I think this is exactly the place where it should be put in. As the noble Baroness said, the Government have elevated the idea of not joining a union to a principle; indeed, she herself admitted that in certain circumstances it ought to be a principle; she said in matters of real conscience ways are found now and always can be found.
This is the first serious Bill on the whole law affecting trade unions and industry to be passed for a very long time, and surely if we are doing this it is right that at this moment we should safeguard the rights of people who wish not to join trade unions on grounds of conscience, however misguided a lot of us may think them to be. That is what the Government are doing. But the Government are going further. The Government actually say that under this Bill there are to be four types of employees, workers, persons, worker persons, whatever you like to call them. There are, first of all, to be those who are members of trade unions. There are, secondly, those in agency shops who are not going to be members of trade unions but are going to have to pay equivalent fees to trade unions. There are, thirdly, those in agency shops who have conscientious objections and will pay equivalent contributions to charity. And there are, fourthly, those employees in non-agency shops who will not be members of trade unions merely because they exercise their right, and will not pay any fees to anybody.
What we are seeking to do in this Amendment—and I emphasise that this is not a Liberal Party Amendment; a number of my friends agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and myself and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, but this is not a Party move from the Liberal Party—is to say that the right division is between those who are members of trade unions and those who have a real conscientious reason for opting out. I do not accept the question that was put to my noble friend Lord Rochester earlier on as to
292
how one decides whether someone is a conscientious objector or not. If I may say so, this is in the Government's Bill already, and it is up to them to answer that question. I have a touching faith in the Government. I am not personally prepared to answer this question. I am sure they will answer it.
LORD JANNER: While I entirely sympathise with the point of view put forward, I asked that question because I want to know, and I think everybody would want to know, how is this going to be enforced? Is the person going to be brought before the court or some tribunal? As you have it in the Bill, eventually in the Act, it would mean that it is to be enforceable. How is it going to be enforced—by word of mouth or what?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I entirely agree; and that, no doubt, the Government is going to tell us, either on this clause or another clause, because they have it in already. It is up to them, and I am sure they have all the answers absolutely right. I think the historic situation of the Parties has been that the Conservative Party have always stood, rightly, basically, for the right of people not to belong to a union, not to be compelled to belong to a union—for what the Declaration of Human Rights says. But they have not always in the past been as helpful to the unions, as keen on strengthening the unions, as they are at the moment. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Secretary of State and other Government spokesmen at this moment in saying that they want to strengthen the unions. It think that is true; but on other occasions the Labour Party have had every reason to doubt that this tremendous sentiment has existed.
The Labour Party, on the other hand, have always known that when you are working from a position of weakness, as organised labour has for so long, the most important thing of all is that you should have solidarity and that you should be able, working against a greater force, to rally everyone to your side. I know this is a remark which will possibly raise slight jeers, but it is nevertheless true that the Liberal Party try to take the best from both Parties. We realise, with the Labour Party, the importance of strengthening the trade unions, and, with the

293
Conservative Party, the importance of freedom of conscience.
I think that this is a very good compromise, first suggested by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn in a Second Reading speech. Indeed, it is analogous to the question of conscientious objection in wartime. I do not want to press this too far, but the analogy lies in this point, that you have a situation where people do not want to do something, but whatever they do they cannot help receiving the benefits of what other people are doing. The man who remains in the country cannot help but receive the benefits from the men who go and fight. The man who works in industry, however much he objects, cannot help getting the benefit of the unions. Indeed, in both cases they are both quite happy to receive those benefits, but they have conscientious objections themselves.
In wartime we do not allow people to say that they just do not want to fight. But in this country we are very tender, and rightly, to the consciences of people who genuinely have some objection to fighting. We are extremely advanced in this country on this ground; it is one of the things I am most proud of. It seems to me that there is a very real analogy in industry here. The stakes are not so big, but the situation is very much the same. I should think that the Opposition ought to support us on this point. I think that the number of noble Lords who, on Second Reading, had very considerable reservations on the question of the closed shop—and I see at least two or three of them present—ought to support us on it. We are not trying to make a Party point. If the Government help us here we shall not say that this is a great Liberal victory. It would be a great victory for the right reverend Prelate, whose Amendment we support, and I think there is every reason for so doing.
10.38 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: There is a brief point which I want to make, and I think it is accurate. My conscience is awkward, and I have not the right of my conscience to form an unregistered union. I would have been allowed not to join a union, but I also want the right of my conscience to form a new union, because I do not like any that they have so far. Have I the right of conscience to form
294
an unregistered union? I have not, according to the Bill. There are limitations right through the Bill on this. I only want to draw your Lordships' attention to this point.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN: Perhaps I might explain a theological point, that consciences have to be instructed and informed.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: In reply to the right reverend Prelate, that is exactly what I have done; instructed your Lordships that in this Bill there are unfair practices, and no one can belong to any union. The unregistered unions have not the same right of collective bargaining as the registered. That should have been known from the debates we have had in the last three or four days.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: I speak not as a member of the Liberal Party but as an individual. I thought at first that the right reverend Prelate's point was over-stressed. I thought he was using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. But then he used the word "conscience", and when ever that word is used I get hot under the collar and uneasy. I think I myself have a conscience—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We all have consciences.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: And people respect a conscience. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said, in a Party political way, that this is only an excuse to get out, but it is not. There are people who have individual consciences, who care about these matters.
BARONESS WHITE: I am afraid that I did not make myself clear. I intended to say that we fully recognise that there is a very small number of individuals who, on genuine, conscientious grounds, claim that they do not wish to join a union.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: But can she tell me how many people there are? If there is only one, is that not important? I am quite frightened of abstention on the ground of conscience. I think that people respect conscience, and they will believe in conscientious objections in wartime, or at any other time. If "conscience" is going to be struck out, then

295
we have a purely Party political issue—closed shop or non-closed shop? The right reverend Prelate had a point to make here and I ask your Lordships to take it very seriously, because it concerns our own individual circumstances. I should like to support the Amendment.
LORD SWAYTHLING: I had not intended to speak, but we are rather losing sight of what the Amendment means. If it is not passed, anybody who has a conscience and does not wish to join a union already has a right not to join, because the words in the Bill are, "if he so desires". Why are we talking so much about conscience? I understood the right reverend Prelate to say that he wanted the Amendment passed, not so much for the conscientious objector, 'but, so that there should not be so many objecting to joining a union as there would be if the Bill were left as it now stands.
10.42 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I listened with interest to the speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont of Whitley and Lord Rochester, from the Liberal Benches, because I wanted to know what was the policy of the Liberal Party. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, rather disappointed me by saying that this is not a Liberal Amendment, but he said later that the Liberal Party is taking the best from the proposals of other Parties. But I think in another place Mr. Hooson, speaking for the Liberal Party, strongly supported the agency shop agreement. There must be no misunderstanding about the fact that this Amendment precludes the agency shop agreement. We have already discussed very fully the general principles which have led the Government to conclude that workers should not be compelled to join a trade union against their wishes, and I argued fully on Amendment No. 27 that under the agency shop provisions we can at the same time secure the freedom of association of the individual and provide a proper degree of security and of financial support for the union.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: The noble Lord made a statement which he did not support, and I should like an explanation. He said that if we passed
296
this Amendment it would do away with the agency shop agreement. It seems to me that if we pass it, it will turn every place into an agency shop. Is that not true?
LORD WINDLESHAM: No. Could I try to explain this? We shall become more familiar with this as a Committee as we proceed throughout the night. What is said by this, and the other Amendments of a similar type—there are several on the Order Paper from the noble Lord and his friends—is that the right not to belong to a union should be on grounds of conscience only. The individual worker will have to establish conscientious grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, asked how this was done, and in passing I could refer him, perhaps, to Clause 9(2), where the procedure is set out. What we say is that this is too narrow. It is not right to say to a man, "You must show you have conscientious grounds"—these very narrow grounds indeed—"before you can exercise your statutory right not to join a trade union."
I can give some examples. Let me give the Committee one now, perhaps—rather a good one. It is sometimes said that some of these closed shop agreements are rather old, that they have been going for some time, but let me refer to a new one. British Rail signed a closed shop agreement with three railway unions which came into effect on January 1, 1970. British Rail have a total work force of 207,515 workers. This agreement has a model conscience clause, and a procedure and a tribunal to which individuals can go. And how many workers out of 207,515 have established conscientious grounds for non-membership? The figure is five. It is a very small number indeed.
LORD BYERS: Is that the number which have been established, or is that the number of applications?
LORD WINDLESHAM: That is the number which have been established. There have been 131 applications and 23 appeals.
LORD BYERS: Oh!
LORD WINDLESHAM: That is the number which have been established. Consider some of the consequences of this. I do not want to go into the detail

297
of cases, but take the example of a man who says, "I just do not want to be a member". Is that a ground of conscience, or not? He may not know why. It may be that he does not particularly feel he will get on with the union organisers. For whatever reason, do we have to pin him down and say precisely how we define conscience? Consider some of the consequences of the British Rail agreement. There is the man who, having been a train driver with 44 years' service, and is aged 61, was dismissed because he refused to join the relevant union under this agreement. We think that that is much too narrow; that it should be possible, as it is under the agency shop agreement, for somebody to pay his money to the union, and for him not to be a member without having to establish these grounds of conscience. I hope that has answered the question that was put to me by the noble Lord opposite.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN: I am sorry to interrupt again, but perhaps I may just remind the noble Lord that when this Amendment was put down it accepted the fact that there was an agency shop, and what I have heard from the noble Lord was that, although he was not going to move that particular Amendment at that time, yet it was there all the time. I never thought about this as being opposed to an agency shop. I think agency shops are very good things indeed. It is quite wrong for the noble Lord to say that this Amendment cuts out agency shops. Of course it does not.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The right reverend Prelate must prove that point. He asserts that it does not, I assert that it does. Will he please establish it?
THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN: It is here in the subsection, immediately before the words deleted by the Amendment:
"subject to subsections (3) and (4) of this Section."
This is taking it for granted that there is going to be an agency shop.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I really do not think that is right. Perhaps it is something we can pursue at a later date. We
298
have studied this, and the official advisers have studied it, and there is no doubt that if it is said that the right not to join a trade union can be exercised only on grounds of conscience—the noble Lord is proposing to leave out some parts of Clause 5 later—that would be the effect. May I now move on to some of the other general arguments?
LORD GARDINER: Would the noble Lord tell us why? I cannot follow why this is inconsistent with the agency shop.
LORD WINDLESHAM: May I suggest that the noble and learned Lord studies the wording of Clause 5(1). It really makes the matter quite clear.
BARONESS WHITE: With great respect, at this late hour the noble Lord could perhaps be clearer. I agree that the words in the Bill have been somewhat altered by the paving Amendment, but I think that all of us who have been discussing the matter have been under the same impression as the right reverend Prelate: that the Amendment which he moved is subject to the provisions for both agency shops and, in Clause 16, closed shops. Both conditions provide for consciousness objection, payment to charity and all the rest. We were not under the impression that the Amendment now being discussed would alter that situation either for agency shops or for the closed shop.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The agency shop proposals, which are contained in a later part of the clause, presume that somebody can opt out from joining a union other than on grounds of conscience. That is essential to the whole of point of the agency shop device.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: From reading the Bill, we were under the impression that they could opt out, and that if they had any conscientious objection they could subscribe to charity. The matter is not clear to me. I apologise for that, but I am not a lawyer.
LORD WINDLESHAM: If the person has conscientious grounds for not joining he makes a payment to charity; if he wishes not to join the union on grounds other than of conscience he makes a payment to the union funds. That is the position.

299
There is a good deal more to say on this. One of the key issues is how "conscience" would be interpreted. Conscience is a word that means many different things to many different people. There may be workers who believe that their union is ineffective or understaffed or ill-equipped and that, as a result, it gives no worthwhile service. There may be others who think that their union emphasises the interests of one group to the detriment of other groups of its members. Others may prefer not to join because the union has not in the past kept to agreements it entered into, or because it is far too ready to engage in strike action; while some people take the opposite view.
May I develop this point? Are these to be regarded as grounds of conscience or not? It is difficult to believe that any of them would be regarded as a ground of conscience, yet that is the sort of consideration which probably leads people into the position that they may not wish to exercise their right to join a union. The Amendment, therefore, faces us with a dilemma. I should like to say, as did the noble Baroness opposite, that the Government have listened to this Amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Rochester, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and the right reverend Prelate with interest and with sympathy; but there are these difficulties. Either we widen the idea of conscience, so that it encompasses a range of motives which most of us would regard as other than conscience, or we maintain the present rather restrictive and precise idea of "conscientious objection", of which I gave an example in the British Rail agreement earlier, and thereby limit the freedom of association of individuals.
Perhaps I might end by reminding the right reverend Prelate and the Committee that Queen Elizabeth I was loth to "make windows into men's souls" so long as she could feel sure that her subjects conformed to a reasonable and moderate pattern of church going. We should do well to do the same. Let us not pry too much into men's motives. Let us not
tell them what should or should not be a proper matter for their consciences; and let us remember all the time that under the Bill, where there are agency shop proposals, no-one can benefit from union negotiations without making a financial contribution. We regard this as a reasonable and moderate pattern of industrial relations for the future.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: In view of the fact that conscience is a still, small voice, and the right reverend Prelate has moved the Amendment in such eloquent terms, could the Government not accept this on2e at this late hour?
THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN:
The Government themselves have not defined what is meant by "conscientious grounds", though they mention it in connection with the agency shop—they have plenty of opportunity to do so—and I should be very glad to offer the services of my fellow Prelates on this Bench to assist them if they so desire. We seem to be making rather heavy weather of this Amendment. My noble friend has not really answered any of the questions I addressed to him as to whether, from the Government's point of view, he wishes to encourage and strengthen trade unions. This is the basic point. I am thinking not only of people who want to join trade unions but of people who are members of trade unions; and if the words "if he so desires" are included, I believe that a very large number of people will opt out of the unions, because they are almost being encouraged to do so. I do not for one moment accept the noble Lord's statements about the agency shop. I believe in the agency shop; I believe most of all in the closed shop. But I am prepared to accept the agency shop if there are sufficient safeguards. It is really nonsense to say that this Amendment rules out the agency shop—it does not—and I only hope that your Lordships will support this Amendment.
10.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 43; Not-Contents, 119.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Bernstein, L.

Brown, L.

Arran, E.

Beswick, L.

Burntwood, L.

Barrington, V.

Blackburn, L. Bp. [Teller.]

Byers, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Blyton, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Collison, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hoy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Janner, L.

St. Davids, V.

Diamond, L.

Kennet, L.

Serota, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Shackleton, L.

Fiske, L.

Mais, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gardiner, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Swaythling, L.

Hamnett, L.

Platt, L.

White, Bs.

Henley, L.

Raglan, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Rochester, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Abinger, L.

Effingham, E.

Merthyr, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Allerton, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Monk of Bretton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Exeter, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Atholl, D.

Falkland, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Balerno, L.

Falmouth, V.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrier, L.

Pender, L.

Barnby, L.

Fisher, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bathurst, E.

Fortescue, E.

Redesdale, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Redmayne, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gage, V.

Rochdale, V.

Belstead, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bessborough, E.

Glasgow, E.

St. Helens, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Glendevon, L.

St Just, L.

Brecon, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Oswald, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gowrie, E.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gray, L.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Savile, L.

Buchan, E.

Grenfell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Burgh, L.

Gridley, L.

Selsdon, L.

Carrington, L.

Hailes, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Chesham, L.

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

Shaftesbury, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Somers, L.

Coleridge, L.

Harcourt, V.

Stamp, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Colyton, L.

Hastings, L.

Stratheona and Mount Royal, L.

Conesford, L.

Hives, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hood, V.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Cowley, E.

Ilford, L.

Templemore, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Inglewood, L.

Teviot, L.

Crathorne, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Thomas, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kemsley, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kilmany, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Latymer, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Ward of Whitley, V.

Dudley, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Dundee, E.

Margadale, L.

Yarborough, E.

Dundonald, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

11.10 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 4, line 3, leave out from ("union") to end of line 7.
The noble Lord said: This is the first of three Amendments which we have put down to elucidate, or to amplify (as the case may be), the provisions of subsection (1)(c) of the clause. The spokesmen for the Government have emphasised again and again that in this subsection
302
we are dealing with the relationship of the individual worker with his employer in the context of trade union membership and activity. It is a little surprising to find in this context the words which this Amendment proposes to leave out. It appears to us that these references to particular types of union activity go somewhat beyond the aspects of trade union activity on the part of an individual in which we would expect his employer to be interested. These are internal activities of the trade union. They are regulated by the rules and practice of the union. This is not a field in which the employer could necessarily expect to be

303
well informed. It is not clear, for example, how an employer is able to judge that activities undertaken with a view to becoming an official of the union are legitimate or normal in the case of that union. We should therefore welcome some discussion of, and some further clarification from the Government about, precisely what they have in mind in inserting this phraseology in the subsection. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: In the absence of my noble friend, perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I reply to the noble Lord. He has proposed in this Amendment and in the one which follows two changes in the wording of subsection (1)(c), which I suspect would have exactly the opposite effect to that which he intends. The noble Lord has asked a question rather than given a reason for an Amendment. I make no complaint, except that it is a disconcerting habit and I hoped that the noble Lord would have given me notice.
He has asked a question which bears no obvious relation to the Amendment, but the question betrayed, I think, quite clearly that he had not really grasped what paragraph (c) is about. Paragraph (c) is basically about the right to trade union activities during working hours, and only during working hours, although as I go on you will see that there are some exceptions, because the key words in paragraph (c) are "at any appropriate time". The right given by paragraph (c) is to engage in certain activities, which are defined more exactly in the rest of the paragraph, "at any appropriate time". If you want to see what "any appropriate time" is you go to subsection (6) of the clause which says—
"In this section "appropriate time", in relation to a worker taking part in any activities of a trade union, means time which either—

(a) is outside his working hours, or

(b) is a time within his working hours at which, in accordance with arrangements agreed with, or consent given by or on behalf of, his employer …"

Subsection (b) goes on to define working hours in relation to a worker. It is not necessary to go into that matter—the definition is there to be read if it becomes material.
The key to paragraph (c) lies in the fact that it defines union activities which may be done in working hours or by
304
agreement with the employer. That is the restriction—and it is the only restriction. It has not anything to do with normal trade union activities or the right to engage in them outside working hours, nor does it impose limits on the number of activities which can take place with the employer's agreement.
Having given that explanation of the existing draft, I now look at the Amendments. The one now under discussion, Amendment No. 32, concerns Clause 5, page 4, line 3, to leave out from "union" to the end of line 7. At any rate, looking at the clause you see that it leaves out the words from "including" to "official" in paragraph (c). The effect of that would be to leave it in doubt whether the worker had a right to seek appointment or election or to hold office in his union during working hours, and the effect would therefore be to restrict rather than increase the scope for trade union activities but make it legitimate for a worker to take part in other activities, whatever other activities derive from union membership, during working hours. That is the other Amendment which I will speak to when it is moved.
I find it difficult to understand what this Amendment was designed to achieve, since the noble Lord did not explain what it was designed to achieve. The only effect of it is to leave it in doubt whether the worker had a right to seek appointment or election or to hold office in his union during working hours. The only answer I can give to the noble Lord's question, because his speech in moving the Amendment was confined solely to the question as to what the clause meant, is the explanation which I have given. I hope that it has given the noble Lord the information he wanted, although I am not quite sure what information he did want. All that is clear in my mind is that the Amendment as such is misconceived and would achieve the opposite result from what is intended.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should like to ask a question, in view of the fact that we have now included in the discussion the words that it is proposed to leave out. Would a person who was a member of a union have the right at the "appropriate time" of taking a ballot box in for balloting during working hours, for him to act as the union official? If so, can that be made clear?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Whether carrying in or out a ballot box is one of the union's activities must depend on the actual rules of the union concerned. It may be wholly outside the union's activities. Some unions object violently to ballot boxes. Without knowing the rules of the union, I could not say whether it was a union activity. But this allows union activities, as a right, including the use of ballot boxes, outside working hours or by agreement with the employer. If you look at subsection (6), it is the "outside … working hours" and the agreement with the employer which provide the general right to engage in union activities. The restriction is that you do not have the same right to engage in union activities during working hours as you do outside. But the ballot box point could not be answered unless one knew what the union rules were, and whether the act in question was part of the union's activities.
LORD BROWN: I would suggest to my noble friends on the Front Bench that they should withdraw this Amendment. The parts which they seek to delete do not in any way limit the activities of members of trade unions while at work. They extend them by exemplification and by specific suggestions. I have visited a lot of firms during the last five years in connection with exports, and invariably the subject of labour relations has come up. I have said to chief executives of these medium and small-sized firms: "How many of your convenors and shop stewards have an office, a telephone and a little clerical help?" This often produced a sense of outrage in some of these people. Many managers, superintendents and foremen in small and medium plants still live in the backwoods. The idea that they should help people in elections or procedures by which they might become shop stewards, or to accept appointment or election, and to help them to hold office, is still foreign to many managers in factories.
The clause, as it stands, makes it quite clear that they have the right to do so. This is most valuable. It will prevent the backwoodsmen in the managerial field in industry from exercising some of these ridiculous restraints on these people, sometimes depriving them of due promotion simply because they have been told to stand for election to help their fellows in the factory. The reason for the
306
Amendment, which cuts out this rather valuable citation of their rights, completely puzzles me. It does not limit the right of a trade union member from taking part in the activities of the union. It does not condition that right. It exemplifies it somewhat, and makes quite specific certain additional rights. Why are we proposing this Amendment? I should like to hear, with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, what the purpose of the Amendment is, because I have read it backwards and forwards—and I am not without experience in these matters—and cannot understand it. I think the clause as it stands is helpful.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I am as puzzled as my noble friend, Lord Brown, but for rather different reasons. It seems that the definition in subsection (6) is that men can do anything they like in their own time—we know that already—and they may do anything to which the employer agrees in his time. We know that also. What is the point of making a list of things they can do if the employer agrees? I do not understand it at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I shall try very hard to make the noble Lord understand. If the employer agrees, they can do it during working hours.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: They can anyway without anything in this Bill. The Lord Chancellor has added nothing to my intelligence on this matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot add to the noble Lord's intelligence, but I do hope to add to his information. I can only do that which is within human possibility. The point ' is that the worker has an absolute right to engage in trade union activities, and if the employer tries, as some backwoodsman might (I have often heard that phrase used in a different connection but in this connection it is used of a backwoodsman who is an employer), to deter him, he incurs the penalties, if that is the right word, of subsection (2). That is why the clause is there. It gives the worker a right to enforce against his employer which he would not otherwise have. The right is extended in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, tried to I explain to his colleagues, to clarify the situation during working hours.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I also am confused. I have had experience of trade union officials and shop stewards, but I cannot see the purpose of this clause. There must be a reason for it. I am sure that it was not done out of the goodness of heart of noble Lords opposite to help trade unions. If trade union officials told the Government that this would not help them, would they allow this Amendment to go through?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The
answer to that is distinctly "No" because, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said, no one has explained what the Amendment is for. As the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, has excluded the only reason which is the true one—that it is done entirely out of the goodness of our hearts—I cannot expect to explain it to him again.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Are we to assume that if Lord Brown says something the Government accept it without question? If we can know that it might help us in future debates. The wordings of this Amendment seems to be innocuous. A great number of trade union officials have been given the opportunity of a wider horizon and have become members of management. They have not become gamekeepers turned poachers, they have not sold the pan, but they have extended themselves and become better people in management as well as in unions. They have been offered opportunities of membership on hospital boards and the like. What is the point of the clause if it is not to restrict them? I cannot believe that the reason for the clause is to help a shop steward against his employer. I do not know of a case in which an employer would refuse a shop steward the opportunity of development in doing his trade union work. Lord Brown says he knows of some, but I do not know any enlightened employers who would do that.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am
sorry if I disconcert the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor by doing again what he chided me for doing on an earlier subsection—inviting him, or one of his noble colleagues, to say precisely what the Bill which the Government put forward means, and what the words to which we have drawn attention
308
add to what is already in the subsection. I must confess that I do not see that the words in our Amendment add anything to the earlier part of the clause which talks about the right to take part in the activities of a trade union. It was to try to elicit what they were intended to add to the earlier part of the subsection that we put down this Amendment. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord is well acquainted with the practice of putting down Amendments for precisely this purpose; it is not really a unique course to take. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for pointing out to me the phrase, "at any appropriate time". I had noticed that it was in the subsection, and have also noted the point which has been made by one of my noble friends: that in this Bill members of trade unions are given the right to pursue trade union activity in their own time. I suppose one must be grateful for small mercies.
In the light of what has been said, I should like to make the observation that I trust that the points which my noble friend Lord Brown made about the advisability and suitability of giving facilities for carrying on trade union work, which would have been more appropriate than the words to which our Amendment draws attention, should be incorporated in the code of practice. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.32 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 4, line 3, after ("union") insert ("and any other activities which derive from trade union membership").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment adds something to the clause as it now stands. It will be well within the knowledge of noble Lords that there arise from normal and direct trade union activity many associated activities, carried on in a variety of associations. Trades councils are frequently invited to nominate representatives to serve on public bodies, local employment committees, youth employment committees, national insurance local advisory committees, disablement advisory committees, war pensions committees, national insurance appeals tribunals, national assistance

309
appeals tribunals, health executive councils, hospital management committees, and other committees in the hospital service. Or they are invited to nominate people to serve on a range of educational bodies: school governors, governors of technical colleges, and so forth. In addition, there are a wide range of voluntary organisations which welcome the interest of trades councils and their cooperation, often expressed in the invitation to representatives of trades councils to become members of committees of these voluntary organisations. Last, but by no means least, there are local authorities which in many towns invite the trades councils to nominate individuals to serve on local authority committees.
I am sure that all of us would agree that this work is extremely valuable. So is the fact that people who have mainly gained their experience of public work in the trade union movement are invited to become magistrates. There is a wide range of activity which people enter by virtue of having gained trade union experience, or enjoying the confidence of their trade union colleagues. It would be desirable, in view of the provisions already made in this subsection, to seek to give some kind of guarantee that these broader activities will also be brought within the framework proposed in this subsection, that employers will know that Parliament, through this Bill, has given a measure of support to those employees who wish to serve the community in this way. I think this is an Amendment which will commend itself to noble Lords in all parts of the Committee, and I trust that the Government will be able to accept it in wording or, if not in wording, in substance.
11.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I hope not to seem curt, because I am afraid there is relatively little to be said about this Amendment. Indeed, I had at one time rather anticipated that it might have been taken with the last one. The last one would have left out certain legitimate trade union activities from those which are authorised by the clause. This one inserts a new but wholly undefined band of activities; and even having heard what the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, says about them, I really do not think they are capable of definition in language
310
as vague as this. I should be the first to accept that there are a great many things which a good employer will do for responsible trade unionists who happen to hold office in a trade union and who are also in his employment. These activities may include membership of the House of Commons; they may include a great number of extra-curricula activities, which I certainly spend some of my time trying to induce employers to make time for—the one which is in my mind most is membership of the Bench.
I do not think it can go into the Bill at this stage as one of the fundamental rights of the worker to do this in the employer's time. If he does it outside working hours, he does not, for the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, gave in the last Amendment, need the words in the clause at all. If he does it during working hours he can do it with the employer's good will, of course, but he cannot enforce it against the employer if the clause remains as drafted. I do not think I could recommend the Committee to put into an enforceable clause something so incapable of definition as the enormous range of activities which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, adumbrated, but of which I think he only gave examples. I think there would be no end to it.
We are, after all, trying to pass a law and, with the best will in the world—and I hope the noble Lord will accept a certain expression of good will on my part towards the spirit underlying the Amendment—I would say to him that I do not know what is in my right honourable friend's mind as put into the code of industrial practice, and I deliberately did not take a very great part in that part of the debate, until we got on to the relationship between the code of industrial practice and the courts. It may be that this type of activity could find a place in that code, or it may not. But what I feel absolutely confident of is that it does not find a place in the Bill. Although I do, as I say, accompany my refusal with an expression of good will, I do not think I can do more.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Does this not show the difficulty in which both Houses of Parliament have now got themselves because the canvas is so broad? We interpret the rights of trade union

311
members under Clause 5; and then we go on to this provision "at any appropriate time", and only then with the consent of the employer. The fact is that it has always been more or less like this, but we are now getting so involved with verbiage that we are putting the clock back on matters which have been won by custom. There are times when custom is more powerful than the law. Local government members here who have had to get a list of rural footpaths, and things like that, may have started looking up custom, and they will have found that sometimes unwritten laws and procedures which are accepted are more powerful than phrases written with a quill pen. This is the tragedy. We seem now to be expanding everything to try to get all things dealing with trade unions into a book. The strength of the British Constitution has been that it is unwritten and depends more or less on the profound commonsense of the British people. Here we seem to be messing about, undermining the traditional building up of commonsense.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I understand the difficulty of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in accepting the words of this Amendment. I hope that for his part he will understand and accept my difficulty. It is twofold: first, we do not yet know whether the code of practice will refer to this point with which the noble and learned Lord has expressed goodwill. If it does not, and if this subsection remains un-amended, I believe some difficulty can arise, because I am sure the noble and learned Lord will appreciate that when an effort is made to set out matters so comprehensively in regard to trade union activities within the place of work there inevitably arises some degree of prejudice against any items which are not included. This is one of my anxieties about the Bill, that in fact where it defines rights it may encourage people who are so minded to say that they are not only obliged to give the rights, but that they are virtually precluded from going beyond the rights for trade unionists which are specified in the Bill. If the noble and learned Lord will go a little further —and I think I am only really asking him to express his goodwill in different language—and if he will say that he will
312
seek means to meet the substance of this Amendment, either in the Bill at a subsequent stage or in the code of practice, I am sure my noble friends will be well satisfied.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think the noble Lord is asking me to go much beyond what I have already said, but he may be going further than I can go because I really cannot say what my right honourable friend can put in the Bill in the light of what I have put to the noble Lord. My own expertise is an expertise of law and I cannot go further. Of course I will promise the noble Lord that I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to what the noble Lord has said, and I am sure he will go as far as he possibly can, but my expertise is exhausted. My impression is that it cannot be done, but I will certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: If the noble and learned Lord will add to that the expression of his own influential sympathy my colleagues and I will be quite content. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 4, line 7, at end insert ("which is designated in and subject to the rules of the union").
The noble Lord said: These words come at the end of what will be, if they are included, a rather unmanageable sentence. The words
"which is designated in and subject to the rules of the union"
are intended to refer to "office" and it would appear to us to be appropriate to include them. It will be within the knowledge of noble Lords that there are rules in a number of unions which deal with the eligibility for holding office. I do not wish at this stage to enter into a discussion on the appropriateness or desirability of such rules, but will merely say that some trade unions have thought it appropriate to incorporate them, and: what, if this Bill becomes an Act in its present form, will be the fate of some of these rules I should not like to say. However, at the moment they exist and we feel it appropriate that the reference in the I subsection as it stands should be qualified

313
by words which emphasise the necessity for the office to which there is reference being that "which is designated in and subject to the rules of the union." I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The Committee will be grateful for that explanation, because I think other noble Lords will have shared with me difficulty in understanding what this Amendment was aimed at. The noble Lord has said that there might be cases where office holders might not be eligible to hold that office. The wording of the Bill as it stands is confined to workers holding legitimate office in the union, and we have found it rather difficult to envisage a situation where a worker might hold office which was neither "designated in" nor "subject to the rules of the union." If the office was not designated in the official rules of the union, presumably it would not then be an official office, and if that was the case the protection afforded in this part of Clause 5 would not be given to the holder. So I think that the doubts the noble Lord has expressed are met by the Bill as it is drafted.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I think we shall want to look at this point in the light of what has been said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: In calling Amendment No. 35, may I point out to the Committee that if No. 35 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Nos. 36 to 42 inclusive.
11.47 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 4, line 8, leave out from ("be") to the end of line 23 and insert ("an implied term of every contract of employment that neither the employer nor any person acting on the employer's behalf shall do anything for the purpose of—

(a) preventing or deterring the employee from being or becoming a member of a trade union or penalising him by reason of his being or becoming such a member, or

(b) requiring or compelling him to be or become a member of an organisation of employees which is not a trade union within the meaning of this section or penalising him by reason of his not being or becoming such a member,

and any provision of such contract inconsistent with that term or purporting to exclude or modify it shall be void.
314
For the purposes of this section "trade union" includes any organisation of employees whether or not it is a registered trade union within the meaning of this Act but excludes any such organisation if it is under the domination or control of any employer or group of employers or of one or more employers' associations").
The noble Lord said: This is a fairly lengthy Amendment, but I think it is largely self-explanatory. Indeed, I feel that very little is required from me by way of further explanation of it. It does, of course, in the final paragraph, seek to modify the definition of "trade union" which is included in another Part of the Bill. It may be that this will be one of the points to which noble Lords opposite will wish to refer, but I am at this stage prepared to leave the matter on the basis of the wording as set out on the Marshalled List. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: This Amendment, as the noble Lord said, is a fairly substantial Amendment, and it would be wrong if we were to assume from the brevity of the noble Lord's remarks that the Amendment was of equally little consequence—because, of course, it is not. The Amendment would make it a term of the contract of employment that an employee should have the right to be a member of a union and the right to refuse to be a member of any organisation of workers which is under the control or domination of the employer; and, of course, in this it would reduce the scope of the general rights and protections which at the moment are given in Clause 5. The noble Lord will not be surprised if I tell him that the Amendment does not exactly commend itself to the Government, for a variety of reasons.
First, as I say, under this Amendment the right to belong to a union would become a term of every contract of employment, and is therefore restricted to employees only: there would be no protection for those who work under a contract for services. As it stands, Clause 5(2) protects workers against discrimination on account of their being a member of a trade union, and the right to trade union membership is protected, and any attempt by the employer to discriminate, penalise or dismiss a person would be an unfair industrial practice. But the proposed Amendment would provide this protection only where a contract of employment existed. The employer, if the

315
Amendment were accepted, would be free not to engage a worker on the grounds that he was not a union member because, at the time when he applied for the job, no contract of employment existed, and the worker would therefore be unprotected by this Amendment. It would allow the continuation of the pre-entry closed shop. While many may argue that in certain circumstances this is desirable, the Government do not believe that it is necessary or right for the employment of workers to be determined solely on the grounds of whether or not, at the time of the application for a job, the person in question was a member of a particular trade union. But of course unions are free, and indeed they will be free, to discuss with the management the level of skills which they believe should be obtained in that place of work, and to encourage the management not to engage people who do not come up to this particular level.
We do not believe that it is right or appropriate that the opportunity of employment should depend on whether the appropriate union card is held by the applicant when he applies for a job. Again, the Amendment would encourage an employer who wishes to keep union members out of his establishment to do so, because he is much more likely to wish to refuse employment on account of the fact that a person is a member rather than to penalise him should he have entered his employment. This would therefore encourage him to take care not to let union members into his employment.
The Amendment is also in conflict with the general principle of the Bill that matters relating to industrial relations should be excluded from the ordinary courts, and should be confined to the industrial tribunals and the National Industrial Relations Court. Infringement of the right to belong to a union under this Amendment would give rise to an action for breach of contract which, like other breach of contract actions, would be determined in the ordinary courts.
The last paragraph of the Amendment is intended to secure rights for those who belong to unregistered organisations of workers. It is inherent in the Bill as a whole that it is to registered trade unions that the advantages, benefits and
316
privileges given in this Bill should accrue; and not necessarily to organisations which have not gone to the state of registration. As we have seen before, the criteria for registration are not great, but it is believed that the purpose of registration is to show that unions who have been prepared to go to this extent have rules which are fair to their members, just and democratic. I think it is entirely reasonable that individual members of the community should be given some assurance as to the standards maintained by such organisations in the conduct of their affairs. For all these reasons, this Amendment is not acceptable as it stands.
LORD DELACOURT-SM1TH: In this Amendment we have sought to cover a number of points, and we recognised that they would not commend themselves to the Government. But in view of the way in which the Bill has developed, with the new clauses which are before us, I think it would be more appropriate for us to return at later stages of the Bill to the points which are covered in this Amendment. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.56 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 4, line 14, after ("right") insert ("or to provide or offer any inducement to an individual worker or workers to refrain from exercising such right")
The noble Lord said: The wording of this Amendment is identical with the wording of Amendment No. 37, although the placing of the two Amendments differs. I know that noble Lords on the Liberal Benches wish to contribute on this subject, and I think we are substantially in agreement with them. Here again this is an Amendment which very largely speaks for itself, since it is the counterpart of those parts of Clause 5 which preclude an employer from seeking by discrimination or by penalty to prevent the exercise of the rights of the individual, in the sense that we are seeking to prevent the offer of inducements to individuals to refrain from exercising their rights. I beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: As the noble Lord has said, we should I like to associate ourselves with this

317
Amendment. We agree that the noble Lord and his friends have placed this Amendment in a better place than we put it, and I should like to thank them for agreeing that we should move the Amendment with them. If there had been time, our names would also have appeared on the Marshalled List. All must realise, as both Parties on this side have always realised, that money can be used to force someone just as much as any other form of compulsion, and employers are in a very strong position if they want to try to bribe someone in a certain situation. I am not saying that this has often happened but, together with the very right safeguards which the Government have inserted, this is one that should be in the Bill. I look forward with interest to hearing what the Government are going to say, because, on the face of it, this is an Amendment which should almost be accepted "on the nod". I hope that the Government will at any rate give it very serious consideration.
12 midnight.
LORD WINDLESHAM: These two Amendments—the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has explained that, although he did not move Amendment No. 37, he refrained from doing so in order to join with the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, on Amendment No. 39—would make it an unfair industrial practice for an employer to provide or offer any inducements to an individual worker (or workers) to refrain from exercising the right conferred by Clause 5 to join or not to join such trade union as he may choose and to take part in its activities. The Amendment would therefore apply both to the right to belong to a trade union and to the right not to belong. As regards the right not to belong, which is contained in Clause 5(1)(b), this is already covered in subsection (5) of Clause 5, which rules out any reward for compliance or penalty for non-compliance when an employer seeks to encourage a worker to join a union. I should also draw the attention of members of the Committee to the anti-discrimination provisions in Clause 5(2)(b). These would apply to both the right to belong and the right not to belong. If an employer was to offer an inducement to a worker to refrain from exercising his right to join a union, he would by that act be discriminating against the other employees
318
who were not offered a similar benefit, and they would have a right of action under this particular clause.
Moreover, in Clause 5(2)(a) it is an unfair industrial practice for an employer "to prevent or deter a worker", and I think that by many members of the Committee the offering of an inducement—perhaps a financial inducement or an inducement of some value—would be regarded as an act by the employer which would deter in the way in which the word is used there. But the main difficulty we have about this particular proposal relates really to the enforcement provisions of the Bill, which are much later on—Clause 102 and elsewhere. It is not the man who is offered an inducement who will have suffered harm, of course. It is not that particular man who suffers harm, and therefore it is unlikely that he will come forward and complain against this practice. Therefore, there are considerable difficulties as regards enforcement in relation to this particular proposal.
LORD BROWN: Would the noble Lord permit me to ask a question here? This Amendment seeks to make this a part of the code of industrial practice. I am a little puzzled by the noble Lord referring to enforcement, because the code of industrial practice does not constitute an offence in itself. It is something which would be brought into discussion before the courts.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think the noble Lord's eyesight must be failing him at this time of the evening. This does not affect the code of industrial practice. The words are,
"It shall accordingly be an unfair industrial practice …"
This does not refer to the code. But let me move on, because I intend to be con ciliatory, and it may help our proceedings
to do so. We accept the thinking behind this Amendment, that it would be undesirable if an employer was inclined to offer an inducement; and that being so, we have four courses of action open to us. We can say that the difficulties to which I have referred are such that we must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment. That would be one course of action. The second would be to accept the Amendment outright. The third would be to say that we are prepared to

319
look at it again but, because of the difficulties I have mentioned, we do not have any great hopes of being able to come up with a solution; and the fourth is to say that we are willing and ready to look at it again in conjunction with noble Lords opposite with some hope that we may be able to reach a solution.
Our intention is to follow the fourth course. We agree entirely that the offer of an inducement for such a purpose should be regarded as an unfair industrial practice, and will undertake to introduce words to make this point explicit while avoiding the consequential drafting problems which would arise from simply adopting the terms of the Amendment now before the Committee. We shall be glad to discuss with noble Lords opposite and on the Liberal Benches the best way of achieving this object. With that assurance perhaps the noble Lord might feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I say to the noble Lord that if he is going to be conciliatory he does not always need to keep us on tenterhooks? It was noble of him to say that the Government intend to be helpful, but there was no need to discuss the other alternatives.
LORD BYERS: We welcome the four courses and the choice made.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I take it that the noble Lord will consider this matter in conjunction with noble Lords on this side with a view to putting down an Amendment at some subsequent stage. In the light of that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 40 which is linked with Amendment No. 38 which I moved earlier.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 15, leave out ("subsections (3) and (4) of this") and insert ("the next following")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41:
Page 4. line 19, leave out from ("union") to end of line 23.
The noble Lord said: The point of this Amendment will not be unfamiliar to
320
your Lordships. We have already covered this matter to a large extent in the discussion on an earlier Amendment; although I think it is true to say that this l is the first point at which we explicitly raise the question of its not being necessarily regarded as an unfair practice for an employer to refuse to engage a worker on the grounds that at the time he applied he was not a member of a particular trade union or other organisation of workers. This is a matter to which we shall return in much more detail on subsequent clauses in the Bill. In view of the hour I do not propose to move this Amendment, although I am sure that noble Lords on the other side will not regard this as signifying any change of heart on my part or on the part of my noble friends.
12.10 a.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 4. line 23, at end, insert—
("(d) in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to induce or attempt to induce any member or members of an independent organisation of workers to either leave that organisation or to act other than in conformity with its rules and policy.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment requires more consideration by your Lordships' House. Although again I do not think it will be necesary for me to detain your Lordships with a long speech, as with an earlier Amendment, the brevity of an Amendment is no indication of its scope and significance. This Amendment deals with a situation in which, in the course of a trade dispute, an employer induces or attempts to induce members of an independent organisation or workers—that is to say a non-registered trade union—either to leave that organisation or to act other than in conformity with its rules and policy.
I hope that both sides of the Committee will find it possible to accept that such a provision should be incorporated in the Bill. When a trade dispute is taking place it seeks to secure that there shall be no endeavour by an employer, by propaganda, by direct approaches to individual workers, or in any other way, to encourage members of that organisation to leave it or to disregard its rules and policy—that is to say, to disregard 1 decisions taken in accordance with its

321
rules and policy which have been properly laid down by that organisation, even though the decisions, in accordance with the rules and policy laid down, may have produced the trade dispute in question.
The proposed legislation already places independent organisations of workers at a disadvantage. It imposes disadvantages on those organisations of workers which have not chosen, by registration, to bring themselves within the definition of trade unions set out in the present Bill. We are seeking here to ensure acceptance that in a trade dispute there should not arise the exceedingly provocative course of the employer attempting to undermine the organisation by endeavouring to get its members to leave that organisation or to induce them to disregard decisions for industrial action which might properly have been taken in conformity with the rules of the organisation. I think the case for this Amendment can be very briefly set out, and I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to noble Lords in all parts of the Committee. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I comment very shortly on this Amendment? It really depends on how we want to handle it. It raises two quite simple points, and I should like to consult the wishes of the Committee, so far as I can. Obviously, the Amendment raises the question of an unregistered trade union. Clearly, we shall have a grand debate on that question at some time, but I wonder whether this is the appropriate moment at which to have it. At some stage in our Committee proceedings there will be a battle royal about registration and its consequences. I should have thought it would be a pity to have several battles royal in which the arguments are not fully deployed on both sides. It is like the closed shop and one or two other principles: we want to deploy the argument on the great debate which can be raised on this Bill.
I rather doubt whether now is the appropriate time to fight that battle, and therefore what I want to say about this Amendment, with the consent of the Committee, is this. The noble Lord proposes to add to the end of subsection (2)
322
of Clause 5 a further unfair industrial practice:
"(d) in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to induce, or attempt to induce any member or members of an independent organisation of workers to either leave that organisation or to act other than in conformity with its rules and policy."
In so far as this Amendment would confer privileges on an unregistered trade union this raises an issue which I do not particularly want to broach now but about which we shall, as I say, have to have a battle royal at some stage. But I hope that we can leave that on one side for the moment. Obviously "an independent organisation of workers" can refer to a registered trade union, and there we take a very different view. We think that the right to belong to a registered trade union is already fully protected in the Bill as drafted, by subsection (1) and by subsection (2)(a) of Clause 5. If the noble Lord can persuade me as regards registered trade unions that we have not already given this protection, I will ask my right honourable friend to examine the force of his argument between now and Report, because I think we do intend to give the protection to a registered trade union.
This is not intended as a concession, because we think that we have done it already. But if there is a case to be made that we have not, we should like to take account of anything that is said. So far as unregistered trade unions are concerned, this is part of the general battle which I shall hope to broach later and discuss at full length when the Committee is fuller and when we are fresher to fight an important political battle.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Would the noble and learned Lord repeat again where he considers the position of the organisation which is registered as a trade union is covered?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it is covered by Clause 5(1), which gives every worker the right to belong to a trade union and to take part in trade union activities. That is the clause we have been on most of the day. Subsection (2) makes it an unfair industrial practice
"to prevent or deter a worker from exercising any of the rights conferred on him by subsection (1)."

323
Our view is that an employer could not induce a union member to leave his union without running foul of these provisions. If the noble Lord has a case that, by inadvertence, we have left out something, or that we have not covered that adequately, that is something which I should wish to consider. It would be basically a criticism of the drafting of the clause and something about which I should not wish to have a battle now because, if he is right, we should like to consider it. I do not want to offer any hope about unregistered bodies, because that is a difference between us.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I should like to make a very brief intervention. This point has been made before by the noble and learned Lord about the definition of an independent organisation of workers and its reference to unregistered trade unions. Surely, if an Amendment incorporating these words were brought into the Bill it would carry the definition of "independent" in Clause 158, which is totally different from registration or non-registration.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think it would but, unless I am mistaken about the meaning of this—again I may be wrong—anything in the Bill which reflects part of the Interpretation clause, Clause 158, would include that. But I think it was intended that this phrase should cover both registered trade unions and other bodies which were not registered as such. I think I am right in saying that the net effect of that would be to raise the issue, which I do not particularly want to raise now, whether unregistered bodies should have privileges of this kind. If I am wrong about that, that part does not arise and we need not argue it for the quite different reason that it does not apply.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for having made this brief intervention. I did not want to split hairs or confuse the issue at this stage, but it did seem to me that there was a point to make.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: If I may just make reference in the first place to the position of the registered trade union, I must of course accept the guidance of the noble and learned Lord, but as a layman I do not see how "inducing
324
a member or members to leave the organisation or to act other than in conformity with its rules and policy" is completely covered by the two subsections to which the noble and learned Lord has referred. I appreciate that there is a right to take part in the union's activities; but surely the position, so far as positive action by the employer is concerned, arises when one comes to subsection (2), which addresses itself in this context surely to preventing or deterring a worker, to dismissing, penalising or discriminating against a worker, to refusing to engage a worker in certain circumstances, and so forth. If the noble and learned Lord is telling me that in fact to try "in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute to induce, or attempt to induce" members to leave the organisation, or to disregard its rules and policy, is brought in under those words, then naturally I must accept what he says, but I am bound to say it does not seem to me to be evident.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think there is room for argument here, because quite obviously in the course of an industrial dispute there is a sense in which every worker is breaking his contract with his employer, and every employer is asking the worker, if he asks him to stay on at work, to disregard the instructions of his union. But I do not think either side of the Committee at this hour of the night would wish to prevent the ordinary process of industrial action in that sense. But if what is meant is that, whether in the course of an industrial dispute or not, it is wrong for an employer to try to bully his workers into leaving their union, then I am wholeheartedly with the noble Lord; with this addition—which he may have forgotten and which by inadvertence I had omitted to add—that my noble friend in answer to his previous Amendment has been dealing with the question of inducement by saying that my right honourable friend and he will consider adding the question of inducement to the clause as part of his fourth alternative, as to which he kept the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, on tenterhooks for so long.
This I think is an additional reason for perhaps looking and seeing if there is any real difference between the sides of the Committee on this matter, or whether the drafting could be tightened

325
up or not. If the noble Lord is pressing me to say that any employer who asks his employee to stay at work during a strike is falling foul of the Bill, I would not go so far as that, because that is as inherent in the process of industrial action as is the employee's right to stay away from work when he is on strike. I do not think that is what the noble Lord is trying to get at with his Amendment, but, as I say, I am not clear. I cannot give him the absolute assurance that there is not a casus omissus here, but I should like to know what it is, and if he will reflect upon it and perhaps write to me, I will reflect upon it and see if there is something more to be done.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: In view of the response which the noble and learned Lord has made, at any rate on one part of the proposition, I think I can scarcely pursue this point further, especially at this time of night. He of course reserves his position, and of course we reserve our position on the situation of the unregistered union. But as I understand it he will be prepared to consider the registered union, and he does feel that the point of our Amendment, so far as the registered union is concerned, ought to be met; he feels it is already met, but he is prepared to examine the situation. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 4, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I have already explained the purpose of this Amendment. This subsection is to be left out in order to be reinstated later in a slightly amended form. I beg to move.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD HENLEY): I have to inform your Lordships that if this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 44 to 47B.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: We accept the situation, as we have already indicated, and do not wish to pursue the matter further.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 4, line 41, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This is the second of the two subsections which are being left out merely to be reinstated in the new clause, Amendment No. 53. I beg to move.
12.23 a.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 5, line 16, at end insert ("without loss of earnings").
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment the intention of which I think is perfectly clear. We are returning here to the question of the trade unionist who at an appropriate time is carrying out the activities of his trade union. The appropriate time, apart from his own time, includes that time within his working hours to which his employer has given his consent. Here we are merely incorporating what I think would be generally recognised as an appropriate feature of arrangements of this sort.
When we were on this point earlier, on subsection (1)(c), my noble friend Lord Brown referred to the desirability of facilities for workshop representatives. I think that the basic, the minimum, facility which an individual is entitled to expect is that when he is carrying out his trade union activities during his working hours, with his employer's consent, he is not deprived of his earnings for the period of time in which he is engaged in these activities. It would be possible and admissible, and in some circles regarded as necessary, to dwell upon the degree to which the activities carried out by a trade unionist in his place of work in the circumstances described are beneficial, not only to the trade union membership he is representing but also to the I firm by which he is employed. I do not really think there would be dissent in your Lordships' House to that proposition; therefore I do not propose, unless it is necessary, to labour that point. I am prepared to leave it on the basis that this is a clear position which comon sense suggests should be accepted, but which it would be just as well to embody in the Bill. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: The noble Lord has made perfectly clear what the object of the Amendment is, which is to ensure that anyone who takes part in union activities should not suffer loss of earnings on that account. As it stands, the clause protects a worker from discrimination for taking part in union activities during any time in working hours when arrangements have been made for him to do so. I think it would be pretty obvious that the arrangements made between the union and the management would include that he did not suffer loss of earnings. But if, for some curious reason, the unions and the management agreed he should suffer loss of earnings, he would not receive any protection under the Bill if the noble Lord's Amendment were pressed. It is highly unlikely that this would happen, and the majority of arrangements as to how people should take part in union activities are made as a result of agreements between the union and management which would incorporate the very point which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, fears, which is that any person taking such part should not suffer any loss of earnings. I would suggest that it would probably be best for this kind of thing to be left to the union and management in question, and I would suggest that the noble Lord's fears would not in fact materialise.
LORD BROWN: I would like to support this amendment very strongly indeed. The situation in industry is not quite as simple as it sometimes appears. A worker may have been elected to become a shop steward or something of the sort, and it may be agreed that he is given time away from his machine—I hope full time away from it if the factory is a large one—and he is assured that he will not have anything deducted from his pay. But if he is on piece work, or if as a result of doing this he is not allowed to do the normal overtime working that would accrue to him in the shop, he does effectively suffer loss of earnings simply by taking on a job through which he seeks to help his fellow workers, and also through which he seeks to be a channel of communication with management. This securing him from loss of earnings, as the Amendment suggests, can be very important indeed. It may be that if one examines the Bill carefully through a lawyer's eyes it may be unnecessary, but
328
I would much prefer to see this protection quite clearly stated, so that the backwoodsmen of management—and there are some—may know that this is very important.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I would support the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, in this. This is common practice in most enlightened companies at the present time. If you can incorporate this you will indicate that the Government are in favour of people having an opportunity of working for the trade union within the organisation of management, without loss of earnings. It can do no harm if you include it; it can do harm if you exclude it. It has to be by
"arrangements agreed with, or consent given by or on behalf of, his employer …".
If the employer does not agree that is one thing, and there is an end of it. If he does agree there is an indication here that, according to what you said before on behalf of the Government, you would be in favour of a shop steward not losing his earnings. Is it not possible for you to agree to this? It is certainly common practice, and it would please the unions.
12.35 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must point out that we are getting into a muddle here. The drafting of this Amendment renders it hopeless to achieve the object intended, unless I have it wrong, in which case I shall be corrected. The Amendment is to Clause 5, page 5, line 16, and proposes to insert the words "without loss of earnings" at the end of the line. The line that we are discussing in the Amendment is part of subsection (6) of Clause 5. That refers solely to the definition of the words "appropriate time". "Appropriate time" only becomes material if one looks back to paragraph (c) of Clause 1(1). That gives a worker, as we discussed at an earlier stage, the right to take part in trade union activities at an appropriate time, which means either (a) outside working hours, or (b) inside working hours if the employer consents. The effect of inserting in the definition clause the words "without loss of earnings" would mean, and mean only, that the employer could discriminate against an employee in such a way as to deprive him of the right under paragraph (c) by seeing to it that he did suffer loss of earnings, and therefore could frustrate the purpose of paragraph (c).

329
That is not what we intend, and I doubt very much whether it is what noble Lords opposite intend. I think therefore there is a muddle here which I should point out.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I thank the noble and learned Lord. But if the Amendment is wrongly placed, can the noble and learned Lord advise the Committee what would be the right place in which to put the words?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think it can be done in that way. What has to be understood about this clause is that it is a clause to give workers the right for this purpose to take part in trade union activities, that right being enforceable against the employer as an unfair industrial practice. If it is desired to insert words to say, "I want him to take part in trade union activities during working hours without loss of earnings", which I gather is what is at the back of the minds of some people, it cannot be done by inserting "without loss of earnings" in a clause which permits him to take part in industrial activities. I think the noble Lord would have to do it by a new clause. That course is open to the noble Lord, and if it is done we should look at it. I cannot see that it can be done by tinkering with this clause in this way.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: What the noble and learned Lord is really saying, then, is that, despite the statement in Clause l(1)(c) about the rights, if these words were in the employer, by giving consent, would imply that he was prepared to pay the loss of earnings. If he did not give consent there would be no loss of earnings. All I am pointing out is that something is being missed here in the struggle to put human activities into words. Anybody who has mixed with workpeople in factories where the employers have a humanitarian outlook, allow outside activities and pay the two or three shillings necessary for two or three hours away, will know that they are considered to be good employers, and they have an influential effect upon productivity.
We must not forget that there are things one cannot measure, such as the good name of an employer. All of us who have mixed with men and women who earn their living by hand or brain with the skill which is necessary in factories, know that
330
it is a good place in employment where the workers say, "They are damned good bosses there. They see that you get appropriate cover". They do not want to lake advantage. The best trade unions see to that. It would be grossly unfair—an unfair practice—for me to extend this discussion further at this late hour, but I sincerely hope that we can find some means of making this provision.
12.41 a.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: It would be helpful if the Lord Chancellor would indicate whether the intention of this Amendment is acceptable to the Government. If he could indicate that and accept that it would be desirable to incorporate this point, I think the question of the wording could be cleared. I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that this is something normally dealt with in the agreed arrangements between employers and trade unions. In most cases—certainly in the case of the good employers to which my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek referred—no great difficulty arises. But unfortunately—and this marks the Bill on every page—we have to take account of the fact that there is a variety of employers in this country. I certainly should not think it necessary for this point to be incorporated in some authoritative way. I think my noble friends would be content to leave it on an assurance that there is sympathy for this point and willingness to incorporate it in the Bill or, if in the end it seems more appropriate, in the code of practice.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I quite see that this is reasonable, but I do not want to speak outside my particular area of knowledge. I was merely trying to keep the drafting straight, because if I serve a useful purpose at all—which some people seem to doubt—it is to make sure what the effect of the drafting will be. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, with whom I have had a word during the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has said that he would like to look at this again. That is the best I can do at this hour.
LORD SHACKLETON: I hope that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor will not lose confidence at this hour. He has been very helpful. None the less, I am bound to say that it is a

331
well-established practice in your Lordships' House that the Opposition put down Amendments as best they can. The noble and learned Lord kept us up very late in another place on the Trade Disputes Act in 1946–47 when not all the Amendments were perfect. The purpose of this Amendment seems crystal clear, although the Lord Chancellor has completely convinced us on its inappropriate nature. I only hope that the Government will discuss its merits and not merely its technical significance. I know that normally the noble and learned Lord seeks to go to the heart of the matter, but I am not quite clear on this point. All we know is that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has been able to say that he would like to think a little about it. No doubt the Amendment was sprung on him with great surprise and he was told that it was not workable; and that was enough. But I do not think that is entirely good enough.
I do not want to press this, except perhaps to encourage the noble and learned Lord to say that serious consideration will be given to the proposal. I am sure that he sees the point of the arguments made by my noble friend Lord Brown and others. Could we perhaps have some further word as to how far the Lord Chancellor has discussed this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn? Perhaps in future he could even talk to him a little more fully on some of these Amendments.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I intervened in this matter only because I thought we were getting into a muddle from a drafting point of view. I know that when my noble friend says he would like to look at something again he means he will consider it seriously, and I meant it in that sense. There are some things within my own sphere that I think I understand very well about this Bill. Probably they are things which other people would need help about. This is not one of them. I was concerned that noble Lords had showed signs of pressing an Amendment which simply would not do and that there might be merits in it which we should wish to consider. I received from my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn the definite assurance that he wanted to look at the matter again. With that, I put it to the Committee.
LORD SHACKLETON: We are very grateful for the help that the noble and learned Lord gives. But he speaks for the Government. He has repeatedly said he speaks within a particular remit and in the extent of his knowledge, with this charming modesty of his. None the less, we want to know what the Government think about the purpose of this Amendment. What it intends is crystal clear. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, may wish to say a little more. We now know that the noble and learned Lord has discharged his duties according to his lights of helping the Committee on the meaning of this Amendment, saying that it is a nonsense. We accept this; he has convinced us. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is the expert on policy here, it may be interesting if he could say something to Us.
LORD CONESFORD: The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition says that the purpose of this Amendment is crystal clear. I must be vary foolish because I cannot quite follow it. If the noble Lord succeeded in putting the words in where this Amendment asked for them to be put in, it seems to me that the trade unions would be worse off. I think my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has convinced the Committee on that. Is the wider purpose that because it may be good practice in many cases to allow this outside working hours that, therefore, there must be a provision in the Bill that the employer must always give facilities for these things to be done outside working hours? If it means that, it opens a very difficult question. If it does not mean that, I am not clear what it means.
LORD BROWN: May I help the noble Lord? People in employment have to elect representatives. This is becoming an extremely important function; it is not just to protect their own interests.
LORD CONESFORD: It has been pointed out to me that by a slip of the tongue I said "outside" when I meant "inside", which may have made my remarks more confusing than they normally are. I apologise for that.
LORD BROWN: In the past these people have been regarded as a nuisance—as a manifestation of the unruly spirit

333
of man, and all die rest of it. What has to be faced today is that they ate a very important part of industry. They are doing something not only for their own fellows, but which is essential to the whole process of carrying on industry. It is not uncommon for people so elected to lose a substantial part of the earnings they would have earned had they not been elected. For an individual to take on heavy additional duties, very often to be the subject of great unpleasantness from his foreman because he is not at his machine half of the time, and equally to suffer loss of earnings, because he may lose some of his piece-work earnings and also some of the overtime which he would otherwise have been asked to work, is unfair. Good firms do not allow this to happen. But many firms do. The purpose of the Amendment is to try to ensure that these important people, who are trying to help industry, management and others, should not suffer loss through undertaking any public duties, if I may use that term. That is the purpose of the Amendment as it was put down.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Surely this Amendment will restrict union activities, because some employers may say, "We will allow members to engage in these activities in their working hours, but of course if we have to pay them then we are not so keen on allowing them to do this in working hours." I know several employers who hold that point of view. I think it will restrict anion activities.
LORD BROWN: If the union is properly organised employers will find it very difficult to restrict officials in doing their job in a factory. The purpose of the Amendment is simply to prevent them from losing money through doing this job.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Why do not the union pay them? Why should the employers pay them?
LORD BROWN: There is a certain amount of "backwoodsman" creeping into this discussion. The reason why the employers should pay them is because they are an essential part of an industrial organisation.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: What happens when employers cannot pay them?
LORD BROWN: They go bust.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is becoming a kind of dialogue.
A NOBLE LORD: A filibuster.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps the noble Lord is asking a little too much of us here. The Amendment as put down had a meaning. It was a meaning which we did not think was very sensible and we doubted whether the Opposition really intended it. To look exactly into what the Opposition intention was is a different matter. I think we went as far as we could in discussing this; I do not think we could have gone any further. But the main thing I should like to say is that it is extremely difficult to ask us at this time to commit ourselves to a view on the basis of an Amendment which itself was not clear. If we had known exactly what the Opposition was after, then we might have been able to form a view as to whether we were in agreement with that or not. Now that we have a clearer idea of what they are after we shall discuss that; and I hope that we can leave it there.
LORD PLATT: Is the noble Lord saying that he does not know what "without loss of earnings" means? That is all it is.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord may see that that is linked with other words in the subsection.
LORD PLATT: It can be done in working time "without loss of earnings". It is perfectly clear.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: In view of the fact that quite a lot of information has been gathered from the United States, would the noble Lord, in an effort to understand the meaning of this Amendment—and in view of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, that there is the possibility of a new clause—get in touch with the American trade union movement to find out how many hundreds of thousands of trade unionists there receive pay for doing a first-class job in their unions to increase productivity, during working hours? It

335
would give a good name to the Conser-vatice Party, and to their intentions on the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sure the Department of Employment keeps in touch with the situation in the United States of America. Indeed, in the course of my discussions I have been told from time to time in what respects we are better than the United States of America, and in what respects they are better than us.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: We have discussed this matter at some considerable length. In the light of the assurance now given to us by the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("subsections (1), (2), (5) and (6) of").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SHACKLETON: Is this Amendment not paving, rather than consequential?
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is a bit of both.
12.55 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SHACKLETON: I hope the noble Earl the Leader of the House is satisfied at the very considerable progress we have made. We have dealt with, I think, 30 Amendments. Some of them have been assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who moved them into a later stage, and if I may say so it has been helpful to have some of the genuine Committee points dealt with as clearly as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has done. Indeed we have made so much progress that I am tempted to suggest that the moment may have come when we should all go home to bed. We have had several remarks made about "this late hour"; I detect a certain excitability on the Back Benches of the Conservative side of the Committee at the moment, and I am wondering
336
how wise they are to continue. At any moment I should not like to foretell what might happen.
If it is not the intention of the Government to stop the business, unless the noble Earl wishes to intervene I shall assume that they are in fact intending to get to the end of Clause 5. It has been a clause of major importance and there would be a case—and I believe a genuine case—for examining what has been done to the clause, both concerning the bits that have been taken out and the promises that have been made, so that in the I traditional debate on clause stand part we can review that progress has been made.
I could have wished on this clause that it had been possible for the Government to move more in the direction, as we shall seek to press them to do on later clauses, of accepting the views of so many people in industry, some of whom I see sitting on the Conservative Benches, who understandably in their very proper loyalty to their Party do not wish to embarrass the Government and who have got themselves committed to the concept of under no circumstances having a closed shop. We shall accept this concept under very limited circumstances, and we shall pursue it further on the later clauses. Therefore I hope that when my noble friends continue to speak on the Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill, we shall be able to review some of the matters which we have been discussing, and it may be that the Government will also have had a chance to review the situation. We shall be looking gloomily at the effect of Clause 5.
I would just again say that I hope that the noble Earl, who I know has problems in various directions, will be able to recognise that we have got along quite fast and quite well, and provided we get the consistent approach that the noble and learned Lord has given us to-day and do not get into discussions as to who is responsible for killing the House of Lords Reform Bill, on which for some reason he was "needled" into giving a wholly inaccurate version of events, there is no reason why we should not continue to make progress. I am only sorry that there are not more of I my noble friends present, and I strongly suspect that the noble Earl had perhaps

337
got this in mind. I do not blame him for this, but we shall do our best now to deal with the Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): I must first respond to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition's kindly remarks. I am most grateful to him for his solicitude for me, the fact that I have some problems in some directions. I do not think I have the problem of a very excitable audience behind me; looking behind me, it seems to be remarkably calm and composed and resolute. But I would certainly assent to one proposition which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, advanced; and that is, that we have made reasonably good progress in the latter hours of today's discussion, and I am grateful for that. I think this is something which the House as a whole has achieved, not least because of the notably conciliatory attitude of Her Majesty's Government, and indeed of the Opposition who have shown their usual co-operation. I feel that progress made is some compensation for the remarkably stationary performance we have hitherto achieved. The noble Lord has suggested that we might adjourn now. Quite frankly. I feel that having made quite a bit of progress we should make a little extra effort, and I think it would be sensible to tuck Clause 5 under our belt this evening and to do it now while our debate on it is fresh in all our memories.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: We have got so mixed up with the meaning of words. Does that mean that we are now going to debate the Question, that Clause 5 stand part?
EARL JELLICOE: Yes.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Then I will speak later.
EARL JELLICOE: But it was my impression that we were almost already doing it, from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: As the noble Earl says, my noble friend Lord Shackleton has already made some observations on the situation which confronts us at the end of our consideration of this clause. It is. as we have said a number of times during the day, an important
338
clause, and it is gratifying that the Government have taken some points of it away for further consideration. But I am bound to say that it still remains a clause, notwithstanding the points which are going to be further considered and notwithstanding the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has removed some of the vital parts and transplanted them into the new clause which we shall be considering in due course, in which there are a number of features which are extremely disturbing.
I do not think it is possible for anybody to have listened to the speeches which were made by a number of my noble friends, who spoke with great and long experience of trade union affairs, without feeling the sincere concern which is felt about the effect which a Bill in which this clause will play such a key part is likely to have on industrial relations. I should like particularly to direct attention to three points which still remain in the Bill, First of all, my noble friends have expressed concern, and little if anything at all has been said from the other side of the House which allays it, about the effect of the Bill as proposed upon the arrangements which have been built up by the trade union movement and which are particularly embodied in the Bridlington agreements. I am bound to say that, particularly in the earlier part of our proceedings on this clause, it frequently seemed that the two sides of the House were speaking in different languages, and were having a real and genuine difficulty in communicating with each other.
Many of my noble friends feel anxiety (and I confess that I strongly share it) that the whole approach which this Bill embodies, and which is set out in this clause, is one which is quite inappropriate to the industrial relations circumstances of this country. In particular, a number of the measures in the Bill are likely—without it being, I admit, the intention of the Government—to have a really disruptive effect on some of the most valuable and most forward looking features in our industrial relations arrangements. I have in mind the kind of discipline which is exerted by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress over trade unions in respect of competition for membership, spheres of I influence among membership, and in

339
respect of a whole series of arrangements which minimise the possibilities of conflict. I think this contributes far more than many people appreciate to the avoidance of disputes and dislocation in industry. We still remain extremely anxious about the effects upon those arrangements of the provisions in this clause. I am afraid that although good will was expressed towards this point by some noble Lords opposite, they did not indicate precisely how the arrangements made by the Trades Union Congress were going to be continued.
This leads me to the second point, which is closely related to the first, and about which again anxieties have been expressed: the possible proliferation and creation of splinter unions. Again, I concede readily that this is not as a deliberate act of policy, but as a subsidiary consequence of some of the provisions of the Bill. Although this is a point to which we shall have to return at a later stage. I must confess that I could not follow the argument of the noble and learned Lord that the provisions of Clause 63 of the Bill were a safeguard against any possibility of splinter organisations being established. Nor indeed, if I look at the closely related Clause 65, which also deals with the provisions for registration of organisations of workers, can I see that the danger is removed by those provisions. But this is something to which we shall have to turn our attention at a later stage.
Lastly, I must again express regret that we have retained in the clause what I think is a most unfortunate provision; that of putting the right to be a non-unionist on an identical and indeed, as I pointed out, even a superior footing to the right to be a trade unionist. I am sure that this is likely to have unfortunate consequences in a number of respects, and not least in those very substantial occupational fields where trade unionism is not a condition of employment, and where trade union membership is maintained on an entirely voluntary basis.
We shall of course inevitably be returning to some of these themes in more detail in later sections of the Bill, but I am bound to say that, despite the degree of progress which, on some points,
340
I we have been able to make, the provisions of Clause 5 are still, in the long run, likely to militate against the improvement of industrial relations rather than in the direction of improvement.
1.9 a.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: In fairness I shall try to cut my remarks down to about three minutes, and concertina what I should normally like to have taken about eight minutes over to deal with what I consider to be a very important clause. I do not like to use the word "sinister", because I would not like to cast upon noble Lords opposite sinister and ulterior motives, but nevertheless to trade unionists this is one of the most sinister clauses in this Bill.
Paragraph (b) of Clause 5(1) gives every worker the right to be a member of no trade union. That is ridiculous. Because of that, it would be an unfair industrial practice for any employer to dismiss or refuse to employ a non-unionist, and it would be equally illegal to call or threaten to call a strike in order to induce an employer to do that. This clause can be called a charter for anti-union activity. I shall not use pejorative words, words shot through with bias. But this clause would outlaw the pre-entry closed shop, as well as the 100 per cent, trade union closed shop.
It was pointed out in another place that it would go much further, because it strikes a crippling blow at trade union membership and recruitment. This worries us. The Donovan Commission felt that the right not to join a union should be rejected, because, they said, "it was designed to frustrate the development of collective bargaining."
Because of the presumption of the male sex, this Bill has paid no attention to the position of women in the modern trade union movement. Secondly, I have had some experience in the other place of presenting Bills on industrial injuries and diseases, such as pneumoconiosis, as well as cancer of the bladder which is caused through working in rubber factories, and it is a trade union activity to discuss those matters. We have completely missed that point tonight, because we have to rush through this massive Bill. We have had no opportunity of considering the implications of this Bill in relation to new industrial diseases, which are the result of the spread of

341
information in biochemistry, in physics, and in the use of new oils and composite liquids. It is only during the last 20-odd years that some of the marvellous new products from the laboratories have become available to the industrialist.
Thirdly—and I am not going to be rushed into incoherent diction—let us remember that it is not detrimental to a manufacturer to have good trade union relations in his factory, or to find the money to pay to have good relations in the proper working hours. A factory that has good trade union relations gets good productivity and a good name, and a graph would show its strikes to be the lowest in number.
Lastly, we are going away from the strength of the British people—and being a Celt I am one of the original British people, together with the Gaels, the Picts and the Scots. I do not know why everybody is rushing into the Common Market like the Gaderene swine. I will have more to say about that when we discuss it later. But why are we trying to copy some of these practices from other parts of the world? It was this country which taught the world many of the secrets of voluntary co-operation; and I beg noble Lords opposite (there is the talent there), if you do not think we are clever enough to get the right kind of Amendments, think some good ones up for us and put them down! We are told by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor that if the phraseology had been different all would have been well. The bells would have been ringing and the Amendment would have been accepted. I can see the Lord Chancellor, with that marvellous face of his, with good humour, embracing us for a moment and then losing his temper and telling us we do not know our business. Please co-operate to make this Bill better than when it came from the other place.
I have been looking up an old historian—and I will finish with this. Humbert Wolfe was the official historian for World War I. In Labour Supply and Regulation, he said:
"… the excesses to which employers were driven in the early months of the war…the pressure of employers to work long hours, backed as they constantly were by the Departments of State responsible for the output of munitions … There were cases of men working 100 hours a week; and 70 to 80 hours were not uncommon. A famous case which attracted much attention was that of a Mr. Cook, a worker in a small arms factory,
342
who died suddenly. At the inquest it emerged that Mr. Cook had been working 80 hours a week since August; and the coroner spoke of him as having ' died for his country'",
Let it be remembered—and I had to go to hundreds of factories during the last war—that in times of emergency much good work is done by the trade union movement voluntarily, and it is done with good will for the sake of the country. Do not let us get the wrong approach where we lose the co-operation of the trade union movement because of a reactionary attitude to this matter.
So, in speaking on the Question, Whether Clause 5 should stand part, I say that I think Clause 2 and Clause 5 are two of the most important clauses in the Bill. I am therefore grateful, in a way, that we have had the chance tonight, because it is fresh in our minds, to debate the Question. Although your Lordships may think that I dealt with some of it jocularly, that does not mean in the least that all of us on this side of the Committee, and I think many noble Lords on the other side, are not quite sincere about some of the treasures which the British trade union movement has taught this country in industrial relations.
1.18 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am glad that the noble Lord did not allow himself to be "rushed into incoherent diction". I -shall endeavour not to rush into incoherent diction myself. I think that perhaps we need to sum up today's activities. There is room for a dialogue here, but equally there is no room for disguising the fact that there is a difference of principle between the two sides of the Committee which it would be both dishonest and foolish to try to paper over. I should like to define the area of difference in a very few sentences, but also to define the area of dialogue, too.
When the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, wants to be reassured about the Bridlington agreement, I should like to reassure him about the Bridlington rules. I think they play a useful part in our industrial scene in removing demarcation troubles between one union and another. I know he has the impression that I have never heard of them before, but I have in fact advised professionally on them so I do know

343
more or less what they say. Although they are rather less well drafted than this Bill. I am very much in favour of them, and I feel that they will be just as effective after the Bill becomes an Act as before. As we go along—and I shall try to indicate why more debate is needed to give him full assurance—I hope the noble Lord will gradually come to see that this Bill will not do any harm to them, but will help them.
On the second point there is also room for dialogue because, so far as I know, nobody who has spoken in the debate so far has wanted a proliferation of small unions. On the contrary, everyone has agreed that we want large unions which control their membership with the kind of discipline which the noble Lord, Lord Douglass, was speaking about earlier and which can "bring home the bacon" of any agreement they make with employers or employers' associations. We do not think, for reasons which I shall give, that this Bill will encourage small unions in the least. We do not want to encourage them; so there is an area for fruitful dialogue and, as I shall go on to show, as the Bill progresses we hope to establish that, so far from encouraging them, we can discourage them.
We then come to what is inescapably a point of difference which has really dominated the discussion today. It is not true that we want to elevate the non-unionist on to a pedestal of some kind. That is something that we do not want to do. I myself belonged to my professional association as long as I was a practising barrister, and I have always tried to encourage other people to do the same; and I fully understand those who take a moral stance that membership of whatever association is appropriate to you is part of your social duty to your neighbour. Activity in it is one of the many ways in which you can serve the public. Nobody could feel that more strongly than I. Equally, no one could reiterate more than I what we feel is a question of principle on this side of the House, that fundamentally a union is a free association of members. Curiously enough, that phrase has gradually emerged from the side opposite but not in connection with Clause 5. Some of us listened from the galleries to what was going on in the other place.
344
If I were a betting man I would almost sink my last dime on the proposition that when we come to the registration clauses noble Lords opposite will be talking about the unions as a free association.
How can you justify the rights of a union as a free association if it is not free? The essence of a free association is that you can belong to it or not belong to it as you choose. You may be rather less reputable or less estimable if you do not, but if you want the rights of association to be free it must be that their freedom depends on voluntary membership. That is what we think and we recognise that it is no good papering over the difference which exists between us and the opposite side of the Committee. We believe—we may be wrong, but we are willing to stand on that belief —that a free and voluntary association is more powerful in itself and stronger than a compulsory association. We believe that one volunteer is worth more than two pressed men. That would be so—although I shall in a moment have something more to say about that—even if that involves tolerating some of what I believe are called "free riders"; although it is the policy of this Bill to discourage "free riders" as we shall see in detail when we come to look at the agency shop clauses and provisions. But it is a real protection for an association that it is composed only of free members; and if in fact it has a number of pressed men in it we believe that this: both corrupts and weakens the association which has to resort to that kind of compulsion in order to make membership.
We quite recognise the argument that is presented on the other side of the fence, and we have tried to provide for it. Several trade union leaders said this afternoon that there were people—and we recognise that this may be so—who simply did not belong because they did; not pay the dues and tried to accept the benefit of union membership without paying for it. The agency shop provisions are designed to meet their case. When we discuss them we shall see how far they do meet that case. But we think that they meet the case because they apply a financial penalty, normally without corresponding advantages, against
"free-riding." We think it will ensure that membership of a union will be almost

345
universal where feeling amongst the workers is in favour of union membership; but that is the only reputable situation where it should be almost universal.
It applies a penalty against the so-called "free-rider" because he has to pay the agency people, unless he is one of the very few people referred to by the right reverend Prelate, Who referred to those who for some reason quoted the Second Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians as a reason for not joining a union—a reason with which I have come into contact several times in my public life, but one which I have never been able wholly to understand. If a man is not disposed to pay the dues, the agency shop provides a financial penalty. He has to pay virtually the whole of the compulsory membership fee; he gets no strike pay if there is a strike and does not enjoy any of the benefits of a general kind which may be provided by the union's funds. Therefore he has to pay virtually what it costs to be a union member, and if he is one of the rather queer people who refer to St. Pauls Epistle to the Corinthians, exercising a prohibition against union membership, he has to pay money to a charity instead.
Therefore, we think that we have dealt with that criticism. On the other hand, we believe that compulsory union membership is intrinsically an injustice and runs contrary to the Universal Declaration Human of Pluman Rights. We know that there have been examples—one of which was quoted by one of my noble friends—of a man with 20, 30 or 40 years' experience of earning a living in a particular trade being dismissed by an employer because of the introduction of a closed shop, simply because the man did not want to join the union. We think that the right to earn a living—especially an established right born of a lifetime of service in a particular occupation—is at least as fundamental as the right to associate. And union authority is not diminished by a few dissentients. If there are on the periphery a few eccentrics who say to a union, "We don't like the way you run your show; we think your leadership is extreme (or not sufficiently extreme); we don't like associating with you", we do not think that weakens the union. Curiously, the right reverend Prelate said earlier in terms that if his
346
union (the Union of General and Municipal Workers) did not change its tune he would reconsider his membership. But then he went on to say, with what appeared to me to be an extraordinary lack of logic, that he would only allow other people to leave their unions on grounds of conscience. In other words, he was free to change his union on grounds of policy, but they were only to be free to change on grounds of conscience.
I find it very difficult to understand this particular form of theology. There should therefore be no difficulty in establishing the authority of the unions without attacking the principle of free association. But I know noble Lords opposite will not be convinced by that argument. I have known them long enough to know that I shall not persuade them. All I ask them to believe is that there is no chance whatever of their persuading us of what they believe about compulsory union membership. This is the point about which there can be no papering over of the difference, and on which we shall have to establish our position in Clause 5 by vote at the appropriate time.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: We speak about unions as if the only thing was membership and the giving of strike pay. If I lost my arm working in a factory, would an agency shop put a barrister at my disposal and help me in the same way as the traditional trade union movement? It is complete rubbish.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I dunk that the "rubbish" is on the noble Lord's side. If he had been following my argument—and I beg him to try to read it if it is not sufficiently plain to him now—it was precisely to deal with that point. We believe that the principle of free association is the right one. That is a point of principle, and we are not, in the last resort, prepared to compromise that principle. There may be exceptional cases, but the principle is one which we believe should stand. We have tried to deal with the point about the "free rider" by imposing a financial penalty in the agency shop provisions; and it is precisely because the effect of that penalty—some of my noble friends may think it is unduly harsh—is to impose on the non-member what is virtually the full union contribution, for which he gets no return,

347
that we think the penalty will lead all but those with real conviction to join the union, at any rate in a climate of opinion, and that is the only reputable case where membership of the appropriate union is considered desirable by the workers themselves. I am afraid that there is the point at Which we split. I think it would be a waste of time on the part of noble Lords opposite to try to persuade us or for me to try to persuade noble Lords opposite.
LORD SHACKLETON: The hour is becoming late and the noble and learned Lord has spent the last quarter of an hour trying to do precisely what he said there was no point in either of us trying to do; namely, persuade each other—
unless he was saying it to justify his case. I do not propose to debate this further. I am bound to say that I regard his speech, which was beautifully delivered, as wholly irrelevant to the realities of the industrial situation in this country. When we come to debate the new clause we shall have to return once again to this. None the less, I appreciate the noble and learned Lord's very firm effort to produce a clear case for this Bill and this clause. We do not agree with it, and we shall therefore have to vote against Clause 5.
1.34 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 5, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 109; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Abinger, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Exeter, M.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Atholl, D.

Falkland, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Balerno, L.

Falmouth, V.

Pender, L.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Bathurst, E.

Ferrier, L.

Reay, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Fisher, L.

Redesdale, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Redmayne, L.

Belstead, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bessborough, E.

Glasgow, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Glendevon, L.

St. Helens, L.

Bradford, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Just, L.

Brecon, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gray, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Savile, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Buchan, E.

Hailes, L.

Selsdon, L.

Burgh, L.

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

Sempill, Ly.

Chelmer, L.

Somers, L.

Chesham, L.

Harcourt, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Coleridge, L.

Hives, L.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Inglewood, L.

Templemore, L.

Cowley, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Terrington, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kemsley, V.

Teviot, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kilmany, L.

Thomas, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Townshend, M.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lothian, M.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Dudley, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ward of Witley, V.

Dundonald, E.

Merthyr, L.

Windlesham, L.

Effingham, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Yarborough, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Gardiner, L.

Raglan, L.

Bernstein, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Hamnett, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Serota, Bs.

Champion, L.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L.

Collison, L.

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

Shepherd, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Walston, L.

Diamond, L.

Platt, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Fourth Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.
House adjourned at a quarter before two o'clock.