Sitting of 10 May 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Stock Exchange (Advertising)
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has held with the Stock Exchange Council with respect to the proposals that its members be permitted to solicit funds from the general public by advertising, and the necessary safeguards that will need to be instituted.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Davies): I have no statutory responsibility for the rules of the Stock Exchange, London.
    Dr. Gilbert: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least give the House an assurance
    2
    that discussions will be held with the Stock Exchange Council before member firms are able to solicit funds from the public—however unsophisticated it may be—for speculative investments? Will he at least ensure that three safeguards are met—supervision of advertising, supervision of brokers' solvency margins and publication of brokers' accounts?
    Mr. Davies: I take note of those points. I am engaged in informal discussions with the Stock Exchange at the moment, but within statutory allowances I cannot take any control in these fields.

    Hallmarking
    Mrs. Knightasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to implement the recommendations of the 1959 Board of Trade Departmental Committee on Hallmarking.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): We are at present awaiting comments from interested parties on a consultative document setting out proposals for a new hallmarking law. I cannot, however, say when it will be possible to introduce legislation.
    Mrs. Knight: Does not the Minister think that twelve years is a very long time to wait for comments on a report of this kind? Is he aware of the great importance to the silversmithing and goldsmithing trades that compulsory hallmarking should continue, and also the importance

    3
    to the buying public? Will it go on, or will it not? Can the Minister at least reaffirm the assurance given in the House on 28th January, 1970, that any reform of the law will be based on compulsory hallmarking of gold, silver and platinum ware?
    Mr. Ridley: The consultative document was issued only a few months ago. That document definitely suggests that there will be compulsory hallmarking. But it is important to get the details right, and that is what we are trying to do.
    Mrs. Doris Fisher: I have had considerable correspondence with the Department. One gets a little frustrated by letters saying that consultations are still going on. As far back as last June, July and September, and again in February of this year, it was said that consultations were still going on. When one gets in touch with the Assay Office one finds that it has made its returns. Is the delay in the Department?
    Mr. Ridley: I cannot accept responsibility for the 12 years referred to by the hon. Lady. I can only tell her that the document that we issued was issued only a few months ago. She will probably agree that it is important that the trade should agree the details of the new law. As far as I can see, there has been no undue delay.

    Nuclear Power Stations
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had about changes in the types of and construction of future nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ridley: Together with the generating boards, the Atomic Energy Authority, and the nuclear design and construction companies, we are examining the choice of thermal nuclear reactors for further development in this country.
    Mr. Eadie: Does not the hon. Member agree that since there are difficulties about the type of nuclear power station that we should have in the future and since a good deal of cost in involved, there is a case for Parliament's being informed on this important issue? It is a very important matter for the future of our indigenous resources.
    Mr. Ridley: I shall be delighted to give the hon. Member any details that
    4
    he requires. At the moment we are considering whether there should be another generation of nuclear reactor before the fast reactors are introduced in the next decade, but no decision has been taken whether there should be, or which one it should be. I cannot inform the hon. Member of things that have not yet been decided.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: Can my hon. Friend say which nuclear technology it is proposed to use for the second phase of the Heysham station?
    Mr. Ridley: That is a matter for the C.E.G.B. It has not put forward definite proposals for using the second part of the site at Heysham. I cannot say what the proposals will be until they are received.
    Mr. Benn: Following what my hon. Friend said about the importance of the decision when it comes, can the hon. Gentleman give the House more information about the attitude adopted towards the steam generating heavy water reactor against other systems—a question which is of importance not only for the C.E.G.B. and the Scottish boards but for our export orders in general?
    Mr. Ridley: I cannot tell the House that yet, because the steam generating heavy water reactor is in competition with two or three other types of reactor for a final decision on which to develop fully. Until that decision has been taken, I cannot say what it will be.
    Mrs. Kellett: As the costs of nuclear power stations tend to be higher than has been expected, is there not a strong case, instead of scattering the stations throughout the country, for quantifying the cost advantage of going straight from phase 1 to phase 2 at Heysham, to obtain the full advantage of forward plans and the presence of an experienced construction team?
    Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend has a Question on the paper about this. The amount of generating capacity which is needed at any one time is a matter entirely for the generating boards, and it is they who wish at the present time not to proceed with the second site at Heysham. Therefore, it is for them to decide, because they are responsible for settling the country's needs for electricity in due course.
    Mrs. Kellettasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the cost benefit which would be secured by his authorising the construction of the second phase of the Heysham nuclear power station as an integrated project with the current phase as compared with authorising a similar project in another location.
    Mr. Hall-Davisasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for which sites the Central Electricity Generating Board holds planning permission for a nuclear power station where he has not authorised construction; for which sites in respect of which he has authorised construction, work has begun or tenders been invited; and for which sites for which he has authorised construction tenders have not yet been invited.
    Mr. Ridley: Subject to approval of its general programme of capital expenditure, it is the responsibility of the C.E.G.B. to decide whether to develop the whole or part of the capacity for which it has consent to use a particular site. The only nuclear site for which consent has been given where the C.E.G.B. is at present constructing the first stage of a two-stage station is Heysham. The only other site with consent for a nuclear station is Sizewell B, and the C.E.G.B. has deferred until next year its decision about placing the main plant contracts for this station.
    Mrs. Kellett: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but could he give an estimate of the benefits of running the two schemes together? If it is not possible for him to give an estimate at present of the possibilities of integrating the two, the second phase and the first, will he not accept that a contractor with plant on the site would be able to cut to the bone the cost of a further stage, and, in addition, will he accept that, because of the high level of unemployment in the Lancaster area, which has been building up since 1964, it is highly desirable to press the Central Electricity Generating Board to proceed on this site?
    Mr. Ridley: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to press the C.E.G.B. better than I can. Much of what she seeks she should seek from the board. There is no point in building power stations unless there is a need for the
    6
    electricity when the stations are completed. That is the doubt in the board's mind.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: While obviously we do not want to exceed the demand for power, does my hon. Friend agree that on both environmental grounds and for the maintenance of safety precautions it is preferable to make full use of a site which the Nuclear Safety Committee has approved and for which planning permission has been given before starting new construction on a further site elsewhere?
    Mr. Ridley: While the Government have given approval to two stations on the site, they have little further influence over the matter. The House will agree that we should give the C.E.G.B. managerial freedom to decide which stations to develop there within consents given by the various Departments concerned.

    V. & G. Insurance Co. Ltd.
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will now make representations to the British Insurance Association concerning its refusal to accept responsibility for debts of the Vehicle & General Insurance Group, other than those arising out of passenger liability.
    Mr. John Davies: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) on 10th March. My discussions continue.—[Vol. 813, c. 138–9.]
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread hardship caused by the collapse of Vehicle & General and the equally widespread feeling that, the British Insurance Association having clothed V. & G. with its apparent stability, something should be done about this very soon?
    Mr. Davies: I am very conscious of the widespread concern about this. I am pressing forward with discussions with the B.I.A. and I shall certainly report on this matter at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: Will my right hon. Friend agree that although there would not appear to be any legal liability

    7
    on the part of B.I.A., the way in which that organisation represented the creditworthiness of its members may, if not honoured, bring considerable damage to the insurance world?
    Mr. Davies: Yes, I am aware of that, and I think B.I.A. is, too.

    Newton Aycliffe
    Mr. David Reedasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the rate at which new industry is being attracted to Newton Aycliffe; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): Yes, Sir. Employment on the estate has almost doubled during the past 10 years. We are continuing to bring the facilities available at Aycliffe to the notice of firms seeking additional factory space.
    Mr. Reed: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that employment on the estate has been static for almost two years? As the entire social and amenity development of Newton Aycliffe depends on future progress on the industrial estate, will not the hon. Gentleman agree that further stimulus is needed, since Newton Aycliffe is the only Northern Region new town which has not special development area status?
    Mr. Grant: As to the unemployment, I should point out that the unemployment figures are exactly in line with the Great Britain average. On the question about the new town corporation, I shall be glad to consider, if the hon. Gentleman likes to get in touch with me, any possibilities in this respect.

    International Flights (Carriage of Duty-Free Spirits)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to reduce the need for the carriage of duty-free spirits on board aircraft on international flights to and from airports in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: None, Sir, but if my hon. Friend will let me have details of the particular point he has in mind I will look into it.
    Mr. Onslow: While I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether, before we meet to discuss this, he will represent to Her Majesty's Government's Customs that it is undesirable from the safety and workload point of view that aircraft should become flying off-licences? Since I am told reliably that it is possible for a jumbo jet to take off for New York carrying 1,800 bottles of whisky in the cabin, would it not be more desirable if they had duty-free vouchers instead?
    Mr. Grant: I understand that this practice is not popular with the corporations and other operators, and I will certainly, as I undertook, discuss with my hon. Friend and with operators ways in which we can get round this difficulty. But I should like to correct the view that this is a hazard to safety. Our Directorate of Flight Safety experience has not revealed any hazards from a safety point of view.

    European Free Trade Area
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the next Ministerial meeting of the European Free Trade Association.
    Mr. John Davies: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) on 10th November. My right hon. Friend will, however, be attending a further E.F.T.A. ministerial meeting later this week.—[Vol. 806, c. 116.]
    Mr. Marten: In view of General de Gaulle's disclosures in the Soames affair, and as the Prime Minister is about to visit General de Gaulle's successor, would not this meeting of E.F.T.A. be an appropriate moment to widen discussions and to talk about a conference of E.F.T.A. and E.E.C. on a wider free trade area?
    Mr. Davies: The principal item at this forthcoming meeting of E.F.T.A., as on the last occasion, will be the whole of the negotiations going on between individual countries and the Community. This matter will certainly be under very close discussion. However, I think it is difficult to widen it in the way that my hon. Friend suggests, pending a clearer decision on the negotiations.
    Mr. Eadie: Could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is not treating this proposed meeting lightly, on the assumption that we are going into the Common Market? The right hon. Gentleman must agree, surely, that there is overwhelming opposition in this country to going into the Common Market. Therefore, to treat such a matter lightly would be fatal to the interests of this country.
    Mr. Davies: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that no Ministerial meeting of E.F.T.A. is treated lightly. In particular, this one, which will be the first held at Reykjavik, will be treated with due gravity by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. John Hall: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it is incorrect to say that there is overwhelming opposition in this country to entry into the Common Market?
    Mr. Davies: Yes, that is certainly my view.

    RB211
    Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is now in a position to make a statement on the negotiations with Lockheed over the Rolls-Royce RB211 engine.
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the RB211 contract.
    The Minister for Aerospace (Mr. Frederick Corfield): With permission, I will make a statement after Question Time.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, following recent discussions with the Lockheed Corporation, it remains his assessment that the RB211 engine will be to a large extent behind engines of equivalent power and performance; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Corfield: Assuming that the RB211 goes ahead, which I hope will be the case, it is nevertheless bound to come into service later than its competitors. I have, however, no doubt that it is potentially a very good engine indeed.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but will he bear in mind that as recently as 8th February he produced in the House a pretty powerful condemnation of the commercial case for the engine, in the light of which taxpayers will need a very clear assurance that this is the most sensible form of public works programme, if we are to go ahead with it, for the employment of the 40,000 people involved?
    Mr. Corfield: A large number of considerations come into the question. As I have said earlier, and have repeated often enough, I believe the RB211 to be a very good engine. There is no doubt, however, that market potential in the aerospace world is particularly difficult to assess at present.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is pretty disgraceful when an hon. Member attacks a product of British industry like the RB211 engine as the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has done? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that must make the negotiations with Lockheed even more difficult at a very touchy time?
    Mr. Corfield: I do not think that that question has any bearing on the negotiations.

    Concorde
    Mr. Barnettasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Concorde.
    Mr. John Davies: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and I met M. Chamant on 22nd April. We were not able to make the thorough review we had originally intended because not all the information was available. We were, however, encouraged by the satisfactory nature of the flight test result to date.
    We accordingly decided to authorise the start of manufacture of four more production aircraft, bringing the total number of production aircraft under construction to 10, and the ordering of long-dated materials for a further six aircraft.
    The latest estimate of development costs at December, 1970 prices is £885 million. Further details will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

    11
    We shall, of course, continue to keep a close watch on the project, and I will be meeting M. Chamant later in the year to examine progress.
    Mr. Barnett: In view of the further massive escalation in costs, would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that cancellation at this stage could very well mean, including the further production costs authorised, costs exceeding £1,000 million jointly between ourselves and the French? In view of the Government's declaration about a more open style of government, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider giving to the House costs of cancellation compared with costs of continuing the project and the likely price obtainable in the narrow range of the likely number of sales? If the right hon. Gentleman does not give those figures, the House must assume that there will be even further escalation.
    Mr. Davies: These discussions with the French try to cover forecasts the whole time. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am concerned about the rising costs of Concorde, but the truth is that at this stage it would indeed be very unwise to do other than proceed with this project, which we are doing.
    Mr. Tebbit: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that for the second or third time running he would be well advised to tell some of the ignorant critics that most of the information for which they ask is published, and has been published particularly in the last three weeks, in Flight magazine, and that if they read it and assimilated it they would not ask such stupid questions?
    Mr. Davies: I will not associate myself with every one of those expressions, but a lot of information is available.
    Mr. Benn: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the House is entitled to hear authoritative figures and not to rely entirely on what it reads in magazines, which are not always accurate.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us two things? First, what has been the increase in the estimate in current prices, or December, 1970, prices, since the last statement was made? Second, could the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that no decision is taken by the Govern-
    12
    ment as between Concorde and the RB211 about which we are to have a statement later, and that each will be considered on its merits?
    Mr. Davies: It was with a view to giving the House authoritative figures that I said what I did. At December, 1970, values, the increase is £60 million over the last estimate, which was £825 million, making the figure £885 million now, as I said. I think that that was the question which the right hon. Gentleman wished to have answered.
    As regards his second point about any decision trying to play off the RB211 against the Concorde in one sense or other, there is absolutely no question of that being done.
    Following is the information:

    CONCORDE—STATEMENT ON DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR OFFICIAL REPORT

    The latest basic estimate of £885 million is divided as follows as between actual past expenditure and estimated future expenditure:—

    British Government

    French Government

    Both Governments

    £m.

    £m.

    £m.

    Actual costs from 29th November, 1962 to 30th April, 1971 at the rates prevailing when the costs were incurred

    280

    245

    525

    Estimated costs from 30th April, 1971 to completion of the programme at December, 1970 prices and an exchange rate of £1= 13·33 FF.

    160

    200

    360

    440

    445

    885

    The difference between the latest estimate of £885 million at December, 1970 prices and the former estimate of £825 million at June, 1970 prices is made up as follows:—

    £m.

    Former estimate at June, 1970 prices

    825

    Pay and price increases since June, 1970

    15

    Later date for obtaining Certificate of Airworthiness

    15

    Additional expenditure on the propulsion system

    10

    Other adjustments to the programme

    20

    Present estimate

    885

    Trade Descriptions (Nattrass v. Tesco Supermarkets)
    Mr. Fletcher-Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry

    13
    what action he proposes in the light of the decision of the House of Lords in Nattrass v.Tesco Supermarkets in view of its effect on the protection afforded by the Trade Descriptions Act.
    Mr. Ridley: None, Sir. In my view, the protection afforded by the Act has not been significantly affected by this decision.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does not my hon. Friend realise that at the time of the passage of the Bill no one envisaged for a moment that it would be possible for a large concern like this to escape simply by blaming one of its managers for the defect? Will he look again at the possibility of amending legislation?
    Mr. Ridley: The Act expressly provides that, where the commission by any person of an offence is due to the act or default of another person, the first person is to be acquitted if he also satisfies the court that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence by himself or any person under his control.
    This was recognised in the debates in the other place, and I ask my hon. and learned Friend to look at HANSARD for 22nd January, 1968. Perhaps the moral is that prosecutions should be directed against the person who is guilty and not at anyone handy.
    Dr. Gilbert: Is not one of the problems in a case like this the question where the burden of proof lies, and does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is grave concern in the public mind about this, that people do not agree with his view, and that they feel that their safeguards have been eroded?
    Mr. Ridley: It is a perfectly natural rule of justice that people should not be subject to criminal charges unless one has some reason for believing that they have committed an offence. It is not enough, therefore, just to prosecute a company without making sure who it is within the company who has been responsible for committing the offence.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Does the hon. Gentleman realise where his argument takes him in logic if he abandons the principle of vicarious liability for offences such as this? If we apply his principle to the
    14
    Factories Act and other social legislation, for example, and say that the target for a prosecution when an offence is committed shall be the man actually at the point of the offence, the main culprits in such a situation may escape altogether. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a serious constitutional issue here which, in my opinion, he seems to be taking far too lightly?
    Mr. Ridley: No, Sir. It has always been true that, if the person accused of the commission of an offence can prove that it was clue to the act or default of another and that he has taken all reasonable precautions to make sure that that other person had proper instructions, he should be acquitted. That seems to me to be a fundamental principle of law which the hon. Gentleman would do wrong to question.

    Heathrow Airport (Noise)
    Mr. Worsleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will arrange for the two main runways at London Airport (Heathrow) to be used on alternate dates for take-off and landing, and for this procedure to be publicised in order that the public may have some relief from noise.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Whenever possible, landings are already equalised between the two main runways. I shall consider how far landings might be alternated between the runways, though any such arrangement would be liable to frequent interruption by unpredictable contingencies.
    Mr. Worsley: I thank my hon. Friend for going as far as he has, but may I press him further on this matter, since it would be of great help to people in London if they could know when there would be some relief from this intolerable noise?
    Mr. Grant: I appreciate that, and it is one of the reasons why I said that we shall consider the matter further. I should point out that it would make little difference at distances greater than about seven miles from the airport.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I have referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner a case suggesting that the hon. Gentleman's Department is not doing all it could in this

    15
    matter. If the Parliamentary Commissioner makes recommendations to his Departments that it should alter its procedures so as to give some relief from noise, will the hon. Gentleman take that very seriously?
    Mr. Grant: We had better wait to see what the Parliamentary Commissioner says.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in the event of Great Britain joining the European Economic Community, British industry will have the opportunity to discuss with parallel organisations in the Community the social problems of industrial development within the European Community.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Any organisation representing British industry is free now to discuss these matters with its opposite number in Europe.
    Mr. Redmond: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, but is he aware of the considerable disquiet in the regions, and certainly in Lancashire, because it is felt that the main benefits of membership of the Common Market will go to the "golden triangle" of London-Paris-Bonn and the regions will suffer neglect as a result? Could my hon. Friend give the country, and especially the regions, some assurance in this respect and say that organisations such as the C.B.I., the industrial development associations and so on will be able to consult with a view to improving matters in some of the older areas?
    Mr. Grant: The Community countries are well aware of these matters and are particularly conscious of regional problems. There is nothing to stop regional policy. Both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. have close contacts with their opposite numbers in Europe, and these will, no doubt, continue.

    Tariffs
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what evidence he has to show that the tariff advantages British industry enjoys in the Commonwealth are being eroded independently of any changes that might be attributed to our joining the European Economic Community.
    Mr. John Davies: Reductions in tariff preferences resulting from multilateral tariff negotiations, increases in protective rates and other changes in national tariffs.
    Mr. Blaker: Is it not true that, as Commonwealth countries have established their own manufacturing industries, they have progressively tended to protect them and that, because of the advantages which we have enjoyed in those countries in the past, this is a process which has been and is likely to be particularly prejudicial to ourselves?
    Mr. Davies: There are certain Commonwealth countries which have sought to protect infant industries in that way, but there may still be margins of preference in our favour. The same has happened in South Africa, which is not a member of the Commonwealth but is a member of the sterling area.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has not the mutually beneficial adjustment of the Ottowa preferences, which are long out of date, been frustrated by the working of the G.A.T.T. ban on new and increased preferences, and, with all the confusion in the Community and so on, is not the time coming for all these matters to be considered afresh?
    Mr. Davies: Yes, Sir, I have no doubt that it will be necessary to think carefully once again in relation to both these items and certain others when we see more clearly the progress of the negotiations in Brussels.

    Unemployment (Regional Policies)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent estimate has been made of the effects of the new regional policies on the levels of unemployment; and how soon he expects the full results of those policies to be effective.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: No system of regional incentives could yield measure-able results in the space of six months. Progress will depend on the co-operation of all in creating conditions for sound national economic growth.
    Mr. Hamilton: That answer means absolutely nothing. Does the hon. Gentleman regard the present figures as appalling, and, if he does, what adjective will he apply to the figures for the coming

    17
    winter? Second, when will the Government accept complete responsibility for the appalling mess into which we have now got ourselves?
    Mr. Grant: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to use an adjective, it would be very similar to that which I used about the high unemployment under his Administration. The present Government will take responsibility for what happens next winter. What they do not take responsibility for is what happened during the six years of the Labour Government.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the sole result of the so-called regional policies pursued by the Labour Government in Scotland was that, notwithstanding hundreds of millions of pounds poured in, more than 80,000 jobs wore lost?
    Mr. Grant: I entirely agree.
    Mr. Varley: Part of the Government's case is that they have had a thorough-going review of regional policies. If they want to maintain this pretence, why are they being so timid in not publishing a White Paper setting out all the facts, the nature of the review, the cost-effectiveness of investment grants, and so on? The House is entitled to this information.
    Mr. Grant: The Government published a White Paper last November on one aspect of regional incentives. The other matters have been fully debated in the House.

    Regional Employment Premium
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further representations he has now received in connection with his decision not to continue payments of regional employment premium after 1974; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: I can trace only one letter, to which I replied that R.E.P. was expensive, wasteful, and had not lived up to the claims made for it when it was introduced.
    Mr. Strang: Is it still the Government's intention to spend the money saved by the abolition of R.E.P. on improving the infrastructure in the development areas? Will the Government in due course identify those projects which are going
    18
    ahead as a direct result of the abolition of R.E.P.?
    Mr. Grant: No, Sir. It is certainly the purpose to stop wasteful expenditure in due course, and it will obviously be much more sensible to apply the money saved to improving the infrastructure. As to how the amount works out, the hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is not a great incentive to existing industry in development areas to expand once R.E.P. is abolished? Surely the Government have something in mind for replacing R.E.P. for the development areas?
    Mr. Grant: I will not speculate on policy decisions that may be taken between now and 1974. There are already substantial incentives to existing firms in the development areas.
    Dame Irene Ward: Can my hon. Friend tell me how we are using the Local Employment Acts to stimulate tourism on the North-East Coast? I shall have a great deal to say on the problem of shipping when the relevant Bill is introduced. Is my hon. Friend aware that we want a more active policy for our area, as we have a great deal to offer on the North-East Coast and we should like to have the opportunity of offering it?
    Mr. Grant: There is nothing to stop the North-East Coast offering it now. The Local Employment Acts are concerned with employment and not directly with tourism. We have had an exchange of correspondence on this and exchanges in the House. I repeat the offer that I have made to my hon. Friend to discuss the problems.

    Publicly-Owned Industries (Hiving-Off)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a further statement of his plans for hiving off profitable sections of the publicly-owned industries.
    Mr. John Davies: No, Sir.
    Mr. Allaun: Will the right hon. Gentleman take careful note of the decision by the Labour Party National Executive in favour of the next Labour Government's taking back the hived-off sections without

    19
    compensation? As this advance warn-has been given, will not investors have only themselves to blame if they burn their fingers?
    Mr. Davies: That seems to me to be a hypothetical decision. In deciding any adjustments in the boundaries of the nationalised industries, we must take a very full account of the industrial efficiencies of the concerns involved.

    Unemployment (Scotland)
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what new initiatives he now proposes taking to help arrest the rise in Scottish unemployment.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: The hon. Member will recognise that major new initiatives have already been taken to put the economy on a sound footing and to promote industrial development in Scotland. Clearly changes of this magnitude should be given time to work, but we keep the situation under continuous review.
    Mr. Sillars: We all realise that it is extremely difficult to deliver that answer with a straight face. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the number of very reputable individuals and organisations in Scotland advocating a massive public works programme to reduce unemployment this year? Has the hon. Gentleman's Department been involved in any study of the possibility of undertaking such a programme?
    Mr. Grant: I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's point. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has urged local authorities to do just that. He will be having further discussions with various people on this point in the near future.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my hon. Friend take careful note of the grave damage done to the Scottish economy by the penal taxation by the last Government, of family companies based in Scotland, and encourage my right hon. and hon. Friends to rectify this as soon as possible?
    Mr. Grant: Once again I take careful note of what my hon. Friend says and find myself in substantial agreement.
    Mr. William Hamilton: What representations has the hon. Gentleman had
    20
    from the Scottish C.B.I. and the Scottish Council on the efficacy or otherwise of the Government's new policies?
    Mr. Grant: The Director-General of the C.B.I. has indicated that he is entirely in favour of the policy the Government are adopting.

    Natural Gas (Conversions)
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on progress being made on conversion of consumers' appliances to natural gas.
    Mr. Ridley: The programme is on target. Nearly 10 million appliances belonging to more than 3¾ million consumers have so far been converted.
    Mr. Watkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he fully aware of the sheer immensity of the operation, in that there are well over 30 million appliances to be converted? Is he satisfied that the conversion is proceeding with a minimum of inconvenience to consumers?
    Mr. Ridley: I am aware of the immensity of the programme. It was always scheduled to take 10 years, up till the end of 1978, but we now hope that by 1975 most consumers will be converted. I believe that the number of complaints from consumers has on the whole been dropping, which is a tribute to the gas boards carrying out the conversion.

    B.O.A.C. (Charter Subsidiary)
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement about the British Overseas Airways Corporation's proposals to form a charter subsidiary.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: B.O.A.C. propose to use a subsidiary company in order to enable them to compete in that part of the charter market not open to I.A.T.A. airlines. We are satisfied that they should be enabled to do so.
    Mr. Huckfield: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. Is not he aware that the cherished darling of the Tory Party, Caledonian-B.U.A., already has a significant advantage in charter capacity which will be further enshrined

    21
    in the Civil Aviation Bill? What is he prepared to do to ensure that B.O.A.C. gets its fair share of the market?
    Mr. Grant: I do not propose to debate the Civil Aviation Bill with the hon. Gentleman at Question Time. The hon. Gentleman's Question asked about the subsidiary. It is designed primarily to enable B.O.A.C. to compete with international overseas competitors.

    Air Misses
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in order to establish the size of the air-miss problem, he will arrange that during a trial period no disciplinary action should be taken against reporting air misses regardless of blame attributed.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: No, Sir. The present air-miss reporting and investigation procedure works effectively. There is no evidence that the possibility of disciplinary action deters pilots from reporting air misses.
    Mr. Tebbit: It is my information from traffic controllers that it deters them from making such reports. There have been alarming incidents and a lot of alarmist speculation. Would not my hon. Friend agree that nothing but good could come out of an arrangement whereby controllers or pilots could report, knowing that they would not be subject to disciplinary action, to somebody who could then tell us whether there is anything in this alarming speculation?
    Mr. Grant: I recognise my hon. Friend's considerable knowledge and experience of this matter, but the views which he has expressed are not entirely shared by all pilots. However, I will consider further with the pilots' organisations and the airline operators—with whom disciplinary action, if any, lies—what can be done further in this respect.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfield: What was the reported number of air misses in United Kingdom air space last year and what does the hon. Gentleman suspect that the true figure should be?
    Mr. Grant: I cannot give exact figures because it was only agreed last year that information about the number of reported air misses and the number of aircraft involved should be published. The
    22
    survey for 1970 is expected to be published in September, 1971.
    Mr. Mason: This is, of course, as we all understand, a voluntary reporting system, but since pilots, co-pilots, crew members, air traffic controllers and some passengers must know when an air miss takes place, it is hard to keep it secret. Can the hon. Gentleman reveal what disciplinary acts have been taken against pilots or controllers in recent months?
    Mr. Grant: Not without notice.

    Steel Industry
    Mr. Moyleasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is now in a position to make an announcement on the future size and structure of the British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. John Davies: I have nothing to add to my statement to the House on 27th April.—[Vol. 816, c. 247–58].
    Mr. Moyle: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if we ever join the E.E.C., its present members will require us to abolish the Consumer Council's power to make representations about price increases by monopolistic corporations? Will he ensure that the Six are asked whether they would allow the Council to retain that power?
    Mr. Davies: This is a matter on which we should want to have discussions with the Six in the light of any result of the negotiations in Brussels.
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Iron and Steel Act, 1967; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Davies: The hon. Member will be aware that we did not support this Measure; however I have no current proposals to amend it.
    Mr. Duffy: Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Part IV of the Act imposes on the Corporation the need to maintain financial viability, taking one year with another. Does not he now think, in view of his recent refusal to grant in full the application by the Corporation for a price increase against the background of an inherited and

    23
    accumulating deficit, that he should amend the Act?
    Mr. Davies: No, Sir. I propose first and foremost to see the results of the first phase of my review. It is not yet completed but will be shortly. In the light of that, I shall have to make firm decisions about the future.
    Mr. Michael Foot: I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman will announce the first phase of his review in a week or two. Will he include consideration of the other half of the 14 per cent. increase for which the Corporation originally asked? We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's intimation that he understands that he must carry out the provisions of the Iron and Steel Act, 1967. Will he reiterate the commitment which the Government have already made under the Coal Industry Bill—which he has introduced—that any proposal for hiving-off any part of the steel industry would first have to be submitted to the House of Commons?
    Mr. Davies: The second part of the 14 per cent. price increase asked for by the Corporation will be looked at in the first phase of the review. In reply to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I shall not do anything that I am statutorily forbidden to do.

    Czechoslovakia (Trade)
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish figures showing the exports to Czechoslovakia from the United Kingdom, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and Italy in 1965 and 1970, respectively, from information available from international sources.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: The information is published by the O.E.C.D. in "Statistics of Foreign Trade, Series A", which is available in the Library. The figures show that exports from the United Kingdom have increased more slowly than from France, Germany and Italy.
    Sir A. Meyer: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this gives the lie to allegations that the Community is an inward-looking organisation? Does it not suggest that the existence of the Community helps to promote trade with
    24
    Eastern Europe and that, inside the Community, Britain would find further opportunities for trading with Eastern Europe?
    Mr. Grant: That is one conclusion that can be drawn from the figures. I am certain that there is nothing in the Community which would inhibit Britain from trading further with Eastern Europe.
    Mr. Deakins: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much of the exports of the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Italy were of subsidised agricultural products?
    Mr. Grant: Not without notice.

    Price Increases
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many requests for advice he has received from private companies who, in view of the Government's policy of controlling inflation, want to know whether they should increase their prices to the consumer because of increased operating costs; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Ridley: There have been only a few informal requests. The firms concerned have been advised in the terms of the reply, which I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 14th January.—[Vol. 809, c. 106.]
    Mr. Deakins: Does not this lack of requests by private firms, in co-operation with Government policy, show that they are unconcerned about controlling inflation, simply passing on price increases to the consumer without regard to the effect on the cost of living? Does it not also show that these firms are not concerned to absorb their cost increases by increased efficiency of operation?
    Mr. Ridley: Considering that last year the average level of wages rose by 14 per cent. while the average level of prices rose by 8 per cent., the facts speak directly contrary to the hon. Gentleman's allegation. Competition has had the effect of moderating price increases far more than they would otherwise have been.
    Mr. Barnett: Do the Government intend to do anything about prices other than leave them to competition?
    Mr. Ridley: What is more, we intend to reinforce competition where it is lacking by working through the Monopolies Commission. As the hon. Gentleman knows, competition has always been the best way to control prices.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in view of increasing price rises, he will now consider fresh measures in order to reduce them; and if he will expedite their introduction.
    Mr. Ridley: Increasing price rises are the inevitable consequence of inflationary wage rises. It would therefore be more appropriate for the hon. Member to concentrate his energies upon ways of reducing inflationary pay settlements.
    Mr. Jenkins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it does him no credit to keep on uttering propositions which are universally known to be fallacious? The part which wage inflation plays in prices can easily be measured and it is generally known to be a minority part. Will he get down to answering the Question? Are not the Government personally, individually and totally responsible for most of the price increases?
    Mr. Ridley: I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will ever learn anything. If the nation pays itself 14 per cent. more in total, does he expect that that will not go through in prices? Is he further aware that, in the first eight months of this Government, the rise in prices was the same as in the last eight months of the last Administration?
    Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman said that he was reinforcing competition by using the Monopolies Commission. In what way? There has been only one reference of a monopoly so far in the ten months of this Government's life. What are the Government's decisions about competition policy, if they have come to any, and what specific proposals, if any, have been submitted to the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. and can be submitted to the House?
    Mr. Ridley: Discussions have been taking place about the reform of the Monopolies Commission. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait a little longer.
    Mr. Biffen: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people think that increases in prices and, indeed, increases in wages are the product of the rapidly inflated money supply from which this country has been suffering? Inasmuch as this has been contributed to by a substantial inflow of overseas funds, will my hon. Friend recommend to the Government that we should follow the excellent example of Germany and float the currency?
    Mr. Ridley: I am not responsible for the conduct of monetary policy and questions to do with parity. I would point out to my hon. Friend that within any given total of money it is perfectly possible for a redistribution of income to take place from one section of the community to another, and that is what is happening.
    Mr. Heffer: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that he has absolutely no proof of his contention that the rise in unemployment is due to the increase in wage costs? Is not this the most fallacious argument? Is it not true that the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the Government have discovered one truth—that if a lie is repeated often enough, it will eventually get across to some people who will believe that lie in the same way that some people believed Nazi propaganda?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must realise that it is perfectly possible for any firm or industry to price itself out of its market and thereby increase unemployment. Indeed, that is one of the factors now at work.

    Scotland (Official Visit)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next proposes to pay an official visit to Scotland.
    Mr. John Davies: On 14th May.
    Mr. Dalyell: When he comes, will he visit some extremely anxious Rolls-Royce sub-contractors who are bothered about how they are to get paid, not least in the light of an answer given by Lord Carrington in the House of Lords in reply to a Question on this subject?
    Mr. Davies: I fear that on this occasion I shall not have the opportunity

    27
    to meet Rolls-Royce sub-contractors—I already have a full day—but certainly this is a matter about which I am closely in touch.

    Gold and Silver Articles
    Mrs. Doris Fisherasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the powers which weights and measures departments of local authorities have to investigate complaints concerning gold and silver articles, since the coming into force of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.
    Mr. Ridley: Section 28 of the Act confers powers of entry, inspection and seizure for ascertaining, whether offences against the Act—including false indications of testing, approval, composition and date of manufacture—have been committed.
    Mrs. Fisher: As the assay offices now do all the merchandise marking and consumer protection in the gold and silver trades for local authorities, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that under the new legislation they will continue to safeguard the consumers?
    Mr. Ridley: Who will be enforcing the new hallmarking legislation has not yet been finally decided, but we shall certainly bear the hon. Lady's comments in mind before reaching a decision.

    Industrial Development Certificates
    Sir G. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has considered the resolution of the Corby and District Chamber of Commerce, a copy of which has been sent to him, on delays involved in obtaining industrial development certificates for factories outside the development and intermediate areas; and what plans he has for expediting the consideration of applications for such industrial development certificates.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: I am not aware of any undue delay in dealing with applications for these certificates, but if the right hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind perhaps he would write to me.
    Sir G. de Freitas: We have written repeatedly. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under the Governments of both par-
    28
    ties there has been delay in granting I.D.C.s to new towns like Corby? Is he further aware that a substantial firm which was granted permission two years ago had had to wait for so long that it reluctantly decided to go elsewhere?
    Mr. Grant: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to me any specific cases, I will certainly look into them. The last thing we want is delay in meeting these applications. My only comment is that applications in respect of assisted areas are generally answered almost by return of post, although those for other areas require a good deal of investigation. Firms often ask for a review, and that takes time. However, I will do everything I can to speed up the delivery.

    Coal Prices
    Mr. Milneasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if, in his informal consultations with the coal industry, he will raise the question of lowering the price of domestic coal in relation to the overall fuel pricing policy of the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Ridley: These consultations are confidential but I shall bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind.
    Mr. Milne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is too great a disparity between domestic coal prices and prices charged to industrial consumers? As price inflation is bearing most harshly on people in the lower income groups, will he take up this matter with the National Coal Board with a view to getting domestic fuel prices lower than they are?
    Mr. Ridley: We are discussing this matter with the Coal Board. However, there is some doubt whether domestic prices are subsidising industrial coal prices and I should not like to confirm or deny that statement until we have been able to go into the matter more closely.
    Mr. Skinner: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that only a fortnight ago there was a Prices and Incomes Board Report specifically about coal prices and coal miners' wages which supported my hon. Friend's view that domestic coal prices are largely subsidising industrial undertakings?
    Mr. Ridley: I know that it sounds a terrible thing to do, but I reserve the right to disagree with the National Board for Prices and Incomes, if necessary.

    Steel Scrap
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the quantity of steel scrap exported in the first quarter of 1971 and the proportion of these exports which went to the Common Market countries.
    Mr. Ridley: 60,500 tons of ferrous scrap; and 47 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Hardy: That answer will be of great interest, but in the steel-making areas there is even greater interest in future scrap trading arrangements? Will the Minister not approve of any change in the arrangements for governing scrap trading, particularly where such a change would be disadvantageous to the British steel industry? Will he also ensure that no change in the arrangements is made which confers on the steel industries of the Common Market countries an advantage against our own?
    Mr. Ridley: We have been importing almost twice as much as we have exported in the period in question. The present arrangements are that there is an open general licence for nearly all grades of scrap and we believe that that is the right state and we have no intion of changing that state of control at present.

    Licensed Premises (Choice)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information and proposals he has received from the Brewers' Society about widening the choice available to the public in places where a large proportion of the licensed premises is owned by the same brewer.
    Mr. Ridley: The Brewers' Society have sent me a copy of a factual report on local concentration of ownership of licensed premises, and I am studying this.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the subject of freeing tied houses has been under consideration for more than a year, and that the Government have not made any effort to carry into effect the recommendation of the
    30
    Monopolies Commission that the system of the tied house should be ended? Is he further aware that it looks as though there is some unholy conspiracy between the Government and the brewers to bog down the whole subject of the tied house until the general report on the licensing laws is received? When will the Government take action to implement the recommendations of the Monopolies Commission?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The Government have set up a committee to inquire into the form of the licensing laws. The Government have noted with approval the voluntary undertaking by the brewers, which is not called for in the Monopolies Commission Report, about the sale of non-beer products. We are actively studying the subject of the local monopolies of pubs. If that is not taking action after the six years of inactivity by our predecessors, I do not know what is.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: Is it not a fact that the Monopolies Commission made no recommendation except that about changing the licensing laws, and is not a review to that end now being conducted by the Erroll Committee?
    Mr. Ridley: That is quite true. The only recommendation of the Commission was that the licensing laws should be changed, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary immediately set that inquiry in train.
    Mr. Dell: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he received the report from the Brewers Society about concentration in particular areas and when he expects to come to a decision about it?
    Mr. Ridley: We have only just received it, and I should like to study it before being able to say when we shall come to a conclusion.
    Mr. Marten: Is it not a fact that some brewers with monopolies in some areas have already begun to swap pubs with other brewers so that there will no longer be monopolies in those areas?
    Mr. Ridley: I have heard of informal proposals of that sort, but I do not think that any such steps have yet been taken.
    Mr. Lipton: On a point of order. In view of the completely unsatisfactory

    31
    nature of all the replies, I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    Rolls-Royce Ltd.
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he can now enumerate those constituent parts of Rolls-Royce Limited which it is not intended shall become part of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited; and which of them have been offered for purchase.
    Mr. Corfield: I cannot give full details but the main elements not being taken over by Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. are the Motor Car and Oil Engine divisions and a number of share holdings in subsidiary and associated companies. Disposal of the parts of Rolls-Royce Ltd. not to be taken over by Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. is a matter for the Receiver.
    Mr. Whitehead: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is 11½ weeks ago that the Government allowed the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce and that it is some weeks since the Receiver ceased effective management of the aero-division? When can we expect a statement about the disposal of these assets? In particular, can the Minister be more specific about the future of the composite fibre division and the Derby engine division?
    Mr. Corfield: It may be 11½ weeks since Rolls-Royce went into liquidation on its own account, but the plain fact is that the Receiver is maintaining the management of these companies as it is his duty and interest to do to make them as attractive as possible to potential purchasers. I cannot add anything further to what has already been said with regard to the others matters.
    Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision by the Government to hive off part of Rolls-Royce at this time will involve a number of major managerial decisions and disentangling at the very moment when it moves into new ownership? Will he not think again about this, at any rate until we have seen how Rolls-Royce settles down under the 1971 company?
    Mr. Corfield: I am hoping that the 1971 Rolls-Royce will settle down very quickly indeed and I do not propose to postpone the other decisions for any length of time.

RB211 ENGINE
The Minister for Aerospace (Mr. Frederick Corfield): I should like to make a statement about the progress of the RB211 negotiations.
As the House knows, Her Majesty's Government and Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. have been in negotiations with the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation for the supply of the RB211 engine to power the Lockheed TriStar aircraft. We have also had discussions with the United States Government.
Negotiations with the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation have been in two parts. First, Her Majesty's Government have agreed with the Lockheed Corporation to finance Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. in the development and production of the engine and to enable it to maintain the necessary support facilities throughout the life of the engine—provided that we can be satisfied that there is sufficient support to enable the TriStar project to be completed.
For its part the Lockheed Corporation has agreed to a substantial increase in the price of the engine, equivalent to some £50 million for the first 555 engines, and to annul penalties under the old contract for delay in delivery of the engine.
On that basis Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. has been negotiating a new contract with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, which is on the point of agreement. The new contract will be governed by English law.
Because the RB211 has been designed for the TriStar and there is at present no other significant market for it, it was clearly necessary, as part of the contract negotiations, to be sure about the future of the TriStar project itself. Given the risks involved in large aviation projects and the known problems of Lockheed, it is clear that effective support for financing the TriStar project can only be provided with the assistance of the United States Government, just as support for the RB211 engine can be given only by Her Majesty's Government.
The United States Administration have now announced that they are seeking authority for the United States Congress to guarantee up to $250 million additional credits for Lockheed, which amount they anticipate will be sufficient to assure the continuity of the TriStar project. Before

33
providing such guarantees the Administration will, of course, have taken steps to satisfy themselves that the other requirements for the completion of the project are met.
The main outstanding point here is that it will be necessary for both Governments to be sure that the airline customers will still buy the TriStar, notwithstanding the delay and the increase in price. Representatives of Lockheed and the airlines are meeting in London at this moment with Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. for detailed discussions on this point and on the arrangements for completing the RB211 project.
Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government are continuing to finance work on the RB211 engine and the Department of Trade and Industry is discussing with Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. arrangements to provide the company with the finance it will need to give effect to the agreement with Lockheed. This will involve some £100 million for completion of the development of the engine: to the extent that costs are not covered by the price increase which Lockheed has agreed there will have to be additional support for initial production engines. Against these costs we must of course set those which would be incurred if the project did not continue and the profit arising from the sale of spares.
The House will appreciate that there are still problems to resolve before we can be sure that RB211 will go ahead. Her Majesty's Government have done everything that they can to establish a basis for agreement that is acceptable to all concerned. In particular they have kept RB211 going, and will continue to do so, in the expectation of a satisfactory agreement. An early decision from the other parties is a matter of increasing urgency. Meantime, the House will appreciate that delicate and complex negotiations still continue.
Mr. William Rodgers: May I first express some concern in that I understand that this statement was first made in the House of Lords at 2.45 p.m. today, by the Secretary of State for Defence, who under the new organisation of Government is not a responsible Minister. I would ask the Lord President to consider precedents for statements of this kind being made first in the Lords and, at an
34
appropriate time, to tell this House whether he thinks this is common and acceptable practice.
As to the statement, we very much welcome the progress which has been made on the basis of it saving the RB211, and we also appreciate the delicacy and complexity, as the Minister says, of the negotiations. We wish well to everyone concerned in this. May I ask specifically the following questions? Will the Minister say what is the total commitment now, given the extra £100 million for research and development? Will he confirm that there is an open-ended commitment to cover production costs on the first 555 engines? I think this is what he was saying, but perhaps he will be kind enough to be a little more precise.
Secondly, did I understand him to say in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) a few moments ago, that no date has yet been set for the transfer of the assets from the Receiver to Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.?
Thirdly, is he satisfied that B.E.A. is giving full and proper consideration, within its own commercial judgment, to buying the TriStar, and, fourthly, is it still true to say on the basis of his statement this afternoon that the final outcome of the negotiations now depends upon approval in the United States Congress? If this is so, how long is that approval likely to take?
Mr. Corfield: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's appreciation of the delicate situation in which we are at the moment. As to the total commitment, we estimate that the additional—that is, further—development costs over and above the £47 million that Her Majesty's Government have already put in will be approximately £100 million. The best estimate we have of production costs for the first 555 engines is approximately £80 million and, as I said earlier, we have had an increase in price of £50 million.
Nevertheless, there are considerable hopes, I think not unfounded, that the gap can still be narrowed. With regard to the date for the transfer of the assets, I am afraid that, if I gave that impression, it was quite wrong. They will be transferred at midnight on 22nd of this month. They will comprise the greater part of

35
the aero-engine, marine and industrial gas turbine divisions.
As to B.E.A. I am satisfied that it is giving full and urgent consideration to this matter. Although, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the final outcome does to some extent rest with Congress in the sense that no one, particularly in this House, would wish to go on with a project for which there was no money, we anticipate that the interests of both sides coincide and it is not in either of our interests to delay it longer than necessary. I am hoping that this will be a reasonably quick decision.
Mr. Warren: Will adequate labour and material cost escalation clauses be included in the new contract?
Mr. Corfield: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Walter Johnson: May I say how much I welcome the Minister's statement, which will bring very considerable relief to many thousands of my constituents who have had the threat of unemployment hanging over their heads for the last three months?
First, will the Government now give the all-clear for full production at Rolls-Royce? Secondly, it has been widely reported over the weekend that two airlines—Trans World and Air Canada—would like to see a declaration of intent by B.E.A. to purchase the TriStar. Will the Government, as a matter of urgency, ask B.E.A. to send its experts to Lockheed with a view to placing an order for the TriStar? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an order from B.E.A. at this time would finally clinch the deal and give the guarantees which the American banks and the British Government want?
Mr. Corfield: Of course a B.E.A. order is of immense value to any aircraft manufacturer. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Lockheed's sales and technical staff have been in very close touch with B.E.A. As I said earlier, B.E.A. is making serious and, I believe, relatively urgent consideration of this matter.
Mr. Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is general support in the House and in the country for all that has been done by those who have been carrying out these very difficult negotia-
36
tions? However, so that there should be no doubt about the sums of money involved, could he tell the House the total expenditure from public funds which is now committed in development, and, if he anticipates, as I gathered, a production loss on the engines covered by the initial 1011 order, can he say what the total of this is expected to be?
Mr. Corfield: I do not think I can go very much further than adding up the two sums I mentioned, which come to approximately £130 million.
Mr. Sheldon: Will the Minister reaffirm that it is not the decision of the Government to go ahead without the guarantee as to the future of Lockheed? Does this guarantee depend upon Congressional approval alone, or is there any other method which the Minister is at present considering? Also, will he make some comparison between the present estimated cost of saving the RB211 and the cost of saving it before the Receiver was put in?
Mr. Corfield: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I know of no method other than the approach by the American Administration to Congress, and I think that we can safely assume that the American Administration would not have taken that course had not they thought that that sum was necessary for the viability of Lockheed and it was the only way that it could be provided.
A much more detailed cost comparison will appear in the White Paper. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the cost is very much less under the present negotiations.
Mr. Tebbit: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the requests for pressure to be put on B.E.A. are, or could be, another highly dangerous precedent? Air lines are supposed to operate in their commercial interest, and nothing can do a project more harm than for it to be seen that the Government have to twist airlines' tails to get them to buy it.
Mr. Corfield: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that twisting the tail can be self-defeating in this connection.
Mr. Dalyell: In the light of a reply given by Lord Carrington to Lord

37
Beswick, can the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position of the sub-contractors who still await money for parts which they have already supplied to Rolls-Royce? Are they in a less favourable position in the queue than others?
Mr. Corfield: No, I do not think they are in a less favourable position in the queue than others. I understand that the Receiver is issuing instructions as to the approaches which they should make and the people they should approach in order to clear their accounts with him from the moment that the assets are transferred to Rolls-Royce 1971. I think that those instructions are going out today. I have no reason to believe that the sub-contractors are in any worse position than other people.
Mr. Drayson: My right hon. Friend says that there are still problems to be resolved. Are any of them technical, or can he assure the House that the engine fulfils all that is required of it?
Mr. Corfield: The technical diagnosis is very encouraging, but I have been in this game just long enough never to give a guarantee.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only is his statement welcome but that we devoutly hope that the renegotiation will be successfully achieved? I should like to ask him two questions.
First, what is the position of Air Holdings Ltd., which is under an obligation to buy 50 and has already sold some to Air Canada? Has that concern been requoted with a new price? Secondly, while agreeing wholeheartedly with the tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask him whether he agrees that nothing would be worse than to give the impression to Congress that we are setting a rigid time limit to its deliberations, because even with efficient administrations legislative approval sometimes takes time?
Mr. Corfield: I take the right hon. Gentleman's latter point. However, I am sure that he will appreciate that one cannot go on with rapidly rising costs of going into full production to meet the time scale absolutely indefinitely. The Air Holdings contract is currently the subject of renegotiation with Lockheed.
Mr. McMaster: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the considerable success he has had in renegotiating this unfortunately ill-drafted contract, which was originally entered into by the Labour Government, may I ask him whether he agrees that the delay in delivering the engines and getting the plane into the air might, in the current depressed state of the aircraft industry, work to our advantage? Can he say how much he expects to be made out of profits on spares as a result of the sale of these engines?
Mr. Corfield: I do not think that delay ever works to one's advantage, although I think the disadvantage may have been lessened by the current state of aircraft industry finances. One cannot forecast the return on spares. Apart from anything else, they arise a long time after the initial investment, and they have to be discounted over very considerable periods. It would be unwise for me to give a figure.
Mr. Benn: While joining in the welcome of the Government's decision to renegotiate the contract, with their substantial amounts of public money, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to clarify one point about the subcontractors? Can he assure the House that, in addition to the £130 million he mentioned, there will not be a loss which the sub-contractors are expected to carry because of the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce from which Lockheed, under the proposed arrangement, will in some sense be protected by the action of the two Governments?
Mr. Corfield: No, I do not think there is any question of that. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a rather technical question. I will look into it and write to him.
Mrs. Hart: I warmly welcome the statement and congratulate the Minister on the progress he has so far made. However, does he agree that B.E.A.'s purchase of TriStar would be a valuable extra support in the whole project? Can he assure the House that he is at least keeping in very close touch with B.E.A. in its present consideration of the question?
Mr. Corfield: Of course I agree that it would be a valuable fillip, as it would be to Douglas and the A300 consortium.

39
This is a very valuable order. Of course we are closely in touch with B.E.A.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

PERSONAL STATEMENT
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. John Davies): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a personal statement.
The House will recall that in the course of my speech during the debate on unemployment on 29th April I gave figures, recorded in column 748 of HANSARD, for the number of inquiries by industrialists about investment in the assisted areas and compared the number of inquiries in the first quarter of 1970 with those in the first quarter of 1971.
I regret that I have now been informed that the figure for the first quarter of 1970, which I quoted as 538, was not correct. This figure referred to the number of inquiries by people other than industrialists and should not have been used in making the comparison I did. The number of inquiries by industrialists during the first quarter of 1970 was in fact 2,400; the number had declined to 1,083 during the first quarter of 1971 rather than increased as I had suggested.
I wish to apologise unreservedly to the House for having given, in good faith, information which was incorrect.

BASIC FOOD PRICES
3.49 p.m.
Mr. George Wallace: I beg to move,
That this House, noting the increase in prices of basic foods with the consequent hardship to families in areas of low average wages and increasing unemployment, but not classified as development areas, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set up an organisation for consumer protection with powers to scrutinise and check prices of essential goods and services.
The last time I was fortunate to move a Motion on a private Members' day was some months ago when I raised the question of overseas aid and the needs of developing countries. We had a good debate and at the end my Motion was accepted by the Government and by the House without a Division. I sincerely trust that I shall receive the same broadminded treatment today.
From the needs of the underfed millions we come back full circle to our own doorsteps and the most pressing problem of all, certainly for the wives of workers, the domestic chancellors of the exchequer—the worries and anxieties which they are facing due to rapid increase in prices, particularly of basic foods.
I have attempted to question the Minister on this point but, for a technical reason, it was not possible and so I put down an Early Day Motion and, thanks to my good fortune in the Ballot, it has now become a Motion before the House. I speak in this debate as one who has first-hand experience of family shopping every week.
Mr. W. E. Garrett: Have not we all—at any rate on this side?
Mr. Wallace: I know that prices are the main topic among housewives in the supermarkets and other shops. By sheer chance this morning I ran into real trouble on this issue. I went out to get a few odds and ends we had not got during the weekend shopping, and I was checking on a few prices. It so happened that I saw a couple of ladies having a heated argument. Being a polite sort of fellow—and minding my own business—I asked "What's the trouble? Prices?" Then, literally the balloon went up. I got the impression that it was supposed that the prices were all my fault. The right hon. Gentleman the

41
Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) should have been with me and he would have understood exactly how housewives feel about this. The lady's complaint which was given to me arose from her friend's shopping bill, which had gone up from £5 to £7 a week, and, as she told me, "It is time we pulled something down." I rather gather she meant prices.
What is even more worrying to those of us in this House who have some practical experience of shopping and of family finances is the difficulty of elderly pensioners vainly trying to purchase an adequate diet out of inadequate incomes.
As the Minister is probably only too well aware, the local evening newspaper in my constituency—in his birthplace, if I am not mistaken—the Eastern Evening News, which covers, particularly, North Norfolk, has since January been conducting a survey of prices, mainly of basic foods, purchasing the same brand or quality of foods each month at the same supermarkets; 21 items were checked. This fair survey has revealed that prices of mainly basic foods have risen by 21½p—4s. 4d. in good old English money—since January last up to and including April, with the biggest increase in April of 11½p, after the Budget and after the announcement of the reduction in S.E.T.
The main increases were in beef, butter, bacon and potatoes. A random survey of items other than staple foods revealed the somewhat startling fact that it would appear that often shops, because of rapid price increases, posted new price labels over old. Two items pictorially displayed in this newspaper showed, when the old labels were removed a price rise for one, a curry rice preparation, of 2p; that of another preparation, of 1½p.
The Eastern Evening News survey, however, is not related to a given family budget but deals only with a series of items. My wife and I have considered this matter very carefully. She is a very experienced and very careful shopper. We have discussed it and we have discussed price rises from the family budget angle, that is, not only weekly quantities of basic foods bought at weekends, and during the week, but of all the other items in the weekly shopping list—items such as soaps, washing powder, breakfast cereals, tooth paste, etcetera. We estimate that the prices of essential foods and goods have increased by approximately
42
5s. per head since January. That means for an average family of four an increase of £1 a week.
This estimated figure does not include fuel, light, fares and similar items, all of which have increased. Anybody who lives in an outer London suburb, as I do, will know what fare increases mean. Incidentally, I noticed in the Evening Standard of 6th May that Cow & Gate infant food is to go up by more than 25 per cent. in June, and the main reason, the firm says, is the sharp increase in the price which manufacturers have to pay for liquid milk.
It must be obvious to hon. Members on both sides of the House that if this situation continues the increase of pensions—which is welcomed by both sides of the House and is to take effect next September—will be more than wiped away. Similarly, there is the question of wage-cost inflation we hear so much about particularly from the Government benches, and from all that one would think, from the speeches made and the Press articles written, that the main pressure for wage increases stems from the ambitions of trade union leadership. That is not so.
Some hon. Gentlemen present—I see at least one here—will remember the postal strike, and how 28 wives of Norwich postmen came up to this House of Commons. They had not a clue how to lobby. I instructed them. They interviewed Members on the Government side. One did not exactly want to meet them. He is present in the Chamber at the moment—the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). He will recall the occasion.
Mr. Anthony Fell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. It was not a question of my not wanting to meet them. It was that they did not come from my constituency, and I thought it right that they should meet those Members of Parliament from whose constituencies they came.
Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member rather overlooks the fact that they were postmen's wives and that it was a national postmen's strike, and that their views were views which should have been taken into account by hon. Members. However, we will forgive the hon. Gentleman and not become bad friends.
Mr. Fell: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. It is a fact that I sought one of them who was from my own constituency and talked to her for half an hour.
Mr. Wallace: O.K. In that case I apologise, if I have got it wrong, but the other ladies were very upset at the time.
The main point I want to make about it is that those ladies came to see Members of Parliament. They met lady Members, too. They met in a Committee Room. Eventually—and I give my right hon. Friend great credit for this—the Leader of the Opposition asked to see them and asked them to come to his room, and that very kind act was greatly appreciated by them. I think the House will agree, aside from party matters, that if the Leader of the Opposition can do that it is certainly a good thing to do. All these women told my right hon. Friend of their complaints about price increases, and explained that their husbands' wages were not sufficient to feed their families adequately. That is just one example.
I wonder whether right hon. and hon. Members have ever given any thought to the pressures on workers from their wives in the home. Make no mistake about it. That is where the pressure begins. A wife and mother working seven days a week with no overtime rates, worried and anxious over rising prices, struggling to give her family an adequate diet, is bound to take it out on her husband. It is obvious that pressure for wage increases stems from the housewives in the home and not from the ambitions of trade union leaders.
I have said already that I have some experience of shopping. Without wishing to cash in on the occasion, I have also experienced the struggle of trying to live on low wages, and I have known the soul destroying effect of long-term unemployment. The average housewife is also worried about the possibility of her husband losing his job.
In Norfolk, there has been a serious increase in unemployment. At the moment, more than 10,000 people are out of work. The unemployment rate is 4·4 per cent., which is higher than the national average. The peak figure in the Norwich area is 40 per cent. more than a year ago, and total unemployment
44
in the Norwich district committee area is in the region of 5,000. To do the hon. Member for Yarmouth credit, his concern about the situation is such that last week he led a deputation from his constituency to the relevant Government Department.
In the Norwich area, a determined effort of self-help is being made, and I think that the House should know about it, though it brings back memories to me of the provision of work schemes in the days of the great depression. There is a good spirit of co-operation. Norwich City Council has decided to increase capital works schemes by another £500,000, and I understand that there is £8 million worth of work in the pipeline.
On 22nd April, the Executive Committee of Norwich Trades Council presented a report to its members outlining possible lines of action to give employment to workers not only in the city but from a large surrounding area, including Yarmouth and many other constituencies in North Norfolk. From the report, I understand that there is a total of 107 acres of land now or potentially available on 13 different sites for industrial development within the city area. In addition, the Norwich Union Insurance Company is prepared to erect factories and warehouses on a pre-let basis to tenants' own requirements on a further eight acres of land.
The city council is and always will be willing to provide new houses for key workers in industries coming to the area. The City's Advisory Committee for Development of Industry, representative of employers, trade unions and the local authority, is giving urgent attention to the problem.
In passing, though one does not normally mention civil servants, I must pay tribute to the manager of the Norwich area of the Department of Employment, who is more than pulling his weight in seeking solutions to the problem. Tribute must also be paid to the work of the Church, through our bishop, who is now unfortunately leaving the diocese. We have industrial chaplains working in conjunctions with managements and trade unions and getting down to the job in no uncertain fashion. It is a situation of which we can be proud. I am sure, too, that the House will appreciate the

45
positive approach of the trade union movement in the area in this great combined effort to overcome the problem by self-help.
The Government must recognise the efforts of people who are trying to solve their own problems, and I appeal to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite not to obstruct, delay or withhold consent for capital work schemes of the local authority. I ask them to give all possible help and advice to further the local authority's effort to encourage industry to move to the area.
There is one positive action that the Government can take now, and it concerns the Sizewell "B" power station. Construction should have commenced in January, 1971, but it has been postponed for 12 months. Bearing in mind that the power needs of the area are not covered adequately, a decision to proceed at once could result in the employment of workers from a large area of Norfolk and Suffolk extending from north of Norwich, down to Ipswich and possibly across to Cambridge. I appeal to the Government to give this matter their urgent attention and to show the same sense of urgency that has been shown in Norwich by the city council and many other bodies working on solving the problems through their own efforts.
East Anglia is an area of low wages. Average figures are £2 a week below the national average and £3 below the South-East area average. One way of overcoming this is by competition for labour, and that will be created by introducing new industries in to the region. In addition, some trade unions should look at their practice of establishing national minimum wage agreements regardless of region, since these perpetuate the low wage areas. In making that remark, I have the full support of the Norwich Trades Council.
The problems of a low-wage area are added to by rising prices and unemployment. In our area, the decision of the Eastern Counties Omnibus Company to cut out concessionary fares for schoolchildren has imposed further hardship, especially in the rural areas. What is more, in the first week of the imposition of the new price for schools meals, the take-up of meals in Norwich dropped by 20 per cent.
46
It is no good talking about wage inflation to people in low-wage areas. I say that to any Government spokesman who may mention wage-cost inflation. It just does not register: people have enough on their plates trying to make ends meet because of price increases.
Having operated the parish pump, I hope with some effect, I return to the national problem of the rising prices of basic foods. The new import levies on meat imposed by the Government will increase already high prices. The levies have also upset the butchers. I listened to the Minister of Agriculture speaking on the B.B.C. programme "The World This Weekend", in the early stages of which I played a tiny part, having raced to the studio at great personal inconvenience the night before. The butchers have a case. I cannot speak with experience of bulk imports of other foods, but I have some experience of the meat business.
I have nothing against the first-hand importer, who does a good job in finding supplies and bringing them to the United Kingdom for the consumer. He deserves a fair and reasonable reward for his services. But it is my experience that in periods of short supply shipments of meat often change hands several times before the ships carrying them reach the United Kingdom. Each change of hands carries a small profit margin, and the final cost is added to without any possible service in bringing the goods to the consumer. It may be good business practice, but it is not in the public interest.
Another matter which needs attention is the so-called free offer. I can give the House one example, though I did not yield to temptation. The other week, I was out doing a bit of shopping. I was looking for soap. Normally, we use a certain brand which, of course, I shall not mention by name. I noticed that one bar of soap had attached to it a beautiful hairbrush, which was a free offer. There are many such examples. These gimmicks are being introduced when housewives would much prefer a straight reduction in price. I believe, and perhaps I am a little old-fashioned, that quality and price are the best salesmen.
We are always being told to shop around. I wish to goodness that people who give that advice would try shopping

47
around themselves. Just imagine the poor housewife going around the shops with her children trying to compare prices, coming to a decision, and then dragging all the way back to the first shop she went to. It is all very well if one is physically fit—and I must say that I get so exhausted in the process of shopping that when I get home my wife says, "It is time to get yourself a drink"—but for old age pensioners and others it is sheer misery. Therefore, let us have less talk about shopping around since it is complete and absolute nonsense. If the Conservative Party wants to cash in politically on this subject, they should drop the idea of shopping around, because it is doing them enormous harm.
What needs to be done? In the days of the previous Government it was the selective employment tax that was used as an excuse for price increases. Today, the ready-made excuse is the wage-cost inflation. Some increases may be justifiable, some not, but there is no protection today for the housewife. The National Board for Prices and Incomes and the Consumer Council provided some degree of protection, but they have gone. Let us make no mistake about it, food prices will become a crucial issue as we come nearer to the possibility of joining the Common Market. The main feeling in my constituency against the Common Market is the fear of rising prices. If there is any logical case for going in, I assure the House that it will disappear if there is any possibility of price increases arising as a result.
The Minister, on the radio on Sunday, admitted that he expects many food prices to increase during the coming months. The right hon. Gentleman knows this, and it is certainly a serious problem for the low-wage earner and the old age pensioner. The right hon. Gentleman also said in his broadcast that it was not so much a question of the cost of living, but of living standards. Surely to the low-wage earning family and the old age pensioner living standards are very much affected by rising costs of essential foods. This is the main element in their outgoings and is a very significant factor. I understand that butchers are now finding a ready sale for scrag ends of mutton and lamb, particularly to old age pensioners. That takes us back to the old social patterns of the past.
48
In these circumstances I feel that the Government, in fairness to the housewife, should set up some consumer protection organisation to watch food prices, to check the validity of any increases which the Government or the public might refer to such a body, and to make recommendations to the Government or Parliament for action. I have no exact details in mind for such a body, but I feel that it should contain among its members a number of practical housewives who, let us face it, know more about shopping problems than the whole of the Government and Parliament put together. The retail and wholesale trades should be represented, as well as the Government.
It would appear that my suggestion has already caused some interest. It was reported in the Eastern Daily Press at the weekend that a village grocer in Norfolk had suggested that women's institutes throughout the country should take over the job of watching food prices and exposing any increases. The small shopkeepers also are expressing great concern. This is only natural because of the personal relationship which exists between the small shopkeeper and the customer. This situation does not exist in the large supermarkets.
There is increasing speculation about a possible return of an incomes policy either on a voluntary or imposed basis. I believe that no Government of any political complexion will ever get an incomes policy to work unless it is accompanied by a determined and positive policy to keep down the cost of basic foods and other essentials. I feel sincerely that my Motion is a step towards that end and I appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House for their support in accepting this Motion and in seeking some tangible expression of concern by the Government.
4.16 p.m.
Mr. Evelyn King: The House is most grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) for raising this important subject today, and also for the fact that we have present in the debate the, let us call him in this context, Minister of Food. We are also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the moderate way in which he introduced his Motion. He spoke of a broadminded approach on this subject and I should like to support him in that sentiment.

49
All the elements of which he spoke in relation to the constituencies in Norfolk apply no less to my constituency in South Dorset. I wish in some ways that he had dwelt at greater length on the preamble to his Motion which mentions
"… areas with low average wages and increasing unemployment but not classified as development areas".
He gave figures relating to North Norfolk, most of which would be identical for South Dorset, which has an unemployment rate of 4·4 per cent. My constituency has an average earnings rate of £24·8 as against the national average of £28·9. An interesting picture emerges if we compare both those constituency average figures with the development areas. I have never been able to understand why the constituents of either North Norfolk or South Dorset should be taxed in order to give their money to development areas, such as the Merseyside, where in fact the average wage is higher and the unemployment rate is just about the same. I hope that, in so far as he has any influence on his own party, which has done a great deal for development areas, the hon. Gentlemen will draw their attention to the fact that what one puts into development areas one inevitably takes out of other areas. In some cases this may act against them unfairly.
To turn to the matter of food, it would be rash for any hon. Member in this debate to make many party points, since whatever defects exist in the food price mechanism—and there are certainly defects—when one Government has been in office for the last 11 months and another for the last six years, it is difficult to claim that faults exist in greater measure on one side or the other.
May I try to put the matter in perspective? In England some £6,000 million is spent on food every year, which represents 21 per cent. of consumer production. The effect of increased food prices can easily be over-estimated. To put it another way, if food prices rise by 5 per cent., the effect on the cost of living is about 1 per cent. In 1970, housing costs rose by 12 points, transport costs by 11 points, service industries by 12 points, but food rose by only 9 points. If one relates the increases in one commodity to another, one will find that food increases are not as fearful as some suppose. There is an emotional memory from the 19th
50
century—Sir Robert Peel, the Corn Laws, and all the other troubles of that century—and this is a hang-over. Excluding the retirement pensioner and similar poverty groupings, the effect of food prices on the population as a whole is less than might be supposed. If one seeks to deal with retirement pensioners and so on, they are better dealt with by an addition to their salary, wage or pension than by trying to deal with food prices, the effect of which, upon 90 per cent. of the population, is quite different.
Regarding the housewife, I know that the phrase "shop around" has been much used, and I have my doubts about it. I hope that I may be forgiven for saying so, but the housewife is not awfully good at shopping around. Most supermarket owners would say that if one wants to sell an article, it has little to do with value, price or bargaining ability. One puts it at eye height on a shelf and the housewife will buy it. That is not a great tribute to the housewife. Many housewives, too, are prepared, and anxious, to pay more than they need to for convenience foods or for quality. The supreme example is potatoes. I used to grow them and I sold them at about £20 a ton. They were bought in a greengrocer's shop at about £30 or £40 a ton. If they were bought by the pound they would be at another price. If they had been put in paper bags as potato crisps, by that time they would have become £1,000 a ton. Many housewives prefer to buy them as potato crisps or wrapped in paper, cooked and ready to eat, than to buy them in another way. There are many other examples. There is a desire to buy oven-ready, ready-packed foods which are naturally and necessarily more expensive than they need to be.
I want to make some practical suggestions. May I first free from blame the persons to whom blame is sometimes attributed, but who deserve none. It is not the farmer's fault. Every statistic shows that the farming section of the community has immensely increased production a rid efficiency. No one who knows the figures would suggest that farmers' profits are in any way excessive. Between 1964 and 1970 food sales rose by £1,376 million. Farm sales rose by only £345 million. To put that in a more effective way, for every £1 spent in a shop on

51
food from a farm, the farmer received 40p, and that is a very small amount. Therefore, we exempt the farmer.
On the next stage, the shopkeeper, I can do no better than to quote Lord Peddie's report, produced last month:
"Nowhere in the food trade did we find more than a slight rise in gross margins. In some cases they declined." "In small shops there was a very lost level of profit." "For multiples, a low return on capital—lower than in other distributive trades."
That is the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. We exempt the farmer and the shopkeeper.
The next stage is the food manufacturer. He, too, is hard-pressed, and the figures, which are all open to be seen, show that the return on capital of food manufacture is about 13 per cent. No one could call that excessive.
But who is to blame? This is where one comes to the third part of the Motion, in which the hon. Gentleman asks the Government to set up a committee. It is largely Governments who are to blame—all Governments. Here I am having no regard to party. It is simple to analyse where the increased food prices have come from. In almost all cases they come from Government action. A single example of the element which comes highest in food costs is transport. From 1964–69 transport costs increased by 21 per cent. Again, I quote Lord Peddie, and the Opposition will value his opinion:
"The increase in vehicle licence duties and fuel costs has had a serious impact on costs. A single firm is spending £300,000 a year on fuel tax."
That is just one item. Then one turns to the labour force; first to wages and, second, the cost of employment. Between 1964 and 1970—I use those dates only because they happen to be the dates that I have, and not to cover the period of any particular Government—what I call the poll tax, that is, national insurance plus S.E.T., a tax imposed upon an employee, rose by 110 per cent. That is why food prices have risen. Government action has done that. It may be the action of all Governments. S.E.T. alone has directly added three quarters per cent. to the price of food.
On wages, U.S.D.A.W. has now submitted a claim for a minimum wage of
52
£20 for shop assistants. I do not regret that, I support it—as long as hon. Gentlemen opposite will carry through their logic and understand that in putting forward the claim the union, too, are doing something to raise the price of food to some extent.
What can we do to help? There are a number of Government regulations and laws which are outmoded. I spoke on this matter briefly a few months ago when I introduced a Bill designed to give shopkeepers greater liberty on the hours that their shops could open. I do not ask hon. Members to accept only my opinion, but also the opinion of the Consumers' Association and the Consumer Council. It is also the opinion of Lord Peddie that there should be greater liberties as to when shops may open. There can be no difficulty in seeing why this is so. If we look at the table in the same report, we find that only 4 per cent. of housewives shop on a Monday; 43 per cent. shop on a Friday. If we enable shops to open at such hours as the maximum amount of business is done, we shall be able so to reduce costs as to effect, to some extent at least, the charges which the shopkeeper will have to make for his goods. That is one way in which the Government can help.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman has referred to retail trading. I am sure that he would not want the House to be misled. He is aware that every responsible retail trade organisation has declared that it is against the alteration in shop hours and against the Bill that the hon. Gentleman introduced.
Mr. King: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misinformed himself. He would do well to read the debate in HANSARD. He would find that the reverse of what he has said is true.
I move on from the small shop to the large one, the multiple shop. For every £7 rung up on the tills of shops £1 is now spent in multiple shops or in supermarkets—at any rate, in large stores. Therefore, what the big stores do is of vast consequence.
I have no doubt that a development is soon to take place which is already common in France and in America—the out-of-town shopping precinct. Some people

53
call it the hypermarket. There are valid reasons for its development and it is tremendously germane to price levels. First, rents will be less. Second, hypermarkets will be popular with the customer because more and more customers are shopping by car. It may be argued that at present cars are owned only by a certain income group, but this is changing over the years. It is becoming impossible to take cars into town centres. Hypermarkets can be sited out in the country with doors all the way round so that cars can be brought almost to the door of the shop.
I have sympathy with housewives. Thirty-nine per cent. of housewives carry away from shops 20 lb. or more of goods. Sixteen per cent. of housewives carry away loads of more than 40 lbs. These are considerable loads for women. This is one reason why hypermarkets, where vehicles can drive to the door and where trolleys can be pushed to the vehicle, are bound to emerge.
I shall not give the source of the next figure that I shall quote, but I have gone to some trouble to ascertain it. Having consulted a number of firms, my information is that once a hypermarket is established there can be a reduction in food prices of about 3 per cent. Such a reduction is well worth having.
Adding all these things up we can get to the things which Governments can do.
Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about people driving cars to these places. I have not got a car. I cannot drive. What does he suggest for people who must get on without cars?
Mr. King: There are other shops too. Probably the hon. Gentleman did not hear my opening statements when I talked about the plight of pensioners and the poor. I explained that I thought that such people were better dealt with by cash allowances. We must treat food prices as something which affects 90 per cent. of the population. There will be an enormous increase in the number of car owners over the next 15 years.
The development of hypermarkets is being held up by town and country planning regulations and by what I regard as rather foolish restrictions in many counties. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environ-
54
ment with a view to removing these obstacles.
This is the second time in one week that I have mentioned this matter. The last time planning restrictions were held to be responsible in part for an increase in the price of minerals affecting my constituency. In this case they could be responsible for an increase in food prices or at least for preventing a decrease in food prices.
I have no doubt that there was good sense in what the hon. Member for Norwich, North said. In so far as he meant that the Government should set up a committee which might well have upon it more business men than Government employees to indicate the sensitive points—transport, tax, planning position of shops—which all added together would help to reduce the price of food, I have no doubt that he has done a valuable job in bringing this matter to public attention.
4.34 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) and the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) have spoken as representatives of constituents in mainly rural areas and low-wage earners. I represent part of one of the largest cities in the country but a part of that city in which wage levels are often very low, a part of that city in which unemployment is rising fast, and a part of a city where we, in common with our neighbours in the North-West, are asking for intermediate area status. Therefore, my area, although very different from the areas represented by the two previous speakers, is very relevant to the Motion. I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Motion.
In one of the main shopping streets in my constituency on Saturday morning a document was distributed to housewives whose receipt they greatly appreciated. This document was labelled, "Grocer Heath's Special Offer". Any housewife who stopped to look at the document would look at what "Grocer Heath's Special Offer" was. It was:
Shopping prices up! Rents up! Rates up! Unemployment up! That is Toryism."
"Grocer Heath" himself—the Prime Minister—made his own special offer to the country on 16th June of last year. I will read that part of the Prime Minister's

55
special offer—his now notorious statement of 16th June—which is relevant to the Motion:
"That alternative is to break into the price-wage spiral by acting directly to reduce prices. This can be done by reducing those taxes which bear directly on prices and costs, such as the selective employment tax",
half of which has now been taken off with no noticeable effect on prices
"and by taking a firm grip on public sector prices and charges such as coal, steel, gas, electricity, transport charges and postal charges.
This would, at a stroke, reduce the rise in prices, increase production and reduce unemployment."
The Motion refers to
"prices of essential goods and services",
to which the Prime Minister referred on 16th June. I shall pass over the Prime Minister's statement about the reduction of unemployment. In the Manchester travel-to-work area unemployment among males since this Government came to power has risen by 37 per cent. I will go through the list of goods and services the price of which the Prime Minister said that his Government would reduce at a stroke. I will do this one by one with two exceptions, because they are not local exceptions, and explain the way in which they have affected the Manchester area.
The two exceptions are the postal charges which, despite a wholly inadequate pay offer to the postmen, have risen once and are rising again, and steel, where there is a 7 per cent. price increase which the Prime Minister boasted about at Question Time last Thursday as apparently a price reduction. If a 7 per cent. increase is a reduction, we can now understand what they mean when they talk about limiting increases.
What about the other goods which the Prime Minister referred to in his statement? How have they affected the Manchester area? He talked about coal. The price of domestic coal per ton in the Manchester area has risen by 5 per cent. since this Government came to power. He talked about gas. The price of the average gas bill from the North Western Gas Board, which I have consulted about this, has gone up by 6 per cent. since this Government came to power. He talked about electricity. The average quarterly electricity bill in the Manchester area—I have consulted the
56
North Western Electricity Board about this—has risen by no less than 12 per cent. since this Government came to power. The average electricity bill in the Manchester area has gone up since last June from £8.70 to £9.75.
As for transport charges, Selnec, which is under Conservative control, has increased bus fares by an average of 4 per cent.
What about other charges? Let us say that one of my constituents wants to go on holiday to Blackpool—not very far, not by many standards of continental holidays now an expensive place to go to. The return fare to Blackpool has risen from £1.40 to £1.60. That is an increase of 14 per cent. If he can afford only a day trip he will find that the cost of that has risen from 70p to 80p—again an increase of 14 per cent. If, in indignation against these price increases, he wants to demonstrate outside Downing Street, in London, about the Prime Minister's broken promises, he will find that the cost of a day return ticket from Manchester to London has risen from £3.50 to £4.40—a 26 per cent. increase. In the remote eventuality of his thinking of going for more than a day he will find that the fare—again, second class—has risen from £5.80 to £7.55, which is a 30 per cent. increase.
If, in despair at these and other price increases, the worker in my constituency decides to try to forget everything by getting a drink, and chooses the most popular brew in Manchester—which, appropriately enough is called Wilson's"—he will find that the cost of a pint of mild has risen by 11 per cent., from 9p to 10p, and the cost of a pint of bitter has increased even more—by 15 per cent., from 10p to 11½p.
The most serious increase, as well as one of the highest—33⅓ per cent.—has been in the cost of school meals. In Manchester as a whole this has had a devastating effect. The Manchester City education officer has given me figures for the reduction in the number of school meals taken in Manchester. In Manchester, on a day in the spring term—before the price rose from 9p to 12p—and on a day in the present summer term, respectively, the number of children taking school meals fell from 62,174 to 57,705—a reduction of 4,469. That was

57
a far greater reduction than the estimate given to me by the education officer when I asked for one in advance.
In my constituency of Ardwick the reduction has been from 7,062 to 6,506—a reduction of 556. The percentage reduction in my constituency, which contains some of the most needy areas in the city, is higher than that for the city as a whole. The alarming thing is that whereas there has been a slight increase in the number of primary school children taking school meals there has been a devastating reduction in the number of secondary school children doing so. For the whole of the city the reduction has been nearly a quarter, but in my constituency it has been more than a quarter. The children are not getting the hot meals that they were getting before.
The question is: can the housewife compensate by feeding her children well when they are at home? The Financial Times grocery index shows that since this Government came to power the average price of groceries has risen by 10 per available, but I have consulted The Grocer—a publication that Conservative Members used to quote with great effect when they were in opposition. That publication gives some interesting examples. It shows that the price of tea has risen from 8½p to 9½p per quarter since the Government came to power. The price of margarine has risen from 11p to 13p.
Let us suppose that the mother, especially if she goes out to work—if she can get a job—is unable to concentrate on feeding her children well every day of the week, and wants to give them a good meal at the weekend. What has happened to the price of a joint, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has spoken with great effect? One of the most prominent of the many butchers in Manchester told me that since the Government came to power the price of the Sunday joint has risen by between 36 per cent. and 49 per cent. That increase has occurred since June last year. Nine months ago the average price was between 17s. and 22s., in the old coinage; it is now between 25s. and 30s.
That butchers' spokesman put the whole blame for the increase on the Gov-
58
ernment. He blamed their levy policy. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not be surprised to hear that, bearing in mind that when he was at a dinner the other day he was told what the impact of this levy policy would be in the period ahead.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): Will the hon. Member tell me how a levy that has not yet been introduced can possibly affect meat prices?
Mr. Kaufman: The Minister must ask that question of the butchers' spokesman in Manchester who gave me this information, and was more vituperative about this Government than I could ever contemplate being.
Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I am sure that my hon. Friend has no wish to mislead the House. He talks about "the Sunday joint". He must concede that for many families today the Sunday joint is no more than a Sunday chop.
Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friend is quite right. I do not wish to mislead the House on this point, just as the Minister would not wish to mislead the House about the comments made by butchers in his presence last week, when he endured what Labour Ministers often had to endure and Tory Ministers rarely had to endure, namely, being insulted at a dinner.
I went round my constituency yesterday morning and in one large block of flats in the Longsight area I spoke to many housewives about the cost of living. Their comments about the Prime Minister, even in this permissive age, were almost unprintable. One reason is that there are many low-wage earners in the area, many of whom have children at school and who have been faced with an increase of one-third in the price of school meals. Many people cannot manage to pay this increase, as has been shown by the figures that I have given.
On Saturday night a letter appeared in the Manchester Evening News which put the matter accurately. It said:
"Before decimalisation there was frequently sung on the radio a song helping people to count up to in decimals. Somehow the singer did not get round to a second verse telling if a person wished to spend£1 while shopping. better take two."

59
When in opposition the Prime Minister used to make a great song and dance about two things which would happen if the Labour Party remained in office—one was the disaster of the 10-shilling £ and the other the disaster of 750,000 unemployed. The Labour Government never reached his target of 750,000 unemployed when they were in power, although the Conservative Party has now effortlessly surpassed that target. The 10-shilling £ is obviously the next thing on the list.
This Government and the Prime Minister personally—because of his special offer of last June—have broken the basic promises upon which they were elected to power, and the housewives of Manchester and their husbands will neither forgive them nor forget them.
4.49 p.m.
Dr. Tom Stuttaford: I congratulate my colleague—not my political friend—the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) for putting down this Motion and being fortunate in the Ballot. He is a constituency member par excellence. He need not apologise for talking parish pump politics. I am going to do the same. We represent different parts of the same city. The hon. Member put his case very fairly and moderately, and I agreed with what was said about his speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) on the question of food prices.
I want to emphasise the East Anglian aspect of the matter and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will refer to it in his reply. This Motion was put put down in order to bring to the attention of the country the plight of East Anglia—an area neglected not only for the last 10 months but ever since the war, by both parties. If we look at the figures of unemployment there—and they are worse than the hon. Member for Norwich, North mentioned—we find how badly they compare with the figures mentioned in the debate on the steel industry last week.
In Yarmouth now there is a male unemployment level of 9·35 per cent.—these are this morning's figures—and in Norwich the figure is 4·2 per cent. The figure for Norwich and the surrounding
60
countryside is 6·35 per cent. We have not had such figures for some 30 or 40 years. They have not been induced by the present Government during the last few months. We saw these figures coming last summer. Indeed, it is because we saw unemployment coming that we had a change of Government. If East Anglia had not changed its mind about its politics, there would not have been a change of Government at Westminster.
Mr. Wallace Mr. Wallace indicated dissent.
Dr. Stuttaford: The hon. Member for Norwich, North shakes his head, but he is now the sole survivor of the Socialist majority in that area.
Mr. Wallace: I am intrigued by the arguments by my constituency colleague. He did not fight the election on the Tory Party slogan of "A Better Tomorrow". He fought it on a "Better Next Week." He forgot that tomorrow never comes and that next week is only a few days away.
Dr. Stuttaford: That shows how in East Anglia we realised there would not be a sudden improvement. We did not expect a sudden improvement. That is why I changed my slogan to a "A Better Next Week" from "A Better Tommorow".
If we look at the unemployment figures for East Anglia and then consider the normal wage structure, we see why prices are so damaging to those low income households who cannot afford a rise in the cost of basic commodities. In East Anglia we have a wage structure which is the lowest urban wage structure in the country, and the rural wage structure is one of the lowest if not the lowest. If we add to this factor unemployment, we find that the people who are now unemployed have been able to put no money away and save. Their wages have never allowed saving. This is one of the very good reasons why they are now feeling the effect more than is any other area.
There is another reason why we in East Anglia are suffering. We have never been classified as an intermediate or development area. There can be no other large tract of countryside—far larger than South Dorset—which has these conditions. There is no chance of having intermediate area status. We have appealed time and time again, but

61
our appeal has always been rejected. This would be fair enough if the Government of the day did not discourage firms from coming to East Anglia. We all know that it is not only a question of granting I.D.C.s, but when a firm seeks advice from the Ministry, it is the nod, the wink and the nudge which determine where that firm may go. We want to see an end to the discouragement to firms moving to East Anglia, and positive encouragement, matching that of the Norwich City Council which is doing so much to attract industry there.
We must have a better infrastructure in the future. In Norfolk we have less dual carriageway than in any other county in the country. We have a road bill a quarter of that of Devon which is similar in size, in rateable value and industry. We have been a neglected area for too long. This is shown in last year's election figures. If we do not change this situation, it may be shown in the election figures five years' hence.
We must, however, look at two factors which have determined some of those conditions over the last few years. First is the regional employment premium. We had an area struggling for existence. We had a hard working, low strike force of workers. This area has had little to do with prosperity partly because of the regional employment premium. Firms in Norfolk have had to compete with firms in other parts of the country, not only with the new factories but with the existing factories.
The other factor is S.E.T. In a city like Norwich surrounded by countryside, one realises that this is a service district and a commercial district in a rural area. Here, S.E.T. bites harder than it has bitten in other places. It has certainly bitten in Norwich. A great deal of unemployment must be attributed to the Socialist policy of the regional employment premium and to S.E.T. If we take away S.E.T. and the regional employment premium, Norwich will pick up, particularly if it is given facilities to do so. If the fact that it has this labouring force which works hard and strikes extremely rarely, and has a work record second to none. It should be brought home to employers who want to move their factories, and if they are encouraged to go to East Anglia rather
62
than to other areas where they will get grants, but elsewhere, they will not get the same loyalty and hard work as they can get in East Anglia.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) will remember where he was born and will tell us what he intends to do for his home area.
4.56 p.m.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: I want to make a brief intervention., primarily because the question of meat and meat prices has cropped up and, as the House is aware, I have a certain interest in the meat industry. I hasten to add that I have no financial interest. I happen to be the son of a retail butcher and I spent my early youth living above a butcher's shop.
I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) for initiating the debate. Although he dwelt considerably on the problems of development areas, particularly development areas which combine those disadvantages which he mentioned with the disadvantage of low wages, I was mindful of the fact that although I represent an area which could not qualify for development area status, I have in my area a large number of people who are on low incomes and a large number of retired pensioners who are also at an equal disadvantage with my hon. Friend's constituents because of the policies that are being pursued by this Government.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford) seemed to indicate that he expected a miracle of conversion from his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, before his right hon. Friend even gets to the Dispatch Box to reply to the debate, that there will be no miracle conversion on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. He is committed to a high price food policy, and nothing will change him from that path. When we come to the Division this evening, I hope the hon. Member for Norwich, South will have the courage, with other hon. Members opposite who share his views, to join my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North in the Division Lobby as a protest against the policy that is being pursued by the Government.

63
The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) mentioned convenience foods and seemed to imply that because sales of these convenience foods are increasing there was little problem facing the British housewife. I would only say that convenience foods, by and large, are not bought by retired pensioners or by the housewife shopping for a family with a relatively low or even average income. Convenience foods are the kind of commodity which are bought by a young couple who want quick and easy meals which can be prepared with ease before they go out in the evening to enjoy themselves.
Mr. Kaufman: My hon Friend has taken up the point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) about convenience foods, and he will recall that the hon. Gentleman referred in particular to potato crisps. With the decline in the number able to afford school meals, many children are now being sent to school with potato crisps to eat for lunch instead of the good meal which they could have expected in the past.
Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend was quite right to deploy his argument about the effect of Tory policy on school children. It is deplorable that one of the consequences of the present Government's policies is that, instead of having wholesome and nutritious school meals, children are now—perhaps, following their natural preference—taking a few pennyworth of sweets or a packet of potato crisps.
My constituents, and, I wager, the constituents of practically all hon. Members, are interested not in convenience foods but in low-price meat—their traditional British diet of a low-price weekend joint and low-price meat, a steak, a chop, or something else, during the week. This traditional diet will be taken from them under the high meat price policy, the meat tax policy, being pursued by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who is now the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
The hon. Member for Dorset, South told us that this was not the farmers' fault. In fact, the National Farmers' Union has been the most powerful lobby
64
in this country generally, and especially in relation to Members of Parliament, for a change in our system of low-price meat imports. It has exercised an undue influence on the Government which the Government will come to regret as time goes on and the effects of the National Farmers' Union's success on meat imports becomes better known.
We were indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) for bringing into the debate the estimates published in The Grocer of food price increases since this miserable Government took office in June last year. There has been a 10 per cent. increase in food prices alone already. It is no wonder, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North said, that wage earners are putting in claims for higher wages. This is no inflationary situation created out of spite. It is a wage-inflation situation born of sheer necessity, in an effort to obtain incomes with which the ordinary working man can maintain his family.
I come now to the "Prior policy pledge" made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft not during the election campaign but in a speech in this Chamber on 29th July, 1966. A good many people are under the impression that the Tory Party has only just became converted to a high food price policy. In fact—to be fair to him, he may not have made a great issue of it at the last election—the right hon. Gentleman made his view clear in a quiet and discreet speech in 1966:
"The time has come when we should have higher prices for food and no subsidies for either agriculture or the fishing industry. If we did that we should get competition working in both industries and the nation would get better value because the nation has been mollycoddled for too long by receiving cheap food.. A great case could be made out for increasing the price of food…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1966 Vol. 732, c. 2127.]
The right hon. Gentleman has made out that case, and he has convinced his colleagues in the Tory Government that the time has come to impose high food prices on the British people. It is no good their praying in aid the movement towards Europe, because their policies, as set out by the right hon. Gentleman, and quite independent of whatever might be going on in the European negotiations, will impose high food prices upon the British people in any event.
Dr. Stuttaford: Prices were rising steeply by June. This is nothing new. There was no sudden change. The graph is fairly straight.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has reminded us of that. It may well be so, but, despite the evidence of worldwide inflationary trends, the Prime Minister promised—as my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick said, it was his special election offer—that he would halt the rise in food prices at a stroke. Yet we have heard this afternoon that, despite that solemn pledge, which conned many a decent housewife into neglecting her family responsibilities and led her to vote Tory, food prices have risen by 10 per cent.
Mr. Norman Buchan: I wonder what the position might have been if, at the same time as giving a pledge to bring down prices at a stroke, the Prime Minister had promised to appoint as Minister of Food someone who wanted food prices to go up.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I shall let my hon. Friend develop that argument, if he has the good fortune to catch the eye of the Chair later. I am trying to be fair to the Minister, although he has embarked upon and committed himself to a policy of robbing the British public of their traditional low-price food. In the Borough of Bexley—I represent a constituency within the London Borough of Bexley and I am a neighbour of the Prime Minister—we are so concerned about the impact of Tory-imposed food prices and the abolition by this Government of every piece of machinery which was having an influence to stabilise food prices that we have had to set up an organisation called the Bexley Housewives' Protection League. We share the concern of so many other housewives at the terrible task which now confronts them when they go shopping in the high street.
Mr. Peter Mills: I am interested to hear about that organisation. I wonder whether I might be invited to speak to it at some time.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I imagine that the Bexley Housewives' Protection League would be prepared to invite the hon. Gentleman along at some time in the future, although our members would be
66
in some difficulty in knowing whether they were inviting the hon. Gentleman as the Member for Torrington or as the spokesman for the milk lobby. The hon. Gentleman can choose which capacity he prefers. In due course, when the Bexley Housewives' Protection League has dealt with the real problems which confront it and wishes to turn to a little light relief, I shall commend the hon. Gentleman's name to it.
Now, a word about meat imports. There has been a conspiracy, a conspiracy to which the Minister of Food has been party, pursued by the National Farmers' Union. It started with that great publicity campaign which surrounded us when we were trying to deal with the problems of foot-and-mouth diseases which were reviewed by the Northumberland Committee. The farmers were delighted with the opportunity quite irresponsibly to attack our traditional suppliers of low-price meat. How they relished the thought that they might be able to persuade the Government to ban imports of low-price meat. For the farmers of Britain work on a mistaken basis, believing that, if they can stop low-price meat imports, the market will stay the same, or may even enlarge, and the total market for them will increase.
Mr. Peter Mills: It was the hon. Gentleman's Government who did it.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I have an idea that the Minister of Food is about to intervene and say that it was my Government who did it. He will recall that I was just as vigorous against my right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Food for following that mistaken policy.
Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman can hardly call it a conspiracy between me and the butchers.
Mr. Welbeloved: The right hon. Gentleman was a party to the conspiracy, and his attitude was apparent at the time. I was about to deal with the second leg of the conspiracy, for which the right hon. Gentleman is entirely responsible, namely, the conspiracy to introduce a meat tax for the first time in our history, a tax on one of the staple items of the British citizen's diet. It is a disgrace that for the first time in our history we are faced with the imposition of a tax on the traditional British food—beef, lamb and

67
all the other delicate and delicious meats that go to make up our staple diet.
The Minister made the objective of the levy quite clear to the New Zealand Minister of Overseas Trade, the right hon. J. R. Marshall, recently. The New Zealand High Commission News Bulletin wrote that the Minister made it quite clear that the British Government's objective in introducing the levy scheme was
"to increase consumer prices in Britain."
—that is, to increase the price of meat.
The effect of the Government's policy on meat will not be to increase the British farmers' share of an expanding market. Because of the disgraceful increase in basic meat prices, the United Kingdom's total meat consumption will decline. Many people who require low-priced meat will find that it is impossible to obtain it, because retail butchers will have no alternative but to increase prices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick mentioned, it was estimated in the confrontation between the Minister and the butchers that as a result of the levy meat prices would increase by 20 per cent. and might well go up by 30 per cent.
Because of the Government's activities, the ordinary housewife, the ordinary meat consumer, faces even greater difficulties. I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will tell the British housewife clearly by how much he expects the price of meat per pound to increase as a result of his levy. Let the Government's estimate of meat prices be on the record now.
While he is coming clean and giving the housewives the facts, will the right hon. Gentleman also tell the House and the country by how much he expects the retail price index to decrease over the next 12 months as a result of the reduction in selective employment tax? Let us have a figure. When they were in Opposition, the Tories were always prepared to put a figure on this, that and the other in relation to the then Government's policy. Let us have a figure for the cost to the British housewife of the right hon. Gentleman's dear meat policy and for the reduction because of the reduction of S.E.T.
5.13 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome the debate and congratulate the
68
hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) on bringing its subject matter to the attention of the House. It is a long time since our last debate on food.
I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the fair and honest way in which he presented the facts. Regrettably, the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has left the Chamber, but I would say exactly the same about him if he were here. His speech was very different from that of the hon. Member for Norwich, North. His alleged facts were not right, and it was a patently dishonest speech. His attitude will not help solve the problem we face. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make an impression here and to win an argument, that is not the sort of speech to make. Even though I disagree with a number of other hon. Members present, I know that they are honest and present the facts fairly.
Mr. Buchan: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Ardwick, may I point out that his whole speech hinged on the speech of the present Prime Minister on 16th June last year. If the hon. Gentleman is challenging the factual basis of my hon. Friend's speech, he is challenging the promises in the Prime Minister's speech.
Mr. Mills: I do not disagree that the hon. Member has every right to attack us and to attack my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. But the hon. Member for Ardwick is not like the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), who is my pair, and who usually presents the case fairly and correctly, and the hon. Member for Norwich, North, who also usually speaks in a correct, honest way.
There are very few hon. Members present, probably for the simple reason that the film "Growing Up" is to be shown in a few minutes. That may well be why the hon. Member for Ardwick has left the Chamber. One thing that is essential to growing up to good food.
Mr. Buchan: Including milk?
Mr. Mills: I am coming to that. The children of our land get very good food. They are well looked after, and the protein level of their diet is high.

69
I disagree with my party and my Government on milk. The Government have made a mistake here, because it is important to give young children milk so that they grow up with all the goodness that milk provides. On the whole our children are well fed. As a nation, we are well fed with a wide variety of food, and we have a service that is probably the best in the world.
It is no use denying that food prices have gone up in recent years. They have gone up fairly rapidly recently, and they went up under the previous Administration. I shall come to some of the reasons why. But wages went up by 13 per cent. last year while the cost of living rose by 7 per cent., so most people have been covered for the increase in the cost of food and the cost of living. Those who are suffering are the pensioners and the elderly, and it is the Government's duty to watch their position very carefully. The Government have done something about the matter. But it is still those on fixed incomes who are finding it extremely difficult to cope with the increased cost of living, including the increased cost of food.
Everything else goes up without much comment, while most of us bitterly resent an increase in the price of food. We have had a cheap food policy for a very long time, and we do not like to see the price of food going up But I sometimes wonder whether we could not complain a little more bitterly about the increased cost of everything else, such as television sets, whisky and beer. We get very emotionally involved when we talk about an increase in the price of food.
Mr. Wallace: For the average small family with a fairly low income, food is the most vital thing; it is the housewife's main concern. That is why people concentrate on an increase in food prices more than on anything else.
Mr. Mills: I agree, but other things go up fairly rapidly in the household budget. All I am saying is that it seems to me that we do not like to pay a fair price for our food. But I will come back to that in a moment. Our food prices compared with those of other countries are reasonable, and that point should not be overlooked.
The first and most important reason for the increased cost of food is the in-
70
creased cost of raw materials. One sees this reflected in the world prices of cereals. Every cereal commodity has gone up—maize, hard wheat and the rest. The rise in prices last year was triggered off by the 10 per cent. reduction in the American maize crop. The price has gone up by £8 or £9 a ton—and if a Socialist Government had been in power, exactly the same thing would have happened. This rise in cost affects the rearing of every animal which uses cereals. The whole cost of production has risen dramatically. One cannot get away from that.
Butter is another good example. Its price has risen substantially for a variety of reasons. For example, there has been drought in Australia and New Zealand, whose butter production has fallen as a result. On the Continent, a number of producers have gone out of butter manufacture because of the poor prices they have been receiving for milk used in butter making. On 5th May, the Financial Times pointed out that even in the E.E.C. many people have gone out of milk production because butter prices have been so low that it was not worth their while. The result is that butter prices have been rising. We in this country, whether under a Socialist or under a Conservative Government, cannot be isolated from the effects of these world price rises of raw materials. They have had a dramatic effect upon us in the last year or so.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is making a reasonable case. The only difference between the situation as it is today and the situation as it was when we were in office is that the hon. Gentleman made very different speeches then.
Mr. Mills: With great respect, I do not think that I did. Indeed, I am coming to something which backs up what I have said in years gone by.
One of the important aspects of the situation, and the reason we are in it, is that good housekeeping demands that this country should produce enough to fill its larders. No doubt the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) would have been doing exactly the same thing as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture had he still been in office—he would have been searching far

71
and wide to find enough butter to fill our larders. One of my criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman as Minister was that he did not foresee that this situation was coming and did not encourage British agriculture further. Had he done so, the situation would not have developed as far as it has. Butter is a typical example. Good housekeeping demanded home production high enough to cope with the situation which has arisen—drought in Australia and New Zealand and reduction in European butter production.
The right hon. Gentleman should have seen to it that home producers were encouraged to feed the nation. Good housekeeping demands that even in this country a small surplus should be provided each year to see that we meet difficulties like this. I see that the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but this is the same sort of speech that I made when I was in Opposition.
Is it fair to go on producing a commodity at below cost? For years, New Zealand has provided butter to this country at virtually below the cost of production. If hon. Members disagree with me, they have only to read the Financial Times of 5th May, which put the case far better than I can. It is not fair to continue this situation. If we want a good supply of butter, we must pay a fair price for it.
The second main reason for the increase in the cost of food is legislation. It is easy for this House to pass legislation and forget its effects. The effects of legislation on the cost of living can be fairly steep sometimes. The Transport Act added at least another 14 per cent. to transport costs, and this is reflected in the cost of living. Selective employment tax, the responsibility of the Labour Government, added another £85 million. I see that hon. Members opposite are still deserting the Chamber to see "Growing Up". It is obvious where they are going but will continue my speech despite that.
Fuel costs are another factor. The price of crude oil from abroad has gone up considerably. Then there are licences and the drivers' wages. Yet other factors which have led to an increased cost of food are meat inspection and meat levies. North Devon Meat, the company in which I am interested, last year paid £12,000 in meat levies and £14,000 for meat inspection. That is a heavy burden
72
for one company to bear and it has to be reflected in the cost of meat. Someone has to pay for it.
It is easy for this House to pass legislation but in the long run much of that legislation means an increase in the cost of food. My right hon. Friend should look closely at the Socialist legislation of the last six years to see where he can prune some of the costs—for example, the Transport Act, meat inspection, meat levies and so on. He should prune unnecessary provisions.
Mr. John Golding rose—
Mr. Mills: No, I will not give way. It is easy for hon. Members opposite to criticise us, but they have a heavy responsibility for legislation and taxation which have put up the cost of food. They cannot get out of it.
The third main reason for the increased cost of food is the development of convenience foods. I am not against them. Modern housewives naturally want to use them. One's wife says that she has not the time to prepare a lot of the food. I believe that convenience foods are here to stay. Very well, then! The housewives and the community have to pay for them. The figures are staggering. A ton of potatoes costs £23 to £24 and the cost to the housewife may be about £35 a ton in the normal way. But if that ton of potatoes is prepared as frozen chips, the cost rises to the tremendous level of over £200 a ton. If the housewife wants to buy frozen chips for the sake of convenience, that is fair enough, but it makes an increase in the cost of food. We cannot have it both ways.
The fourth reason for the increase in the cost of food is the tendency for housewives to want better cuts. Any butcher will say that one of the problems today is that housewives want chops, or parts of legs, and not the cheaper cuts of meat. Any farmer today could quickly make a fortune if he were able to produce a pig or a sheep like a centipede, for the more legs of meat a butcher has to sell, the more profit there is for both the butcher and the farmer. But the effect is that the butcher has to put up the price of other joints to cover the meat not bought by the housewife. That is an important, although not the only, factor in the reason why meat is so dear.

73
The fifth reason—and here I must declare an interest as a farmer—is the policy of giving British agriculture a fair return for its labour. This is absolutely right. It is in the interests of the consumer and the country as a whole, and it is a change from the policy of the Labour Government. If we allow British agriculture to slip back, we shall be in danger of paying considerably more for our food. With a healthy, prosperous and viable agriculture, we can produce the food the country requires. We can deal with problems of droughts all over the world and with the occasional failure of imports.
As I have said, good housekeeping should budget for a small surplus to cover problems of this sort. That means giving British farmers a fair end price. Most reasonable people would agree with that, Of course British agriculture helps the balance of payments and so on, but I am concerned about it mainly because, if British agriculture is neglected, we shall be subject to all the problems associated with importing food, and we could be held to ransom by the countries from which we import. In the interests of the consumer and the nation as a whole, it is important that we have a healthily strong British agriculture to keep our larder filled.
Dr. Stuttaford: Does not my hon. Friend agree that cities such as Norwich, represented partly by the hon. Member who moved the Motion, are extremely dependent on a healthy agriculture, not least as a service centre for agriculture?
Mr. Mills: I agree. Most towns in the counties service agriculture and are very much dependent upon a profitable agriculture. That is why I welcome the debate. Unemployment does not help British agriculture. The more unemployed there are, the fewer people who will be able to buy all the pleasant things which British agriculture produces—butter, eggs, cream and so on. Unemployment does not help British agriculture, or cities like Norwich and the towns in the South-West. There are problems in the rural areas and one of the ways in which to help is to have a profitable and viable agriculture.
I repeat, good housekeeping, with all that that means, demands that we have an agriculture which is profitable and
74
viable, I am very concerned that we should be down to two or three weeks' butter supply. That is not good housekeeping but a reflection on the right hon. Member for Anglesey, because if British agriculture had produced more during his administration, we should not now be in this position.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to me and unfair to himself by producing such an appallingly bad argument. He knows that throughout my period at the Ministry of Agriculture butter stocks were at a very high level and that one of my problems was that butter stocks virtually doubled in that period. At that time, he was in opposition shouting the very opposite of what he is now saying. For a fair-minded hon. Member whom I respect, he is being grossly unfair, for it is difficult in a debate of this length to go into detail. He must do his homework before he says these things.
Mr. Mills: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I have not changed my course at all. If he wants more detail, I am prepared to give it. Towards the end of his administration, agriculture lost confidence and production fell.
Mr. Hughes Mr. Hughes indicated dissent.
Mr. Mills: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head.
Mr. Hughes: I apologise for intervening again in the hon. Gentleman's speech. If he reads his right hon. Friend's Price Review White Paper, he will see that it says that production was going up in all the major sectors. If there were a decline, it was for the reasons the hon. Gentleman has given, namely, bad weather, drought and so on. He knows these things perfectly well.
Mr. Mills: No. At the recent meat traders' dinner, which has been quoted, it was said that we were producing less meat now than in years gone by.
Mr. Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?
Mr. Mills: No.
Mr. Hughes: Would the hon. Gentleman allow me?
Mr. Mills: If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish what I am saying, I will give way.
Mr. Hughes: I am obliged.
Mr. Mills: Of course I will. What I am saying—and the right hon. Gentleman cannot dispute this—is that British agriculture lost confidence over the last two or three years. It has taken this Price Review—I do not know whether it has done the trick—to start to get that confidence again. I have constantly said, even in this debate, that good housekeeping demands that we have a small surplus and if the right hon. Gentleman's Administration had arranged that, we should not be in our present position.
Mr. Hughes: May I correct the hon. Gentleman? Paragraph 31 of Command 4623, Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees, introduced by his right hon. Friend, says:
"Between June, 1969 and June, 1970 the beef herd expanded more than in any previous year."
Mr. Mills: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman says, we are not producing as much beef as we did. The herd may have expanded, but we are not now producing what we once did. If agriculture had not lost confidence, it would have expanded even faster to meet the sort of situation which we now face.
Mr. Hughes: It says
"more than in any previous year".
Mr. Mills: If the right hon. Gentleman is right, it seems strange that the confidence which almost completely disappeared under the last Administration should now be starting to return. I believe that we shall see production rising.
What I am saying applies as much to my right hon. Friend as to the previous Minister of Agriculture—the lesson must be learned that it is right to ensure that British agriculture flourishes enough to produce enough to cover all eventualities, including shortages of supplies from abroad.
I have spoken for a long time, but I have been provoked. I would like to see us producing good food at a fair price and I hope that in future we shall not rely upon imports to anything like
76
the degree we have done. The Opposition bear a heavy responsibility, through legislation and increased taxation imposed when they were in Government, for the rise in the cost of food. Whatever Government is in power, the world rise in the price of raw materials has had a dramatic effect on the cost of food. A Minister of Agriculture would be very wise to learn lessons from the past. It would be wise and good housekeeping to see that we have a small surplus to deal with problems. This would be of benefit to housewives and the farmer.
5.42 p.m.
Mr. John Golding: In the past Parliament I made my maiden speech on the subject of low-paid areas. At that time the Local Employment Act was going through the House and hon. Members on all sides representing lower-paid areas discussed their problems. At that time we were assisted by Mr. Derek Page, who then represented King's Lynn. It seems that the problem of low pay has disappeared from King's Lynn as there is no representative from that area present today.
This is a continuing problem which is unfortunately getting worse. This is happening in two respects. It is getting worse because of the Government's wages policy. The problem with the low-wage earners is the problem of the differential between those areas of low nay and the richer industrial areas—those with economic strength who can obtain considerable wage increases. It seems to be the policy of the Government to try to hold back the public sector, the badly organised, those in traditional industries. My hon. Friends from the North Staffordshire area and myself see this problem increasing as one moves further away from the more prosperous area of the West Midlands.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) recently published an article on potters' pay showing the way in which pottery workers were now lagging behind the average of other industrial workers. Everyone knows of the plight of the mineworkers and of the problems of the agricultural workers. In North Staffordshire we have pottery workers, miners and agricultural workers as well as public service workers, and we realise that the wage freeze is hitting

77
them very hard. We feel very resentful that this problem is worsening.
In another respect the problem of the lower-paid is deteriorating. When I spoke in November, 1969, I saw as a saving grace the fact that we did not have a high level of unemployment. I was able to say, as were Members from East Anglia, that although we had the problem of low pay, industrial and agricultural inertia, at least we were not cursed with the problem of unemployment. We cannot say that now. We now have this problem added to the earlier problem of the low-paid. It worries all of us very much that we see the unemployment figures for the disabled, school-leavers, the young and the over-40s rising.
Dr. Stuttaford: is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Norwich anyway there was considerable unemployment under the Labour Government, particularly associated wih tthe boot and shoe industry and that parts of the North Norfolk coast had levels of around 5 per cent. to 6 per cent. a year or two ago?
Mr. Golding: I am cautious about speaking of the problems of East Anglia, but I do know that never have the levels been so high as they are now. While there may have been difficulties in particular industries due to transition, perhaps to the introduction of new materials or new processes, never since the beginning of the Second World War have we seen such levels of unemployment.
These two problems of unemployment and low pay have crystallised. There is the third problem of rising prices, particularly in the price of basic essentials such as food and rent. These play a large part in the budgets of the lower-paid and an increase in the price of food, rent or bus fares hits the lower paid disproportionately hard. We find that these increases are making life difficult for the lower-paid.
It is not as if in the lower-paid areas the food cost any less. In 1969 I made a comparison between prices in a supermarket in Ealing and a supermarket in Newcastle-under-Lyme, my prospective consitutency. I found that there was little difference between the cost of food in Newcastle and in London. Indeed, it was more expensive in Newcastle-under-Lyme. Later a national survey confirmed
78
my findings. Because of the distance from markets, the cost of transport and the system of distribution whereby we bring meat from Aberdeen then ship it back to Aberdeen via London, in many of the lower paid areas, the cost of food is higher than in the industrial conurbations. This is certainly true in many areas of Scotland, where the price of food is far higher than it is in the industrial cities and the South of England. We have increased costs, to some extent stabilised wages, and the threat of unemployment.
We can be critical not just because the Government have failed to control price and wages rises. It is their deliberate policy to have high council rents and high food prices. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot tell us about the advantages that they have given the farmers in terms of income or address themselves to the middle-class taxpayer in terms of tax reductions and ignore the fact that these benefits have been obtained at the expense of the housewife in the price which she has to pay for food. It is the lower-paid workers' wives who are paying the bill for the Tory concessions in taxation and the increased incomes for the farmers.
Mr. Peter Mills Mr. Peter Mills Indicated dissent.
Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. But he must realise that the money has to come from somewhere, and it has come from the purse of the lower-paid workers' wives.
The situation is grim. Our whole social pattern is changing. There has been reference to the dramatic increases in meat prices. I do not know whether the increase has been 24 or 30 per cent. But when we were talking about a scarcity due to the foot and mouth outbreak people put up their hands in horror because the price of beef was up to 9s. Yet today one cannot buy best beef for 10s. a lb. To echo Marie Antoinette, right hon. and hon. Members opposite would say, "Let them eat scrag end". They are disturbed that the housewife should want best quality meat, but this is what she has come to expect in the last few years.
It is wrong for the Government consciously to pursue a policy which means for most working class families that they are not able to eat meat in the week. In view of the price of lamb, pork and

79
beef this weekend, manual workers' families cannot afford to buy meat in the week.
Mr. Peter Mills: Nonsense.
Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman says "Nonsense".
Mr. Mills: Of course it is.
Mr. Golding: I do not know what experience the hon. Gentleman has of keeping a family on a manual worker's wage. I do not know whether he goes shopping on Monday morning with money from the wage of a manual worker. The wife of a miner who works on the surface in my constituency will be lucky. to receive £15 on a Friday if her husband gives her his entire wage packet.
Mr. Mills: Some do not get that.
Mr. Golding: The hon. Gentleman says that his wife does not receive £15 a week—
Mr. Mills: No, I do not.
Mr. Golding:—to maintain the household and to pay for rent, clothes and holidays. I hope that someone will institute an inquiry into the hon. Gentleman's living conditions. I should be very surprised if there were any hon. Member whose family was living on £15 a week.
Mr. Mills: The hon. Gentleman referred to the wife of a miner.
Mr. Golding: I said that if the husband handed his entire wage packet to his wife she would have only £15 out of which to pay for rent, clothe the children, feed the family, pay for school meals and perhaps to put aside something for holidays. If the family have a car—and I will not ask whether hon. Gentlemen opposite have cars—they will have to find the cost of running it.
I have referred to right hon. and hon. Members opposite saying, "Let them eat scrag end". Perhaps the Minister the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) would say, "Let them eat fish". He would at least then be doing a service to his constituents, because that is what is likely to happen in the very near future.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Minister were to say that it would be far more relevant than when he said, "Let them eat peaches instead of oranges"? [Interruption.]
Mr. Thomas Swain: On a point of order. When the Chamber is almost empty, obviously because a film is being shown elsewhere in the precincts, is it usual for an hon. Member to keep up a running commentary throughout another Member's speech.
The Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): That might be a matter for the Chair, but not in the way that the hon. Gentleman represents it.
Mr. Golding: The latter-day Marie Antoinette might say, not, "Let them eat fish or peaches", but "Let them eat pigeons". This is the mentality of the Government.
The £, which was worth a £ in June, 1970, is now worth only 94p. The Government must realise that their prices policy is proving disastrous for low-wage earners. Their employment policy is producing very great problems in the areas of low-wage earners. Their wages policy is creating even greater difficulties for working class families in those areas. In speaking for North Staffordshire, I associate myself with the sentiments expressed on behalf of East Anglia.
5.59 p.m.
Mr. J. R. Kinsey: In addressing the House on this most important issue I should like to take up some of the points made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). I am sorry that he has left the Chamber, but I am not going to attack him; rather, I am going to thank him for making some of the points he did about the increase in prices since the present Government came to office and relating those increases to those for coal, gas, electricity, steel, and the Post Office.
Those increases were in the pipeline before the previous Government left office. Certainly the Post Office increases were. Those increases must bear heavily on the shoulders of the party opposite. This Government actually reduced to the consumer the oncost of steel and coal prices, and did so against the Opposition's

81
wishes, particularly over the steel prices. We have just reduced the prospective increase of 14 per cent, to 7 per cent., as we heard at Question Time today.
Mr. Alexander Wilson: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the price of coal has been reduced since Tory Government came into power?
Mr. Kinsey: The price of a coal increase which was in the pipeline when the last Government left office. I wish the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue my speech. I have only just started. The cost as it was in the pipeline has been reduced to the consumer and by this Government.
In steel, we have reduced the increase from 14 per cent, to 7 per cent., and yet we heard cries from the Opposition to put on the full increase of 14 per cent. These costs are basic and have consequences across the whole spectrum of the cost of living. These are what are called basic industries.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) for initiating this debate today, because the cost of living is a major problem not only to the housewives on the lower income scales but all the housewives throughout Britain, who all have to cope from day to day with what is a worrying, wearing problem. It is a terrible time they are going through, to make the housekeeping money stretch from one week's end to the next, and it is that with which the Government are concerned. The housewives do not want to hear who caused the problem. What they want to know is, who is going to cure it. It is necessary to understand the problem before we can cure it. From the benches on this side of the House we have heard today, from my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King), my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Dr. Stuttaford), constructive criticisms and ideas of how to tackle the problem and the ways in which the Government can get their shoulders to the wheel.
A reliable guide to the way the cost of living has been moving comes from a paper published by the C.S.O. on 26th
82
March, 1971, about the consumer index and the purchasing power of the £. I refer in particular to Appendix A of that publication. We can see how pre-war the cost of living went. There was practically stability after 1921; and there was an actual reduction. Older housewives who had that experience of shopping then can remember it and compare it with the problem they are having to face today.
Mr. Swain: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Kinsey: I will not give way, for I have not much time and I have a lot to say.
Since 1945 we have seen the inflationary trend. It is a matter of history. The record is remarkable. Under the Socialist Governments, between 1945 and 1951, the increase on average per year in the cost of living index was four points. From 1951 to 1964, under a Conservative Government, the average increase was two points per year. The Socialist record, when the Socialists came back into office again, from 1964 to 1970, was an average increase in the cost of living of five points a year.
The record is more remarkable still when we consider the highest and lowest points of the increases. The two highest points of increase during the Conservative Government were in 1956 and 1962. In each year it was 3·6 points. The two lowest points of increase were in 1959 and 1960 and were 0·6 and 0·9. We go back to the Socialists again. Under the Socialists the two highest points were in 1951 when the increase was six points and in 1969 when there was a 6·4 increase in the cost of living. The lowest increase they had in any one year was in 1949, when it was 1·5.
One lesson we can learn from this is that the Conservatives are better managers than the Socialists. Another lesson we can draw is that the highest increases came from devaluation. That must never be forgotten. That is an important factor. Whatever we have gained on the economic side we have lost in the cost of living battle, and it is the housewives who are having to pay for it, as we said they would. All this reveals completely the inability of the Socialist Government of that day to

83
manage our affairs. The Socialist failure was stark and expensive.
What other factors affect the cost of living? There is consumer supply and demand, which is vital in the ever-present equation we must make in estimating the increase in the cost of living. I have every sympathy with the consumers, and we on this side of the House work for them. We do not batten down on them by supporting every demand for increases which go against them. Overhead costs have gone up—in wages, taxes, transport, and rents. If we examine these in detail we shall see some of the answers to help us solve the problem before us. As for the supply-demand position, shortages distort natural rulings.
There are related factors in nature itself, and some of them are difficult to overcome, as we have had explained to us from both sides of the House, and in the speech of the hon. Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who referred to foot-and-mouth disease. That has contributed very much to the shortage of meat. Another factor is the drought in New Zealand. That affected milk supply; it affected butter supplies; we were having a shortage there. The supply position in meat was affected also by foot-and-mouth in the Argentine and we had shortages there. Another factor is fowl pest. The poultry farmers have provided a source of cheap meat and that has been under threat from fowl pest. Research can make a difference to all this, but research takes time.
Of course, when supplies are plentiful, that brings down costs, and we see that particularly in the supply of fresh vegetables. The cost of living index shows that vegetables became cheaper and the index lost points on that account. That helped the housewives considerably. The farmer really is the city housewives' friend, and ought to be encouraged. There was point in what my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington said.
What we want to see is where, in the system itself, we can so operate as to get the greatest results. Is it doing the job? Is it getting food to the housewife at the cheapest possible price? Any doubts that we may have had should have been dispelled by the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report on Food Distribution, Prices, Costs and Profits, which con-
84
tains a mass of detail about the price margins on which various section of the trade operate. For example, the average wholesale grocer operates on a net profit margin of between 1 and 2 per cent. In the case of retail grocers, before tax and interest, the average margin in turnover is between 2·2 per cent, and 2·5 per cent. That of wholesale greengrocers is 1·2 per cent., and lower. That of butchers in the wholesale trade is 1·3 per cent. It is almost impossible to work on lower margins than that, yet the object is to reduce margins ever further. That shows that the policy of this Government is right. The Conservatie Party trusts and has confidence in our traders and distributors. It is a policy worth supporting.
The business man is anxious to secure the lowest price for his customer. He is motivated by the desire to serve the shop customer and he offers his goods at the lowest possible prices. There cannot be much wrong with a system which keeps a constant look-out for ways in which to reduce costs and rely on efficiency to beat the competition. That is what the trader is out to do. There is no need for the Government to interfere in such a system, as the previous Government did. The Labour Government were wrong in what they tried to do. All that they did was to increase costs, as the cost of living index proves. In fact, the Socialist record in government from 1945–1951 and from 1964 to 1970 gave the economy thrombosis. The medical definition of "thrombosis" is "A collection of bloody clots interfering with the smooth flow of the stream" That is exactly what happened. The National Board for Prices and Incomes merely held up price reductions without reducing prices.
The effect of wages on prices is most important, though not so much the wages of the trade. The retail and distributive trades admit that their wages are lower than those in other trades. However, they must be taken into account, because they are considerable. In the wholesale grocery trade, they account for between half and two-thirds of the costs, as the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes shows. In the case of retail grocers, wages account for 43 per cent, of the costs. In the case of butchers in the retail trade, wages represent two-thirds of the costs. All the way through, wages are most important.

85
We must be mindful, too, of the pressures put on the trade by wage increases outside the trade. It took the Leader of the Opposition five years to discover the equation that wage increases are price increases. Having lost office, the right hon. Gentleman forgot it within a few months. When he was Prime Minister, he insisted on wage rises of between 2½ and 4 per cent. For the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters today, the sky is the limit. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite act as though they were the Government who never were. It would have been better if they had never been, in which event the British housewife would not have had to endure the absolute rise in the cost of living which the policies of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite began, for which they set the pace, and from which we still suffer.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Michael Barnes: I begin by adding to the congratulations which have come from both sides of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace), not only for his Motion but for the way in which he moved it and for the very close knowledge that he has revealed of the problems confronting his constituents. Increased prices of our basic foods affect not only low-income families but all sections of the community. However, my hon. Friend was right to draw our attention to the problems of low-income families, and there are many such families in that part of the country which my hon. Friend represents.
Even before the present inflationary spiral took hold, the core of our poverty problem was not so much among the unemployed as among low-income families where the breadwinners were in fulltime work. Today, many such families are faced with the threat of unemployment which, with the sharp increases in food prices which have occurred, means that very many of them are hard hit.
Another group of people to whom reference has been made is that of retired people. It is heartbreaking to hear from elderly people in one's constituency the complaint, "Cannot you people at Westminster do something about prices?" I have even heard elderly people say that they would prefer to do without the £1 increase in the old-age pension which is to
86
come if it meant that prices would remain stable. Until the increase in the pension is paid in the autumn, pensioners will be worse off than at any time since the situation which existed before the Labour Government increased the old-age pension in 1965. When the increase is paid, pensioners will be a little better off. How long they will remain better off depends on how soon the Government tackle the problem of increased prices.
We on this side of the House feel that the Minister is far too complacent about the problem. He tends to minimise the true facts of the situation. I remember how he caused quite a stir last November when he replied to a Question from one of my hon. Friends asking how much food prices had gone up since last June, and said that food prices were 1 per cent, down since June, 1970. Of course, it had been the experience of housewives throughout the country that many food prices had risen very sharply. In referring to a 1 per cent, reduction in food prices, the right hon. Gentleman was taking all foods at a time when seasonal items were showing a marked drop. But during the same period, there were sharp increases in non-seasonal, packaged, processed foods, which form the bulk of the food purchases of most families.
The other mistake that the Minister makes when he considers food prices is to take too simple a view of the problem. I think that he says that, despite the policies of the Labour Government, prices rose during the time that the Labour Party was in office. In fact, prices rose at nothing like the rate that we see today. We have had references in the debate to the fact that retail food prices are 10 per cent, up on what they were 12 months ago. The Minister, when quoting what happened to prices when the Labour Government were in power, mentions only the last two years. He mentions the increase from June, 1968, to June, 1969, and from June, 1969, to June, 1970, when the increases were 7·4 per cent, and 6·2 per cent, respectively. But he does not mention previous years, going back to June, 1965, for which the figures are 1·9 per cent., 2·9, 5·2 and 3·1 per cent.
Mr. Kaufman: There is further reinforcement to my hon. Friend in an

87
answer which I received from the Minister of State to the Treasury recently, which shows that between devaluation and the fall of the Labour Government the purchasing power of the pound fell by 13p, but that since that time the purchasing power of the pound has fallen by 5p—that is to say, at a considerably faster rate since this Government came into power.
Mr. Barnes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The Minister is saying that, because of the rises which took place when Labour were in power, although they are far smaller than the rate at which prices are increasing now, we must have no prices and incomes policy, no early warning system, and apparently we do not even need any system of consumer protection, since the Consumer Council can be abolished. The Minister argues that all that is necessary is to reduce the level of wage settlements and to have competition.
His policy was expressed in the newspaper interview referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North:
"Mr. Prior is relying on two things to break the spiral of rocketing prices: bringing down the level of wage settlements, which he described as the 'root cause'; and encouraging competition between shops, producers and manufacturers. He told me that he is confident that these policies will pay off in the long run—but the big question he left unanswered was how long we must expect that run to last before the pay-off."
May we be given more information as to how long it will be before that pay-off comes? I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman can give us that information.
The right hon. Gentleman's whole philosophy on food prices is too naive to admit of a solution. I use the word "philosophy", because it is a word of which the right hon. Gentleman is fond. Of all Ministers in Government, after the Prime Minister's speech at Blackpool at the Conservative Party conference, when he launched the so-called new radical. Conservative philosophy, the right hon. Gentleman was the quickest to take his cue from that. Since then we have had many references in his speeches, answers to Questions and even in White Papers to the "Government's philosophy". It is very nice to have a philosopher farmer for a Minister of Agriculture. It is a mixture in a politician of which Plato
88
would have approved, but I doubt whether Plato would have given the right hon. Gentleman very high marks for his philosophy.
The Minister enunciated his "philosophy" in an answer to a written Question on 8th December, 1970,
"I am confident that where there is competition there will no unnecessary or unjustified price increases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1970; Vol. 808, c. 59.]
But consumers are not interested in whether price increases are unnecessary or unjustified. Consumers are interested in whether price increases happen and how much they are. In stating that principle, the Minister is stating no more than a syllogism because, by his definition, where there is competition any increase that takes place must be necessary or justified in the perfect Tory world. I do not believe that to be a view which many people in the country would accept. It is far too simple.
Of all issues which were before the country at the last General Election, prices, and especially food prices, was the most crucial. Two days before polling day the Prime Minister made the statement in which he listed measures which would "at a stroke" reduce the rise in prices. It is a phrase which has been quoted many times since then. The phrase was put to the Minister of Agriculture on 17th November, when he reaffirmed that the Government would honour their election pledges. But what we want to know today is when and how that crucial pledge about food prices will be honoured.
The Government have now been in power for nearly a year. Retail food prices are now running at a rate 10 per cent, higher than they were this time last year. It has been clear to many of us on this side, for a long time, that this was the way that things were developing, but the Minister has tended to close his eyes to this situation and to hope that it would not happen. When questioned about the rate of price increases during the calendar year 1970, during which year food prices went up by something like 9 per cent., the answer we got was that most of the increases were during the first part of the year when Labour was in power. We are now approaching the first full year of Conservative Government and when it becomes known the

89
amount by which food prices will have gone up in the shops during that year will be in the region of 10 per cent. When the Prime Minister used the phrase "at a stroke" last June, and made the statement he did, people took it to mean that there would be direct action on prices. They did not think it was a vague reference to Tory economics generally.
Mr. Bob Brown: They did not think it was a fraudulent prospectus.
Mr. Barnes: I was talking to a lady in my constituency—she was not a Labour voter and, indeed, I do not think she liked any politician—and she told me that the one thing she was sure about was that this Government had said that they would reduce prices and had not done so. That is the way an overwhelming number of people now look at the matter.
It is no good saying that the cut in S.E.T. makes any real contribution to reduced food prices. Ministers have been wildly optimistic about a cut in S.E.T. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement said that such a cut would have a direct influence on prices. But the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, winding up at the end of the Second Reading debate on the Finance Bill on 28th April, went much farther and made some fantastic statements. He said, among other things:
"… food store after food store has been bringing down prices as a result of the cut in S.E.T."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 558.]
This is absolute nonsense, for the following reasons. Let us take as an example a multiple group with, say, 100 branches. The saving in S.E.T. to that group in a year will amount to £100,000. Let us imagine that the takings of each of the 100 branches are about £5,000 a week. This means that each branch, as a result of the cut in S.E.T., will be able to reduce prices by about £20 a week. A reduction of £20 a week on takings of £5,000 a week amounts to less than ½p in the pound. It may be that some outlets will concentrate all that £20 on making reductions on certain items. They may well do that for a limited period, but it will not go far. Indeed, taken over a period the price reduction which can be made from the cut in S.E.T. is very marginal.
Mr. Peter Mills: No.
Mr. Barnes: Does the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Mills) consider that a price reduction of less than ½p in the pound is significant in terms of grocery prices at present?
Mr. Mills: However the hon. Gentleman seeks to put it, in regard to food alone the saving in regard to the cut in S.E.T. is £85 million. That has certainly been of some help—or does the hon. Gentleman want to see S.E.T. remain?
Mr. Barnes: Of course it will help the Chancellor, and indeed the taxpayer, but it will be followed by the imposition of a value added tax. I am talking about how significant are the reductions in food prices that can be made as a result of the cut and, as we have seen, they are marginal in the extreme—less than ½p in the pound.
Mr. Evelyn King rose—
Mr. Barnes: No, I am sorry, I will not give way. My time is running out. The evidence which The Grocer produced recently is that in most cases in the grocery trade a reduction in S.E.T. will be pocketed by the trade to improve its profitability.
Competition has been mentioned very much by the right hon. Gentleman, who says that where there is competition prices will then come down. As regards the grocery business, I wonder how well he understands the complexities of food marketing. Power has moved dramatically in the food marketing business to the big groups, the supermarkets with many different outlets. They are able to twist the arms of their suppliers to give them bigger and bigger discounts. That enables the multiples, the supermarkets, to cut prices to the consumer. But the trouble is that that reduction by the supermarkets is very soon offset by increases in prices which manufacturers are forced to make because of pressure from the big buying groups. This is a very complex situation. It is not enough to merely say that where there is competition, prices will come down. But the Minister has very much made that his point of view, and he pins his hopes on bringing down food prices in the future almost entirely on promoting competition. He has said that he will not intervene when he has been asked, during Question Time, to intervene in various

91
ways. He has said that he does not consider it his business to do so. He does not believe, apparently, that consumer protection, through organisations such as the Consumer Council, has anything to offer.
The Minister described my right hon. Friend's early warning system, on the 9th February, as "a public relations measure". But I doubt whether food manufacturers would have described that system, and the references that they have had to make to the Prices and Incomes Board, as a public relations measure. They were very serious measures which raised problems for food manufacturers. But they were very much in the public interest then.
Surely the lesson of the last ten months is that sooner or later, and the sooner the better, we have to turn to some sort of prices and incomes policy. I supported the prices and incomes policy brought in during the last Parliament, but it was a policy which created a lot of opposition. Some of my hon. Friends were bitterly opposed to it, and it was only partly successful.
The mistake made by the right hon. Gentleman—and it is characteristic of his approach—is that he considers, because the prices and incomes policy of the Labour Government was not entirely successful, that therefore all similar attempts of this kind are doomed. The Minister may shake his head but this is the response that we have had Question Time after Question Time—that because it did not work entirely it was no good. Perhaps he will change his mind today. If he still holds that view, he is in a minority.
The crude way in which the Government are trying to hold down wage settlements without a proper incomes policy is dividing the country and storing up a great deal of ill will. It is impossible to moderate wage demands in the private sector without parallel action on prices, especially food prices, to establish confidence that the Government are trying to follow a fair policy and not one which means that the devil takes the hindmost.
Food prices are, perhaps, the most crucial of all, especially to low-income families and retired people. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition singled out certain food prices
92
among the key prices he listed in his recent speech in New York, when he spoke of a compact between the Government and various sections of the community. He emphasised there that the first condition of any compact of this kind must be parallel action on prices. There is none at present. On 16th June the Prime Minister implied that there would be. His statement cannot be read in any other way. Food prices are now up by 10 per cent, on a year ago. We want to know when and how the Government will do something about it.
6.35 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) on his good fortune in the Ballot and on the debate that he has initiated. I will deal with many of the points he made. I am sorry that the debate has not been better attended, but I gather that there have been other activities in the House this afternoon and that this has restricted the number of hon. Members who have considered this an important subject.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) summed up the subject of the debate very well when he said that it is not a matter of who has caused it but who will put it right, or cure it, which counts. That should be the point to which we should address ourselves. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) tried to do so. I will come to some of his points as we proceed.
The core of the Motion requests the Government
"to set up an organisation for consumer protection with powers to scrutinise and check prices of essential goods and services."
As I see it, this is a further request for the restoration of the previous Government's prices policy, for a Prices and Incomes Board, and all the complicated paraphernalia for bureaucratic scrutiny of commercial pricing decisions. It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I am opposed to this. My resolve is stiffened by the complete lack of any evidence that interventionist policies have been successful in the past in holding down prices.
While the hon. Gentleman was speaking of the need for a prices and incomes policy, his hon. Friend was muttering

93
that it had not made much difference to prices. Hon. Gentlemen seem to believe that they have only to set up a board or institute an inquiry and the problem will be solved, or at any rate brushed under the carpet. Boards and inquiries can sometimes deal with the effects of a policy, but they do not get to the root of the problem. That is the important thing.
In the days of the Prices and Incomes Board, business men had to give up many hours explaining their proposals to Government Departments or providing evidence to the Prices and Incomes Board. Several business men have told me that they used to spend more time consulting their competitors on how to present a case for an increase than competing with each other to keep down prices.
Mr. Dennis SkinnerNonsense.
Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman says "nonsense" but this is what I have been told. He will see my point as I develop my speech. Judged by the criteria of price increases, the period of office of the Labour Party was disastrous. The hon. Gentleman made a good deal of the fact that I always quoted the increase in the cost of living in relation to the last year of the Labour Government and that this was not entirely fair. But it is the trend that has been established which is the important part. In June, 1965, the percentage increase over the previous June was 3·1. It then rose by 5·2, by 29, and by 1·9. But in 1969 it went up by 7·4, and in 1970 by 6·2. Those are the increases which we have had to accept in the last two years.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The Government were going to stop it and bring it down.
Mr. Prior: I should not for one moment attempt to belittle the problem that we face.
Mr. Heffer: Would the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prior: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He always makes speeches from sitting positions, and I will not give way to him. The hon. Member will just not get away with that
94
sort of behaviour in the House, and it is time he knew it.
Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman has made references to my behaviour as though it has been improper. I put myself in your hands, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, I have broken absolutely no rules of the House. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to give way. I have sat here for most of the afternoon. I requested the right hon. Gentleman to give way on this point. Perhaps you, Mr. Speaker., will inform me what rules I have broken which would justify such a statement by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Speaker: Fortunately or unfortunately, I have no control over what the right hon. Gentleman or any other hon. Gentleman may say, and it is not for me to comment on the behaviour of hon. Members. There has been no breach of order.
Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman spends a great deal of time shouting from a seated position and I will not give way when he gets to his feet. He is always getting to his feet. He will have to put up with it this time, because I am not giving way.
Mr. Heffer: You just answer a few questions.
Mr. Prior: In the course of my speech I will do a great deal to answer questions.
Mr. Heffer: Just tell us what you are going to do.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I said a moment ago that there had been no breach of order. Now the hon. Gentleman is coming near to one.
Mr. Heffer: I will break rules of order, too.
Mr. Prior: I will deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick—[Interruption.]—over that interruption. I will take an actual example of bread prices, which I think is important. In 1964 when the Labour Government came to power the price of an ordinary large loaf was 1s. l½d. By June, 1970, it had risen to Is. 9d., an increase of 55 per cent. During that period of time the baking industry had been subjected to regular surveillance and

95
to no fewer than four detailed inquiries by the National Board for Prices and Incomes—that is, four detailed inquiries in just under six years. Despite all that, there was an increase of 55 per cent, in the cost of a large loaf.
As hon. Gentlemen know, last summer it was widely predicted that the price of a large loaf would have to rise by 2d., and I confidently predict that had hon. Gentlemen opposite remained in office and continued to operate their so-called controls that the increase would have come about long since. In fact, the only increase which the very competitive position prevailing in the industry has allowed to occur is one old penny per loaf last November and that had to be rounded down to 0·8d. on decimalisation—and this at a time when cereals prices throughout the world have reached their highest level ever.
What has happened here is an excellent example of the effect of giving a free rein to competitive pressures and makes it plain that the large interests must compete with each other rather than come to the Government and ask them to fix the price for them. I do not suppose the industry would have minded continuing with the old system, which effectively guaranteed it full recoupment of its cost increases.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has been very critical of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. In fairness, will he agree that in relation to some of the commodities in respect of which my right hon. Friend and I made references to the Board, the Board found that the increases being sought by the industry were not justified?
Mr. Prior: Certainly; the Board found from time to time that increases were not justified. I am saying that competition would have kept those increases to the very minimum. However, I should be the last person, particularly as Minister of Food, to wish to give the impression that the Government are not greatly concerned about rising prices of food and other essential goods. I recognise full well the burden that increases in the cost of living place on pensioners. The lowest-paid workers and those on small fixed incomes suffer most from them. Yet the country as a whole has not been pre-
96
pared to accept that stable prices are simply incompatible with large increases in incomes year by year which have not been earned by higher productivity. That is a statement which is taken from the 1969 White Paper published by the Labour Government. I am very surprised the hon. Member for Walton did not rise on that one.
Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted from a White Paper. We have heard him explain that there has been a continual rise in the cost of living under the Labour Government. What we are interested to hear is what the Tory Government intend to do about it, because they said that they intended "at a stroke" to deal with this question. When will he tell us what the Tory Government's policy is to deal with the increase in the cost of living?
Mr. Prior: I am in the process of telling the hon. Gentleman exactly what we are doing. It was notable that only one hon. Member opposite, namely, the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick, made any mention of wage increases. It is of fundamental importance, not only that we should overcome the problem of rising prices, but that people should realise the causes of it. This is where I come to the question asked by the hon. Member for Walton. There is no doubt that the main cause is quite simply paying ourselves too much. We shall get price increases down only by reducing labour costs. This is why the Government have taken action wherever possible to bring down the overall level of wage settlements.
Mr. Bob Brown: The right hon. Gentleman says that paying ourselves too much is the trouble. He then says that we must reduce labour costs. "Paying ourselves too much" must also mean taking too much in the form of profit, but he has not yet mentioned that.
Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman must know that profits have fallen considerably in the last two or three years and that one of the problems which all industries now have to face is the lack of cash to reinvest. Failure on the part of the nation to realise the seriousness of the situation can also result only in greater hardship and higher unemployment.

97
This inflation of wage settlements has its roots in what happened in the period before the election; and we have never claimed that it could be halted overnight.
Mr. Heffer: At a stroke.
Mr. Prior: Unless a halt is called fairly quickly, the course of inflation could lead to disastrous consequences, not only for trade union members themselves but also for the nation as a whole. We therefore consider it imperative that all concerned with wage settlements should take full account of the national interest in the widest sense so that the general level can quickly be brought more closely into line with the growth in output.
There are encouraging signs that the upward trend in pay settlements has been checked. For example, in the last quarter of 1970 local authority manual workers received increases of about 15 per cent, to 16 per cent., whereas more recently other important manual groups in the public sector have settled for increases of about 10 per cent, or less.
In the private sector, although there have been some high settlements—in the motor industry for example—these should not be taken as indicative of the overall pattern. There are, in fact, encouraging signs of a growing recognition that the general level must come down and the Government for their part will do everything possible to encourage this. If hon. Gentlemen ask me my opinion of the motor car industry, I am prepared to give that as well. I will make it plain how much I deplore the settlements reached in the car industry. Nor should the car industry, on either side—management or unions—be under any illusion about what the rest of the country thinks of what they have done.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to doubt what I say about the effectiveness of competition. I do not think that I can do better than refer them to the recent Report of the much-vaunted National Board for Prices and Incomes on food distribution. I think we all know why that inquiry was set up. It was, of course, no more than a political gimmick to try to take some of the steam out of the situation before the election last June. It was, at the same time,
98
a useful stick to try to show that the big retailers were taking advantage of their position to increase their profits at the expense of the housewife. [HON. MEMBERS: "So they were."] But it has boomeranged on them, because the objective has certainly failed. The Board's Report has shown firmly that the extremely competitive conditions existing in the retail trade are working to keep down profits and margins and encouraging improvements in efficiency.
Let me give another example of competition working. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget speech the halving of the rates of S.E.T., there was an immediate response by a number of leading multiple food chains and department stores. They all tried to steal a march on each other to get customers into their shops. This is what competition is about. They did not wait for the operative date in July, and in many cases a series of price reductions already has given a valuable lead to die trade.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Prior: I cannot give way. I have already given way quite enough. Time is getting very short.
I know that housewives tend to think that they are powerless to help themselves and powerless to drive a hard bargain. This is not true, and is well brought out by the way in which they regularly beat the food index. The food index is produced as part of the machinery of the General Index of Retail Prices. It measures price changes for what is effectively a fixed basket of goods—fixed in the sense that it naturally cannot allow for the housewife who goes from shop to shop to get a bargain.
The figures for household expenditure, on the other hand, reflect what householders actually spend, and this, of course, reflects the extent to which housewives take advantage of special offers and switch away from seasonally expensive items. In the last few years, about one-fifth of the increases in prices has been avoided by intelligent shopping. Put another way, one-fifth of the effects of rising prices has been beaten. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite should take some credit for this, because it was going on during their period of Government.

99
The Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes bears all this out. Its survey of housewives showed that they are for the most part ready to take advantage of the scope for getting a good deal. This is well illustrated by what is happening with regard to meat. For reasons of supply, beef is now very expensive but pork is relatively cheap. Many housewives have swapped from one to the other. That is good sense. [Interruption.] That is what is happening.
I must also point out to the House the fact that the proportion of total consumer expenditure which goes on food continues to decline. We are now spending a smaller proportion of our incomes on food as our general level of prosperity increases.
Reference has been made to the nationalised industries, and I want to take this up. One of the first things that we did on coming into office was to reduce the postal charges which the previous Government, presumably, had accepted, because in any event they had allowed the stamps to be printed. Those reductions were worth £30 million over a five-year period. The second example is in steel, where we recently halved the British Steel Corporation's suggested range of price increases. This cut will have saved the food and drink manufacturing industry about £2½ million per annum in cost increases of tinplate alone.
Mr. Kaufman rose—
Mr. Prior: The hon. Member for Norwich, North, who opened the debate, referred to the standard shopping basket which is regularly priced by the Eastern Evening News. I know that this exercise is carried out in good faith, and it will be no surprise to the hon. Gentleman that I have been following its reports carefully during the last few months. My Ministry has found that the increases recorded tend to overstate the overall rise in prices as indicated by the official food index.
Mr. Wallace: I have also been checking those prices and I checked a number of them this morning. They are quite accurate. It depends what quality and brand one buys.
Mr. Prior: Of course it does. But we have an official food index, which has
100
been supported by both parties, in all Administrations, and it shows a slightly lower figure than the figures which have been shown by this particular exercise. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should not shout from seated positions.
Mr. Prior: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said a lot about the butchers and he quoted some extremely extravagant remarks, some of which have been made recently by the butchers. All I can tell him is that there is absolutely no case for saying that the increase, in meat prices has been due to our levy policy. The levy policy does not even start until 1st July. It is absolute nonsense, therefore, to say that the levy has had anything to do with the increase in the prices of meat.
The truth is that we are in a situation in which beef is in very short supply. The amount of home-produced beef at the moment is running at only about the level of 1964 and somewhat below the level of last year. At the same time as this has happened, imports of beef have fallen sharply. The Argentine, for example, from which we used to obtain quite large supplies of beef, is now itself having to have meatless days because it cannot find enough beef to feed its own population.
When the levy policy is introduced, it will do no more at this stage than underpin prices to prevent them dropping and causing the taxpayer excessive subsidies. It is Government policy over the next three years to reduce the subsidies paid out to fanners and to see that farmers get their return from the market. I would have thought that to have a situation in which farming does not expand is certainly not in the interest of the housewife. She is having to pay inflated prices partly because of the failure over the past few years of British agriculture to produce more food.
My message to housewives and to hon. Members is that if we have a strong British agriculture, we shall have plenty of food at reasonable prices. I do not believe that in East Anglia or any other part of the country—and particularly East Anglia, where there are low-wage earners—there is any point in denying that for many years agriculture and farm workers have not had a fair chance of achieving a reasonable standard of pros-

101
perity. I believe that the present Government policy is fair to both consumers and to farmers.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, noting the increase in prices of basic foods with the consequent hardship to families in areas of low average wages and increasing unemployment, but not classified as development areas, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to set up an organisation for consumer protection with powers to scrutinise and check prices of essential goods and services.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  MINERAL WORKINGS BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  7.0 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill comes to us from another place, and it is needed to ensure the continued solvency of the Ironstone Restoration Fund, set up by the Mineral Workings Act, 1951. The Fund was established for two main purposes—first, to finance the reclamation of past dereliction, then covering about 2,500 acres of land caused by opencast iron ore extraction in the East Midlands and, secondly, to ensure that, in conjunction with planning control, future workings would be restored to a proper standard. The Fund has been financed by a levy on ironstone operators. That levy was 2¼ old pence per ton of ironstone worked by opencast methods.
  Rather than convert the precise old pennies calculations into decimal coinage I shall be referring to old pence in all the figures that I give.
  To this figure of 2¼ old pence the Exchequer added three farthings per ton, making 3 old pence in all. Normally the operator has been able to recover half the 2¼ old pence from the ironstone royalty owner, so that the owners themselves also contribute, although indirectly.
  There is an exemption from the owner's share if the ironstone is owned by a charity or the land is subject to a full restoring lease. The resources collected in this way and accumulated in the Fund have been used in three main ways—first, the Fund has met the cost of restoring virtually the whole 2,500 acres of dereliction existing in 1950. There are only one or two small, isolated pockets of dereliction remaining. Virtually we have completed the initial job. The work has been done partly by local authorities and partly by the ironstone operators, and it has been financed by the Fund and approved by the Minister controlling it—now the Secretary of State for the

  103
  Environment. This work has been made possible by the existence of the Fund.
  Secondly, the Fund has met part of the costs incurred by operators in complying with restoration requirements imposed on them since 1950 and conditions attached to planning permissions. These planning permissions call for the levelling of land and restoring of topsoil. The Act of 1951 entitled operators to receive from the Fund the approved cost of this mandatory work, in so far as it exceeded the so-called standard rate.
  I ask the House to note the term "standard rate", because it is a term of art in the Act of 1951, and in the new Bill it is also paramount. I shall return to it later and explain its significance.
  The third purpose for which revenue from the Fund has been used has been to level land and to put it back into good heart for agriculture or, where the alternative has been preferable, to use it for afforestation. For the purpose of bringing land back to fertility my right hon. Friend draws on the Fund to make grants to owners and occupiers of land which has already been levelled. These are the ways in which the restoration has been done up to date. Up to March 1971, about £250,000 had been spent out of the Fund on reclamation of derelict land worked before 1950. About £1,500,000 had been paid to operators for the cost of complying with restoration requirements in excess of the standard rate, and just over £500,000 has been paid to landowners and farmers for agricultural aftercare; and forestry and amenity work brought the total disbursement under the Fund to £2½ million.
  The accounts of the Fund, which are laid before the House annually, show that at 31st March, 1970, there was a balance in hand of £444,000. Nevertheless, given the trends, which are totally predictable, insolvency of the Fund would, but for the measures proposed in the Bill, face those responsible for its administration. It does not require any great depth of understanding to realise why this insolvency has come about. The reasons are simple. Although the cost of restoration, like other things, has been increasing year by year, contributions to the Fund are still at the level fixed by the Act of 1951, which contained no provision enabling
  104
  the rate of levy—which was fixed over 20 years ago—to be altered. Nor was there any provision in the Act for the standard rate to be changed by any provision in the legislation.
  The concept of the standard rate was that operators generally had some liability to restore land under their leases and should continue to bear, without assistance from the Fund, the cost of meeting these requirements, drawing upon the Fund only to the extent that planning conditions required them to restore to a higher standard than was generally called for in the leases. The Act of 1951 left the standard rate to be determined by Order. This took place in 1955, when a figure of £110 per acre was made the standard rate. There was no provision for changing this, once the £110 per acre had been fixed.
  In 1955 the figure of £110 seemed adequate, and it reflected the average cost of restoring an acre of land in 1950 to the standard required by the leases at that time. Therefore, it is precisely 21 years out of date. Consequently, the ironstone operators have, as the years have passed, been bearing a decreasing proportion of the total restoration costs, while the share borne by the Fund has increased correspondingly. It is not very surprising that payments out of the Fund are overtaking income, and this trend not only exists but is now being accentuated, because, on the one hand, iron ore production is falling —which means that contributions are diminishing—and, on the other hand, the closure of quarries enables restoration to be speeded up, so that the time lag between receiving contributions for the ore extracted and paying for the restorating is shortening.
  The Bill proposes measures to keep the Fund on a sound financial basis and so enable current restoration standards to be maintained. One objective has been to provide the flexibility that the Act of 1951 lacked, and so enable the Fund's stability to be maintained in the future by permitting any variation in contributions and in the standard rate that may subsequently prove necessary for that purpose to be made without further amending legislation.
  Under Clause 1 my right hon. Friend will be required to prescribe by Order a new rate of contributions to be levied on ironstone operators in respect of ironstone extracted after 1st April, 1971.

  105
  Contributions at the new rate will first become due after 1st April, 1972, since the operator pays each April in respect of extractions in the preceding year. The Order must also prescribe a new reduced rate applicable to owners who are exempted from the owner's share of levy—charities and owners who have granted full restoring leases. The exemption originally provided for in the 1951 Act will be maintained. The Clause also empowers my right hon. Friend to vary the rates of contribution from time to time, as may be necessary, by making new Orders; so it will have this flexibility and updating process which was not part of the original provision.
  Clause 2 deals with the owner's share of the contribution levied on the operator. Under the 1951 Act the owner pays half. Under this Clause my right hon. Friend will specify by Order what the owner's share of the new contributions will be. It is recognised—this is why we have put this provision into the legislation—that some of the original leases may leave very little profit margin from which the royalty owner could be expected to contribute more to the Fund, thus having to contribute more than he is drawing by way of royalties. For this reason the Clause is drawn so that the Order may prescribe different rates of owner's contribution according to the terms and the dates of the original leases under which the owners draw their royalties.
  Perhaps I should explain that a good deal of what is in the first two Clauses is a re-presentation of the provisions in the 1951 Act and that the essence of the new matter lies simply in giving to my right hon. Friend a new power to vary from time to time the rate of levy on the operators and that part of the levy to be passed on by them to the royalty owners. In other words, the first two Clauses deal with the income side of the Fund.
  Clause 3 will affect the outgoings of the Fund. It empowers my right hon. Friend to vary from time to time by order the standard rate which I defined earlier. This represents the restoration cost per acre which the operator has to meet from his own resources before drawing on the Fund. The intention is that the original standard rate of £110 per acre should be revised so as to reflect
  106
  the current cost of doing the work that used to cost £110 in 1950.
  The first three Clauses are, therefore, complementary in enabling my right hon. Friend to see that the Fund's income and outgoings are such that it remains able to meet its obligations. But before he makes any order he will be obliged under Clause 4(1) to consult representatives of the ironstone operators and of those who have an interest in the worked land. Obviously this must include surface owners as well as the royalty owners where the two differ.
  It may help the House if I explain that in practical terms "ironstone operators" today virtually means the British Steel Corporation, since, apart from one company producing pigment and working ironstone on a very small scale, production in the ironstone district by the private sector has in face ceased. There have already been discussions with the Corporation, the Ironstone Royalty Owners Association and the Country Landowners Association, and these consultations will continue with a view to the making of orders under the new powers in the coming months.
  In addition to the statutory requirements, my right hon. Friend proposes to arrange for officials of his Department to meet the British Steel Corporation and representatives of the royalty owners and landowners regularly, so that for the future the state of the Fund may be kept under review in the light of the industry's forecast of developments.
  It only remains for me to draw attention to Clause 4(2) which abolishes the Advisory Committee on Ironstone Restoration. This committee was established under Section 34 of the 1951 Act. Initially the committee undoubtedly played an extremely useful rôle in helping the Minister to fix the standard rate for 1955 and in advising him on certain other technical and costing matters. However, the Committee has not met since 1957 and it therefore seems inappropriate that we should continue to keep it in statutory existence when there appears to the Government to be no purpose in so doing.
  I hope this will be seen as a helpful Bill which is designed to continue the work of restoring the environment in areas which have been used for this form

  107
  of extraction, and that the House will feel it is a Bill that they can welcome.
  7.14 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Williams: I do not intend to take up too much time in dealing with this Bill, but there are three specific problems with which I should like to deal briefly, and to which I may return when we reach the Committee stage. These three problems have one factor in common—that is the possible arbitrariness of the rôle of the Minister. I will try to demonstrate during this brief contribution that the arbitrariness which has been displayed in dealing with the first problem is an ominous warning of the arbitrariness which may be shown in the exercise of the powers which give rise to the other two problems.
  The first problem is one to which the hon. Gentleman alluded—the problem of the deficit on the existing Ironstone Restoration Fund. I do not think the figures are a matter of great dispute, but it would be as well to outline the situation in case there is any difference, so that the Minister will have an opportunity to remedy any inaccuracies later. I understand that there are at present approximately 3,140 acres of land which have already been worked for ironstone but which remain to be restored. The average cost per acre of levelling and spreading is about £545 of which, as the hon. Gentleman accurately said, the operator is responsible for £110, the standard rate to which he referred. The operator claims the balance above the £110 from the Minister under Section 9(1) and (2) of the 1951 Act, which is qualified by Section 2(2) of that same Act to make it clear that the Minister's responsibility does not involve Exchequer payment. It involves only payment from this Fund. I think that is the situation as it stands.
  It has given rise to a problem to which there is no legal solution, as I hope to demonstrate. We have possible operators' claims on the Fund of £1⅓ million in addition to which, because of the type of expenditure, to which he referred, by local authorities on fencing, attempts to improve the fertility of the land and so on by farmers, we have to allow about another £100 per acre for this additional expenditure which can be claimed against
  108
  the Fund. Therefore, we have a total possible—I would go so far as to say probable—claim of £1·6 million against the Fund.
  The problem to which this gives rise is the direct outcome of the fact that since 1951 costs and standards of restoration have risen substantially, whereas contributions per ton of mineral and the standard rate per acre restored have not changed. So we are faced with outgoings of around £1½ million, but, with the contributions outstanding, the total assets are only about £0·4 million. I believe the hon. Gentleman gave a figure of £440,000. We have a net deficit of around £1¼ million, speaking in round figures. That figure would vary whatever estimate we put upon it because of the future changes in costs.
  From this deficit two important questions emerge. The first is, how should we avoid a future deficit? I think the Under-Secretary is right in saying that we must in future ensure that there is flexibility and that it is possible to alter the contributions and the standard rate to reflect adequately changes in costs. This was a serious mistake in past legislation and one which we should remedy on this occasion. I support the hon. Gentleman in that intention.
  The difficulty arises over how we clear the past deficit. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford in another place on 1st April said, when speaking on the British Steel Corporation:
  "… as the proper successor to the industry and heir to its liabilities"
  —I stress the word "liabilities"—
  "as well as its assets, it is right that the responsibility should pass squarely on to the shoulders of the Corporation …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 1st April, 1971; Vol. 316, c. 1510.]
  But of what liability is he speaking? The liability is clearly established at law and the liability at law is £110 an acre plus the contribution per ton. The contribution per ton has already been paid and the Steel Corporation is right to make its contribution of £110 per acre.
  It is not the responsibility of the Steel Corporation that a deficit exists. It has fulfilled its legal commitments. It is the fault of successive Governments. I am not attributing responsibility to the Under-Secretary. Successive Governments have over 21 years failed to deal with

  109
  the problem. The fault lies with the Minister who is in charge of the Fund and who may bring legislation to this House if he wishes. Because Ministers in the past have failed to act and have failed to bring amending legislation to this House, it is the Steel Corporation that is being condemned to paying the £1 million deficit which has arisen during these years. That may be politically expedient, but it is of doubtful equity.
  I agree with the principle enunciated in the other place by both Lord Greenwood and Lord Sandford—to put it in Lord Sandford's words—
  "… the man who despoils or damages the countryside must be made to pay for the damage for which he is responsible"
  —but the same Minister in the other place had said only a moment earlier:
  "It is true that some will be land which has been worked by other operators" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 1st April, 1971; Vol. 316, c. 1510.]
  So much for the inviolable principle of damage being paid for by those responsible for it.
  What we have, therefore, is a Minister using the full weight of his Parliamentary power arbitrarily to impose an additional obligation on an operator—in this case the Steel Corporation—who has not even caused the damage and who has honourably fulfilled the legal debts and obligations required of him. I urge the Minister to think again before the Committee stage. There is a dangerous precedent here, the precedent that, when a company, be it private or public, has fulfilled its legal obligations, a Minister may retrospectively—for that is what it amounts to in being applied to work already undertaken—change the nature and the level of those obligations. That approach to problems of this sort causes concern not only to the Steel Corporation but to others, as, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman will discover during the debate.
  The Steel Corporation, which has already been denied £100 million of investment grants and 7 per cent, of the price rise which it considered necessary, now has to meet £1 million for which it has no legal responsibility whatever. In effect, since it has been found that responsibility under the 1951 Act for the deficit is now—if I may use a non-
  110
  legal term—in limbo, the Government are shrugging off their responsibility and imposing it, with full use of the Parliamentary majority, upon the British Steel Corporation.
  If I may make a point of slight political significance, I noticed that in the other place—this is reported in HANSARD, C. 271 on 15th March—the Minister went to some length to make clear that outstanding restoration by the private sector of the steel industry would be largely completed before the new standard rate was introduced. This sounds somewhat questionable, and, as I say, we intend to explore the matter in greater depth in Committee.
  That is all I say on the first problem. I am not asking for assurances now—we shall have a chance to discuss it further —but I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will consider the complaint which I have expressed, which, I suspect, will be echoed by other hon. Members.
  The second and third problems are inter-related: the first is the future of the contributions and of the standard rate, and the second is the abolition of the Advisory Committee. I have already said that I completely accept the need to vary the income of the Fund as costs and standards rise. Failure to make that provision was a serious mistake in the past, and I give entire support to the Minister's present intention. However, I am a little afraid of the unimpeded arbitrariness of the Minister's power and his complete freedom from any checks in the future in altering either the contributions, or the standard rate, or both, save as regards the Government's contribution, of course. This is the one contribution which cannot and will not be altered. The Government's contribution is fixed in the Bill at the level at which it stood in 1951, although costs have risen, standards have risen, and the real value of money has changed in that time.
  It seems anomalous that the Advisory Committee existed but did not meet at a time when the Minister had no powers to vary charges but is now to be abolished when the Minister is assuming powers to change charges and the standard rate, and change them very much at the Minister's whim.

  111
  The absurdity of the situation is revealed by Lord Sandford's words in the other place on 15th March:
  "… it was not any defect in the Committee but the inability of the Minister under the Act as at present worded to take action on the advice that the Committee gave."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 15th March, 1971; Vol. 316, c. 279.]
  Now that the Minister has power to act under this Bill, the defect alleged against the Committee has been removed, yet at that very point it is to be prevented from giving advice.
  There is a suspicion here—it may be utterly unjustified, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will make clear what the motive is—that the Minister and his Department may be following a policy of division of voices, hoping not to split opinions but to reduce the volume and effectiveness of what might otherwise be co-ordinated advice. We all know that it is easier to set aside advice which can be represented as coming from individual pressure groups than it is to set aside the co-ordinated and concerted advice of an advisory body. Far from abolishing the Committee, the Minister should be considering the possibility of widening it to include not only representatives of the Steel Corporation, the Ironstone Royalty Owners' Association and the Country Landowners' Association but representatives of the local authorities as well. This, also, is a matter which we shall pursue in Committee.
  Against that background of the arbitrary treatment of the past deficit and the possible arbitrariness of future changes in what I may call the restoration tax, for that is what it is, in effect, whatever we call it, we see with some alarm the last straw, that is, that the powers exercisable under the Bill will be exercised through Statutory Instrument subject only to a negative Resolution of the House. So not only is the Minister not subject to any criticism from an advisory body but he has adopted the weakest form of parliamentary control, and that at the very stage when he is introducing a new flexibility into his powers.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will take those points in the constructive spirit in which they are put. I hope that he will have thought again, especially about
  112
  the impact on the Steel Corporation, before we take the Bill in Committee. If he can bring forward some modification at that stage, it will considerably shorten our proceedings.
  7.28 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: I pay tribute to the valuable work which has been carried out through the Ironstone Restoration Fund for the environment generally and especially for agriculture. In many parts of the Midlands in and around my constituency where many of the workings lie, there has been a tremendous improvement as a result of restoration. A good job has been done. It has not been done simply by returning a lot of earth into the holes willy-nilly; there has been careful restoration, with careful grading and the segregated topsoil put back.
  The Ironstone Restoration Fund established under the Mineral Workings Act, 1951, has fulfilled a good purpose. As has been said, there was a considerable backlog of work to do in 1951. About 2,500 acres of worked land remained to be restored. But the Fund has seen nearly all of that done now, and there is only a negligible quantity left.
  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said, under the Fund a contribution of 3 old pence per ton of iron ore excavated was fixed, the operator paid 1 ⅛ old pence towards it, the royalty owner paid 1⅛ old pence, and the Treasury bore the balance of three-farthings. One of the defects of the 1951 Act, probably unforeseen by its architects, was that costs got so out of hand and rose so much that within a short time, and at an accelerating pace, the contributions became unrealistic and could not cover the full cost of restoration. It was calculated in 1950 that it would cost about £110 an acre to restore land adequately. Today the figure is over £500, to restore land to first-class agricultural condition. It can be restored at a lower figure, of about £200 or £250 per acre, provided the standard required is not so high. But naturally most of the land under which the ironstone lies is first-class agricultural land as is the case in the East Midlands. The owners and occupiers are very anxious to have it restored to its former quality.

  113
  The Fund has been running into trouble for some years because the cost of restoration has steadily increased. The levy rate has remained at three old pence a ton of iron ore mined. Unfortunately, in recent years the production of United Kingdom iron ore has been declining, and it is likely to decline still more, particularly in the districts around Corby and elsewhere, with the result that the gross output upon which any levy is calculated is likely to be a declining factor. It has been estimated that but for the Government's action in the Bill the Fund would shortly go into deficit. The figures I have agree that roughly 3,000 acres of land remain to be restored. If it is to be restored to first-class agricultural standard, an expenditure of about £1·5 million or £1·6 million is foreseeable. Yet the Fund, on its existing mechanism, can produce only about £500,000 more by way of outstanding contributions. Therefore, hon. Members on both sides will welcome the aim of the Bill to bring contributions up to date and make the Fund solvent again.
  The Exchequer contribution is one of my big concerns about the Bill. Why is it still fixed at the old rate of three-farthings, whilst the operators and royalty owners' rates will be varied by Order later to be published? We do not know what the figures will be, but they will certainly be increased considerably. Whilst they will be varied to meet the cost of work in 1970, Schedule 2 states that the Government rate shall remain unaltered at the equivalent in new pence of three-farthings.
  I do not know, and my hon. Friend did not say, what he thinks the cost of restoration per acre is likely to be, and he did not say what he thought the levy was likely to be when the Order is produced. It is now three old pence a ton, but I should be very surprised if he is not thinking of a figure of about 5 new pence a ton, at the lowest.
  The increase in levy is welcome, but the equitable way to deal with it would be, if, say, an increase of four times is required, simply to multiply by four the contributions from the different sources to the Fund, the operators, royalty owners and the Government. But it seems that the Government have no intention of doing that. Paragraph 4 of
  114
  Schedule 2 says that they will be responsible for contributing only the same rate of three-farthings a ton. The pegging of the Exchequer contribution at the rate fixed by the 1951 Act relieves the Exchequer of bearing an equitable share of rising costs; it means that the considerable rise in costs since then will be suffered by the royalty owners and operators, who are largely the British Steel Corporation.
  It is desperately unfair that future production should be saddled with the cost of funding the current deficit in the Fund, which on current workings is likely to amount to £1½ million. It is also desperately unfair that although the owners and operators may not necessarily be the same, a past deficit is to be funded from future workings.
  What worries me even more is that the Government's action ignores the fact that the deficiency arises from claims in the pipeline in respect of ironstone production on which contributions have already been paid by both owners and operators.
  The Minister said that he did not accept that the Bill is retrospective, but the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) said that in his view it was. I share the hon. Gentleman's view. In a letter of 8th April in reply to a letter I had sent him on the matter, my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development said:
  "I do not know why it should have been suggested that Government is evading its responsibilities. We are not interfering with the original provision requiring an Exchequer contribution of ¾d. per ton of ironstone extracted. Nor is the amending legislation retrospective. The first contributions at the new level will be payable in April 1972. The new standard rate will come into force at a future date to be specified in an Order to be made later this year, after consultation with those concerned."
  I should like my hon. Friend to think about this before Committee, because it is not right. There is a certain retrospective action in what the Government are doing. I hope that careful consideration will be given to getting the Government to pay their full and proper contribution to the increased cost of the works.
  7.40 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: I apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for not having heard his speech. I had

  115
  intended to be here, but one or two items cropped up at the last minute. Possibly, if I had heard him, I might have modified what I want to say, but I gather, from what has been said by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Fair), that the situation is what I thought it was.
  I want to consider in the first place the argument about retrospective legislation in relation to this Bill. I cannot see how it can be argued that this is not a clear case of retrospective legislation—and a mean case at that. The effect of the Bill is to make a person or group of persons, who acted quite properly within the law as it stood, fulfilling their obligations under that law, pay more than they expected to pay under that law. That is a clear example of retrospective legislation. The Bill as drafted undoubtedly has that effect.
  The Bill may refer to ironstone extracted subsequent to the date given, but it is clear that the amount to be charged for such extraction will bear part of the cost of restoration following extractions carried out previously. There will be an added burden, a greater charge, on the ore extracted from April, 1971, than would otherwise have been the case. If the Minister denied this and said that the charge will be upon the ore extracted after April, 1971, in relation to restoration of the land rendered derelict by extraction after that date, then this would not be retrospective legislation, but that is not so. About 3,000 acres of land have yet to be restored, but less than one-third of the cost of carrying out restoration will be borne by the extractions subsequent to April of this year. This is imposing upon persons, whether they be individuals or groups or great corporations like the British Steel Corporation, a penalty for actions carried out prior to April, 1971—that is, under the law as it stands.
  It may be argued that this cost should have been levied earlier, but it was not. I will not enter into the arguments about why it was not levied. If there was fault, then it was the fault of successive Governments. In these circumstances, the responsibility should be carried by the Government. The degree of restoration can vary greatly in cost. It may be restoration of the land for full agricul-
  116
  tural purposes or for quite different purposes—afforestation or amenity, for example. But, as I understand it, the Government are taking power to charge the full cost of restoration up to the maximum, whatever it may be. They are going to see to it that the full cost is borne by those extracting minerals from April, 1971—and that cost will include land still waiting now to be restored.
  There is not only retrospective legislation in the sense that firms are to be made to pay for what was done quite properly under the law as it existed. They are to be made to pay up to the hilt for a level of restoration which might mean going far beyond what was required in an earlier day. That is rubbing salt in the wound. It is a very mean line for the Government to take. The Tory Party has made great play of the theme that the Government should get out of business and should interfere as little as possible with the economy. Here, however, is an example of interference of the other sort—imposing burdens that otherwise people would not have been carrying.
  Before the 1951 Act, one could virtually do what one liked with land and have no responsibility for clearing up the mess one made. But since 1951 there has been a welcome acceptance of social responsibility for clearing up the mess made in earlier days. My whole area was scarred by pit bings—pit heaps, as they are called, in some parts of the country. There was an 85 per cent, grant—sometimes up to 100 per cent, grant— for the clearing of these eyesores. Society accepted responsibility for clearing up the mess. If, between 1951 and 1971, however, when the parties concerned were operating as the law then allowed, sufficient provision was not made by Parliament to clear up the mess created, we should clearly accept the responsibility now. The Government should say that they will wipe the slate clean for the past but for the future ensure that, when these workings are carried out with considerable destruction of the land, those profiting from them should pay for the land to be restored to a fit condition. That would be the proper thing to do. It is not reasonable to insist that payment being extracted now should bear in large measure payment for something done in the period 1951 to 1971. That is unfair retrospection and the Government should reconsider.

  117
  The Government like to assume the guise of being fair. This Measure entails a small amount in relation to Government funds but it will be a large cost to the British Steel Corporation. Perhaps this is a manifestation of anti-naitionalisation bias by the Government. I wonder whether it really is the question altogether of landowners having to pay which has led the Government to adopt this line. A nationalised industry, the British Steel Corporation, will be carrying the burden in the main. That suggests to me a bias against nationalised industry.
  Mr. Farr: There is at least one large private operator in iron ore extraction; so the Bill is not purely against the British Steel Corporation.
  Mr. Lawson: We all agree, however, that the great weight of this burden is to be carried by the Corporation. That is beyond dispute. I am not saying this positively, but simply suggesting that were it not for the bias so manifest on the Government side of the House, we might have had fairer consideration of this matter. If the Under-Secretary can show by his efforts in Committee that the Government are prepared to turn their backs on this mean little action and behave with a little generosity, we will think much more of him and the Government.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I cannot detect any bias against a nationalised corporation. I pay tribute to the Government for bringing in the Bill, although I am not certain that it is the proper Bill. Several years ago, in 1951, there were many owners and many prospectors and extractors of material. Now there is only one, the British Steel Corporation, and it would seem that simply to bring in money from contributions and to pay out when claims are made, probably after a gap of five years, accounting for the administrative charge, is rather a heavy way of doing it. But this is a matter which could be discussed in Committee.
  My hon. Friends have mentioned the facts. It seems to me that there are potential claims of roughly 3,000 acres which have to be restored, taking into account what is yet to be done. One is unfortunately faced with a situation in
  118
  which production is declining over the years from 10 million tons to six million tons in 1981. This is no fault of the United Kingdom. Iron ore can be obtained very cheaply from abroad and it is of a much higher grade. Therefore, while there is much restoration to be done, the amount now available for restoration is in the region of £444,000, which is small and largely meaningless, for the simple reason that contributions are made on a tonnage basis, whereas the amount which has to be paid for restoration depends on inflationary factors, and probably other, which act as escalators One has the added predicament that the total cost is likely to be somewhere between £1·25 million and £1·5 million, a very substantial sum.
  Hon. Members have considered this problem deeply and have pointed to the fact that the Minister has decided that he must stand by the solvency of the Fund. My hon. Friend has indicated that in several years' time it will be going into the red. This will be rather serious. He has chosen, by Order in Council, to revise the payments which will be made by the mineral operators and by the royalty owners. He has left aside entirely an additional contribution from the Treasury. We debated recently the Town and Country Planning (Mineral) Regulations covering both England and Scotland and provided that planning permission will be granted for a period of only ten years. Mineral undertakers will have to go back to the planning authorities and argue their case afresh, probably in public, and probably be liable to more stringent terms.
  This could mean that the undertakers will be under a greater liability. This is an obligation or condition imposed by Statute, and I should have thought that as the Crown was responsible for imposing these terms, the Crown's contribution should be upgraded substantially. In the Bill, however, the Crown's contribution will remain at three farthings, at which it has remained unaltered since 1951.
  The Minister in another place said that there was no flexibility in the 1951 Act. This is conceded, but inflexibility by whom? The mineral operators have been paying their instalments year by year against their tonnages. If the Minister found that the Fund was falling far be

  119
  hind, the Government of the day, Conservative or Labour, could have initiated fresh legislation to put the matter right. They did not. So we find ourselves in this situation, and I think the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) was right to say that the British Steel Corporation, while it succeeded to the liabilities of the former owners, succeeded to no liabilities in this connection. Once a contribution had been paid, that was all owners had to do; that purged their liability completely, and new owners took over no liability at all.
  In 1950, or thereabouts, it was calculated that £110 per acre was all that was required for this purpose. It has certainly gone up over the succeeding years. It soon became apparent that what the Fund would have to contribute would be a sizeable sum, particularly as we now concede that the cost of restoration is about £525 per acre.
  Looking at it fairly and reasonably, I should have thought that this was an opportunity, if the Crown wants the restoration of property to the highest standard, whether for afforestation or for turning land into lagoons, or for the purposes of agriculture, for it to make a substantial contribution; but there is not a bit of it.
  Why was the Crown prepared in 1951 to make a contribution of three farthings? The reason was to clear up a backlog, but there must have been some point in it, too, because there were difficulties. One had to extract from the soil and replace the overburden and get the land back for suitable purposes. One of our chief anxieties about the Bill is that we are having the old system of taxation by Order in Council. We are even worse off, perhaps. We knew a little time ago what the contribution was to be and it was unrevised all over the years. Now it is to be determined by the Minister himself by Order in Council. He will prescribe the rates.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has asked what the standard rate is to be. We have had no indication of that. When people make plans they like to know whether it is to be double the contribution, or treble—
  Mr. Farr: Or four times.
  Mr. Skeet: Indeed. This decision should be made at an early date. The hon. Member for Swansea, West asked: if we put up the contribution and stand by the solvency of the Fund, what chance have we if all that we can do is to try to combat what has been done by means of a negative Resolution? The Advisory Committee is to be scrapped. Admittedly it had not functioned since 1967, but whose fault was that? Could not all the gentlemen be collected together, or was it that the Government did not want it to be solvent?
  If the idea was to advise the Government of the owners' recommendations and if it be the Government's case today that this policy must be maintained, even allowing for the fact that there is only one operator, B.S.C., I should have thought that it might be in the interests of the royalty owners that we had the Advisory Committee to give the Minister some views. Otherwise he might come round to the view that if he is to curb the Advisory Committee, it is not the right way of maintaining the solvency of the Fund. I recognise that some sort of fund is desirable.
  The yield contributions over the years will be affected by several factors. They are geared, first of all, to falling trends of production, and therefore receipts will drop. In addition, if there is any variation between the yield and tonnage in Lincolnshire, as opposed to that in the Midlands, the yield will also drop. The Midlands has been subscribing, per acre, I think, less than Lincolnshire, but there is this tendency for there to be constriction on the domestic industry in favour of the imported material.
  In addition, if there is a higher percentage of total production from charitable lands or the land under full restoring leases, then contributions will come down by that extent. We are looking forward to a future when contributions cannot be precisely stated. They are variable but not nearly as variable when we find out what the cost of restoration is to be.
  The inflationary factors working through the economy have been dealt with. The higher standards being maintained by the authorities—and these are being made tougher every year—are leading to a very sorry predicament. These are the crucial facts: in 1969 the yield

  121
  per acre of contributions, including Exchequer contributions, was £321. Current restoration cost, per acre, is between £420 and £500. Costs have gone up substantially this year. Expensive equipment has to be installed, as it is no good case to argue that the land may be used only for aforestation. There is plenty of land available for that in certain other parts of the country. What we want to do is to ensure that this land is returned to amenity or agricultural purposes.
  The actual payment over the last 2¾ years has been £360 per acre. If the Minister had it in mind that he would double the rate, that would cause a liability on the Fund of about £250 an acre. This would have an effect of transferring liability from the Government in favour of the mineral undertakings and the royalty owners, which would mean the same thing, because the British Steel Corporation is not making a profit and therefore it falls back on the taxpayer. The Treasury must derive its monies from the Consolidated Fund, and therefore we must all pay. If the Corporation ever makes a payment on its profits in future years, the only way it can recoup that expenditure is by putting up prices, because the price of the ore would be more expensive. Or it could run down still further the small quantity of ors which is extracted locally. Some of my colleagues may think that that is an unwise thing to do.
  Can the Minister give some answers to several questions I wish to ask? There should be provision under Section 18— that is, dealing with the work not imposed by planning conditions and under Section 20, that is, through the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. He has been considering most carefully the Section 9 grants, which were those dealing with planning conditions. When he readies the figure, by agreement or in consultation with the interested parties, will he cover all three Sections—9, 18 and 20?
  Would my hon. Friend also give us the most up-to-date figure he has of the total outstanding potential claims? While he is prepared to abolish the Advisory Committee, will he ensure that consultations are continued, not merely with the Corporation but with the Ironstone Royalty Owners' Association? Is he satisfied that his mathematics are correct? I say this because I see one substantial difficulty.
  122
  The gap between payments per ton which accrue year by year and claims—that is, the difference between the standard rate and the actual cost of restoration—is about five years. It is, therefore, not possible to examine at any one moment the state of the Fund.
  We seem to have got ourselves into a complicated mathematical process and I will certainly support the suggestions that have been put forward on this subject. Could this not be simplified in the interests of all concerned, particularly the owners, the British Steel Corporation and the Government who must operate it? On a former occasion I declared my interest.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan I Williams), my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), and hon. Gentlemen opposite for the way in which they have dealt with this subject. I want to press what I consider to be a moral question. When the bulk of the steel industry was nationalised the then Government took over the assets and liabilities, debts, and so forth, of the 14 I companies and a price was paid, a price according to the valuation, on an equitable basis and according to the law r which then existed—not according to a dreamland law that might come from a future Government of either the same political shading or of another shade.
  If we compare this with the act of the present Government in nationalising Rolls-Royce (1971), we see that they allowed the old company to go bankrupt, the receiver went in and the debts and liabilities were washed to one side, with the Government taking over certain assets. To the best of my knowledge there is no indication, as yet, that the Government are taking over the liabilities and debts of Rolls-Royce.
  With hindsight, I suggest that if the Government of the day had been able to predict the content of this Bill, which as I understand it will place a substantial liability on the Corporation, then the compensation paid would have been adjusted by deducting an amount which the Government are now saying is an extra liability falling on the Corporation. This is a most immoral act of saddling

  123
  the Corporation with a debt which, at the time of nationalisation, it could not foresee. It would be seen that the Corporation has received very little benefit from the iron ore workings in this country. The profits that have been gleaned from these workings in the private days of years ago have now been dissipated and the Corporation tends to use less and less local ore because it is of poor quality and it is cheaper to import ore.
  I ask the Minister to think again, not upon any technical or commercial grounds, but on the moral ground that it is wrong at this time to saddle the Corporation with a bill which at the time of nationalisation could not have been foreseen and which, if it had been foreseen, would have resulted in an adjustment to the compensation paid.
  8.10 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Heseltine: With leave, I should like briefly to comment on some of the points which have been made. The House will appreciate, however, that there will be an opportunity to explore them in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) welcomed the broad concept behind the Bill, and I am grateful to him for doing so. The most significant point which he made was that the difficulty is not whether we should make up the deficit and put the fund on a coherent financial basis, but who will do it. That was the main burden, not only of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but of the speeches of my other hon. Friends. The first place to which one looks for this purpose is the Exchequer. It has been suggested that the Government should pay, but that means the taxpayer. At present there is already a contribution of three-quarters of an old penny to the fund for every ton extracted.
  It might interest the House to know that it was first the Government's view, in reviewing the situation, that the Exchequer had made a real contribution to solving the problem of clearing up derelict land and should withdraw completely from any financial commitment in proposing fresh legislation. It was only after discussions with the various interests involved that the Government were persuaded to go on paying a contribution.
  124
  We therefore accept that there is a continuing responsibility on the Government—
  Mr. Skeet: The Government made the contribution in the first instance. Would my hon. Friend outline the purpose? Does he not consider it reasonable that they should continue with it, particularly in these inflationary times?
  Mr. Heseltine: The Government made a contribution when the first Bill was introduced in 1951 in order to clear up the existing problem involving something like 2,500 acres of land. That problem has been cleared up. Therefore, the first assignment to which the Government agreed to be a party to the tune of three farthings per ton, has come to an end. We are now looking to the situation created by the land which has been worked since the introduction of that Bill and which is to be worked in future. The Government's view was that there was no continuing call on them to remain in the job of restoring this land. It was not a long and unidentifiable historical situation. It has happened in relatively recent years—perhaps over 21 years, but nevertheless in the relatively recent past. The Government did not feel that they would wish to continue to support the work in this way. They believed that the responsibility should rest on the shoulders of the industry as as present constituted.
  As a result of the representations made to us, we have decided to continue with the payment of three-quarters of an old penny per ton. We have therefore already gone some way towards meeting the points made by hon. Members.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the deficit has arisen because of the under-contribution by all the partners under the previous legislation? The Government were a partner. In order to remedy a past defect, the hon. Gentleman has intimated that the first thought of the Government was to withdraw altogether but now say that everyone else should pay more but not the Government.
  Mr. Heseltine: There are different factors. The problem has arisen in the relatively recent past. The Government were able rightly to claim that over the last 21 years the initial problem had been cleared up. That was the Government's

  125
  total commitment arising under the earlier legislation. They reviewed what should be done about the situation which has developed over the 21 years. After representations, they decided that they would wish to play a continuing part in the important work of restoring the land.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeet) and other hon. Members asked whether there was a need for the advisory committee to continue.
  Mr. Lawson: During the 21 years, the parties other than the Government did everything asked of them. The fact that they did not do enough was not their fault. The fault must be put at the Government's door, whichever party was in office. Both parties are involved. If there was a mess involving 2,000 acres to clear up when the first Bill was introduced, there is a greater mess to be cleared up now which is, in large measure, due to the failure of Governments of both parties in 21 years to ensure that the intentions of the 1951 Act were carried out. Is there not a responsibility on the Government in this matter?
  Mr. Heseltine: It is arguable whether the Government have failed. It is arguable—and I would put the argument with great force—that it is the people who created the problem and not the Government who have failed. The Government introduced a scheme to deal with the outstanding problem in 1951. It has been dealt with. If the industry continue to create problems, I do not see why we should say that it was the Government's fault. The industry should have understood that sooner or later the Government would say that it was necessary to sort out the problem.
  Mr. Lawson rose—
  Mr. Heseltine: I have put the position as I would wish to put it.
  Mr. Lawson: This is an important point. In the 1951 Act the Government assumed power to ensure that the mess of the past was not continued. The fact is that the Government have not ensured that over the years.
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is not right. The Government have ensured it. The mess has been cleared up, and that is what the 1951 Act was designed to do. We are now concerned
  126
  about clearing up a mess created since 1951. It has been created in a much shorter period and therefore it is much easier to identify the industry responsible in the last resort for under-paying during all those years. It is now necessary to put legislation on the Statute Book which enables the recently created problem to be dealt with.
  The industry which we believe to be responsible and where the money should be found is constituted very largely in the British Steel Corporation, although there is one other small private company. The Corporation has had the benefit over the years since it came into existence of working a lot of this land. Not only has the Corporation worked it and therefore benefited from undercharging in real terms, but so have a given number of companies which were nationalised to form the Corporation. The Government say, modified only by our determination to go on paying the three-quarters of an old penny per ton, that the industry is responsible and the industry must pay.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we are talking about retrospective payments back to 1951. But then the Corporation had been in existence for only four years. For the remainder of the time the industry was in private hands. If we are making retrospective legislation now, will the hon. Gentleman undertake to ascertain from the private people who worked these areas the position over the other 17 years, and the Corporation will then be happy to pay in respect of the four years when it was involved?
  Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must know as well as I do that that would be impossible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I do not wish to run away from the point. Some of the concerns are components of the Corporation, but not all. Some will have gone out of business. It is impossible to look back over the situation. It would be much better to have flexibility to keep the charges up to date. But we do not have it, and we did not do it. Governments of both parties have failed in this respect; it is nothing new.
  I wish to refer to a precedent which I can quote from my experience. When the Conservative Party came to power

  127
  there was a deficit on the driving test fund. People taking the test under the Labour Government had not been paying enough for it and there was a deficit of something in the region of £3 million on costs incurred in testing people which had to be made up. If the argument of hon. Members opposite were adopted, the taxpayer should have made it up. But it was the Government's view that it should be made up from a charge on future applicants to take the driving test. That is the exact paralled to what I am talking about. No doubt by the time we get into Committee there will be a whole range of examples of that sort, where future commitments carry with them an element of cost which relates to clearing up the earlier problem. I am sure every Government have done it and we certainly wish to do anything we can.
  It is true that the industry now happens to be the British Steel Corporation. I accept that the hon. Member for Mother well (Mr. Lawson) took the opportunity to make a point in party political terms, but the truth is that it is not that, and it just happens that the industry is the British Steel Corporation. And so it happens that they will be the people likely to bear the charge.
  The question was raised about the Advisory Committee. I accept at once what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said, that the Committee did a very good job, but the job which the Committee did in the early 1950s was quite different from that which now needs to be done. The fact is that at that time there was a variety of different operators, different leases, different costs, different environmental standards. Somebody had to advise the Government in setting up the paraphernalia on setting up the standard rate in 1955. That was a complicated technical problem on which outside advice was needed. The situation has now quite changed, and it does not require anything like the same expertise in deciding how costs should be revised, so it does not need to be reviewed by the Advisory Committee. I would say at once in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford that we will certainly consult not only the British Steel Corporation but the owners and the Ironstone Royalty Owners Associa-
  128
  tion. I mentioned that in my opening speech and I can repeat the assurance.
  I can help my hon. Friend again by saying that the Sections to which he referred, Sections 9, 18 and 20, will go on. Claims will be able to be made upon the Fund—the replenished Fund, I may say—and there is no need for a change in legislation because of that situation.
  So I believe that it is right to say that this Bill is widely welcomed. It is completely in the spirit which we all have of wanting to improve the quality of the environment. The only issue is, who is to pay? It is the view of the Government that the polluter must pay the costs. In this particular case, there is certainly a clear responsibility, a firm responsibility on the industry that in its future activities it should bear the cost of putting right the disturbance caused, and accumulated over the last 21 years. I hope that the House will have no hesitation in giving the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40(Committal of Bills).

  SCOTLAND (INDUSTRIAL DERATING)
  8.23 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
  That the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
  The purpose of this Order is to continue industrial derating of 50 per cent, for another two years after the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order, 1965. expires on 15th May this year.
  The subject of industrial derating has a fairly long history, and I think it would be helpful to the House, in considering this continuation Order, if I begin by outlining the background.
  Industrial properties in Scotland and England and Wales were 75 per cent, derated from 1929 until 1959, when derating was modified to 50 per cent. Derating was terminated in England and

  129
  Wales in 1963, a revaluation year, but the Government of the day decided that full rating of industry in Scotland should be postponed until the 1966 revaluation.
  Full rating from 1966–67 was provided for in Section 10 of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1963 but, as a precaution, power was included in the Section enabling the Secretary of State to continue a measure of derating by order. It was in exercise of this power that the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order, 1965, was made continuing 50 per cent, derating for the current valuation quinquennium which ends on 15th May next. If that Order had not been made industry's share of the rate burden in Scotland would have risen in 1966 from 12·5 per cent, to nearly 21 per cent., when the share borne by industry in England and Wales was still of the order of 14 per cent. We on this side of the House were, of course, in Opposition at the time, but the 1965 Order had our unqualified support.
  No decision could be taken about the level of derating after the expiry of the 1965 Order until the assessors had submitted to my Department their estimates of the likely effects of the forthcoming revaluation on the various classes of property. These estimates have now been received and it is clear from them that if derating were to be allowed to terminate this year the rating position of industry in Scotland would be almost as seriously out of line with that of industry in England and Wales, as it would have been in 1966 if no derating order had been made by the previous Administration.
  Full rating in 1971–72 would raise Scottish industry's share of the rate burden from about 12 per cent, to nearly 20 per cent., as against 14·7 per cent, for industry in England and Wales; and Scottish industry's rate bill would, on the 1970–71 figures, rise in that event from £24 million to £40 million. There is no doubt in my mind that an increase of this magnitude could prejudice the ability of Scottish industry to compete on equal terms with industry south of the Border. It could also affect adversely the efforts being made to bring new industry to Scotland and to secure the expansion of existing industry.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Department done any sums on this
  130
  issue of the way rating in Scotland was acting as a disincentive in the past? It would be interesting to have an indication.
  Mr. Younger: That is a very interesting point which the hon. Gentleman has raised. There has been no specific study done by my Department into the matter, but it is a matter which has to be very carefully borne in mind. After the Green Paper on the future of local government finance is announced and discussed, this is a point we should take seriously.
  Continuation of derating under the Order before the House should maintain Scottish industry's share of the rate burden at about the present level of 12 per cent. At that level the actual rate burden borne by industry on both sides of the Border should broadly correspond; and it is, of course, actual rate liability rather than the share of the burden which is of concern to industrialists.
  Hon. Members may wonder what will be the effect of revaluation coupled with this Order on non-industrial property, that is commercial and domestic and so on. We do not know yet, of course, what the actual rate bills are going to be because authorities have until the autumn to fix their rates. I can say, however, that, as regards shares of the rate burden, the percentage burden for domestic property is likely to increase a little overall and the percentage borne by commerce to decrease slightly.
  Members will no doubt have noted that while the 1965 Order applied for the whole of the valuation quinquennium which is just ending, the continuation Order I am now commending only applies for two years. This is so that the whole situation may be reviewed in the light of the likely effect of the 1973 revaluation on industrial rate burdens in England and Wales.
  We are aware, of course, that to continue derating for industry alone means a heavier burden for other ratepayers, who also have to face increasing rate bills year by year. That is another reason why we want to look again at this order in two years' time. It is not a measure which should be in force permanently, but only so long as it can be clearly shown to be justified in relation to the rating burden carried by industry elsewhere. We believe that it is justified at

  131
  present, but we accept the view of the Anderson Committee on Commercial Rating that the whole question of the incidence of rating in Scotland should be looked at comprehensively in relation to that in England and Wales at the earliest opportunity, and the revaluation in England and Wales in 1973—the first for 10 years—will provide that opportunity. We shall also be better placed then to assess the effect of any changes in the rating system that may be proposed in the forthcoming Green Paper.
  The assessors, who I know have been hard pressed in recent months, were able to provide revaluation estimates only a few weeks ago. In view of the obvious need to make the Order as quickly as possible, I regret that there was no time for formal consultations with the local authority associations and industrial interests. Announcement of the Secretary of State's intention was, however, made in answer to a Parliamentary Question on 7th April, and I am glad to say that no objections have been received.
  I commend the Order to the House as a necessary short-term measure to distribute the rating burden in Scotland as fairly as possible.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Reverting to the point on which I interrupted the hon. Gentleman, I readily understand that, in the absence of any definite study having been done by the Department—not that I blame it—it is difficult to reach a conclusion. However, I offer as a fairly well-considered suspicion that the griping which some hon. Members have had from industrialists about the relationship between rating in Scotland and in England is largely justified. It would be interesting to have the figures. My suspicion is that they will reveal a situation where industry in Scotland is at a disadvantage compared with that in England.
  The system of industrial rating should be considered afresh. It is an extremely unsatisfactory form of raising money. I am glad that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is in his place, because I hope that, if we are to go in for an era of tax reform, the number of man hours involved in calculating industrial rates
  132
  as opposed to other forms of raising money, be it through the Exchequer or through local authorities will be reconsidered. It is a matter which drives the internal accountants of large firms almost to distraction. Any basic thinking that is done in the light of the Green Paper and the changes in local government will be welcomed.
  I do very little special pleading in this House. However, on this occasion, I want to make a special plea for the kind of situation in which West Lothian finds itself. We have the dubious distinction of being the second highest domestically rated area in Scotland. Our position in the league is almost like that of Celtic, Aberdeen, Leeds or Arsenal. We are far ahead of anyone else. It is a situation which arises in any industrial county which, to its credit, has done an enormous amount of development in recent years— and we are grateful enough for having Leylands and the many other firms which have come to us—but it puts a tremendous burden on the individuals who live in such a place and who may not necessarily work there or work in the incoming industries. Therefore, there is a dilemma.
  I happen to know that the Under-Secretary was at the Hewlett-Packard factory at South Queensferry earlier today. Had it not been for the expected statement on Rolls-Royce, I would have been with the hon. Gentleman. However, I ask him to exercise his imagination. When such a company comes to a community like Queensferry, an enormous amount of expensive infrastructure has to be provided in the way of sewerage, drains and roads. With the advent of Leylands, Dynamco and Cameron Ironwork, this has been very expensive in the Livingston area and West Lothian. For that reason, in any basic rethinking of the philosophy of industrial rating in the future, I hope that account will be taken of the dilemma in which West Lothian finds itself.
  Some kind of equalisation is required. If it is considered to be good that development areas with a great deal of new industry should be concentrated in comparatively few places, some thought must be given to how the general burden of the common weal can be more fairly spread.
  In making that point, I hope that I have the sympathy of the Department. In

  133
  the coming months, I look forward to hearing about its thinking and that of the Treasury.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on a basic point. I believe wholeheartedly that industrial derating is a hidden subsidy to industry. I argue that if it is to be the policy of the Government—any Government—to supply inducements to attract industry to particular areas, that should not be the responsibility of local revenues but should be the direct responsibility of the Exchequer.
  We have only to look at the imbalance in terms of the proportion of the rate burden between England and Wales and Scotland to see the true situation. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that the contribution from Scottish industry as a proportion of total rate revenue was in the region of 12 per cent., and indicated that in England and Wales it would be about 14·7 per cent. I do not want to make the differences larger than they need be, but let us say that, roughly speaking, there is a difference in percentage terms of 2½ to 3 per cent. In terms of total revenue, therefore, Scottish industry on the present basis makes a contribution of about £3 to £4 million less than it would be making if, in proportionate terms, it were making the same contribution as occurs in England and Wales. In some authorities this is a considerable sum.
  I agree with my hon. Friend when he made his constituency point since my constituency of Clackmannanshire has the dubious distinction of being the highest rated authority in the United Kingdom. This authority suffers a severe disadvantage in terms of the anomalies that can occur in industrial derating. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Development is fully conversant with the background of the cases involved in assessing a particular industry on storage facilities for industrial purposes rather than for commercial purposes. I will not go into all the details, but anomalies occur because of the type of provision which applies to derating.
  The Minister has clearly indicated that the idea is to look at the Green Paper which will come along presently, but for
  134
  which at the moment we have no date. One of the reasons for not making this a five-year Order is that the Government want to have an apportunity to assess the situation within the period of two years. This will produce considerable uncertainty. When I put down a Question on this matter on 28th October, the Secretary of State gave no indication that he would make any decision on industrial derating. However, in a television broadcast later in that week he announced that industrial derating would continue. There will be considerable uncertainty for this period of two years unless we seek a little further to find out what is in the Government's mind on the Scottish position as a whole.
  Part of the anomaly of the Scottish system which leads to a maldistribution of burden among various sections of the community—and we are sorry to hear that the percentage for the domestic rate payable will go up—is involved in the transfer from rates to balance the housing revenue account. We are told in the Press, and from certain leaks which have taken place in the discussions, that the Government's intention is to remove any rate transfer on housing revenue account. That will mean that by that stroke—"at a stroke"—housing rents in Scotland will rise by at least 50 per cent.
  If the Government are to use this to argue the case for an alteration of the rate, then it becomes very difficult for them to continue for any length of time. Having removed the rate subsidy from the housing revenue account—I am trying to read the Government's mind and it is become increasingly difficult to do that— it becomes increasingly difficult to sustain the 50 per cent, derating. My hon. Friend rightly probed the issue whether studies have been undertaken of the incidence of taxation and where the burden lies. We see great concern about the commercial ratepayer. This is particularly sorely felt in our cities. But the burden does not necessarily lie where it is put. It does not necessarily lie on the commercial ratepayer. It will be reflected in the prices charged to Scottish housewives for the goods and services they obtain from the commercial dealer, and might be reflected in changes in the structure of Scottish cities. The Government ought to study this matter. In view of the peculiarities of the Scottish system of local government finance, will the Green

  135
  Paper contain a special section dealing with Scotland? I should not be satisfied by finding a general survey of the sources of local government revenue without a particular survey dealing with peculiarities of the Scottish situation.
  If the Order is to terminate in 1972–73, on behalf of Scottish ratepayers and even Scottish industrialists I say that we need a clear indication long before that time of the Government's intentions on local revenue. In 1962, the then Secretary of State—now the Minister for Trade—in answer to a Question, said:
  "In view of the outcome of the 1961 revaluation in Scotland the Government have decided not to proceed with the re-rating of industry in Scotland in 1963. The present intention is to include in early legislation provision for re-rating on the occasion of the next general Scottish revaluation, which is due to take place in 1966."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1962; Vol. 663, c. 20.]
  We have had this before and there may be good regional economic planning reasons and regional locational reasons to have it. It may be a good thing. But that burden in regional reallocation should not be placed on Scottish local authorities. It should be placed directly on the United Kingdom Exchequer, which is responsible for correcting regional imbalances.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. James Dempsey: I shall not follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) other than to say that I recollect my days as Secretary of the Labour League of Youth, when we advocated full rating relief for industrialists to reduce chronic unemployment in the distressed areas. We did that because we were convinced that there was no hope of the Exchequer accepting any responsibility for the financial obligation involved.
  I am convinced that for as long as the present Government are in power—with the greatest respect to the Under-Secretary of State for Development—there is little prospect of the Exchequer effectively contributing towards inducing industrialists to enter certain parts of Scotland where there is very high unemployment. I cannot believe that the Government will make the appropriate and successful effort to solve the problem. This is why, to some extent, the burden to contribute
  136
  will be on the backs of local authorities in the competitive war for new factories.
  It is unfortunate that industrial derating is to be pegged to 50 per cent. The Order will be approved, but I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter. The mathematical ratio between Scotland and England in the matter of industrial derating is irrelevant. Scotland should relate its industrial rating to the efforts needed to attract industries to Scotland. To do that we need to be fully competitive. There is no prospect of growth-type industries which are situated near ports or near the main cities in the south moving to the north, because, if they were to do so, they would have to transport their raw materials up north and then move the finished product south. There would be an element of unviability in such a move.
  We should consider what contribution we can make to encourage manufacturers to move to Scotland. I wish that the Minister had considered it in that way and said that, irrespective of the computation based on population and rates paid by industrialists, the additional cost borne by manufacturers in Scotland but not applicable to industries situated further south and nearer to the main centres of communication will be taken into account. That would be a much more sensible way of measuring the contribution to be made in establishing growth industries and factories in Scotland.
  A great campaign is waging to establish a new steel complex in Scotland. To be competitive we must have a modern steel plant, but that is bound to result in the closure of older plants and in thousands of redundancies. Ideally the new modern steel plant must be accompanied by some growth industries and some ancillary industries to take up the redundant steel workers.
  The ratepayers must make some contribution. As long as we must compete in a war for jobs, we must make every effort to ensure that we are the most successful competitors. There is nothing wrong in asking hoteliers, public houses, clubs and betting agencies to pay more rates so as to enable us to reduce industrial rates and to attract new industry to Scotland.
  Another problem is that the buildings housing the old-established reputable

  137
  industries which have provided employment for half of century are falling down. No grant is available under the Local Employment Act for the replacement of such buildings. Unless we make a contribution in the form of rating relief by industrial derating, in addition to the problem of attracting new industries there will be the problem of replacing old industries. Whenever I meet industrialists in my constituency they make the plea, "Can you do something to reduce our rates?" That is a serious problem for industries which have been operating for the past 75 years. That is why industrial derating is necessary.
  I would like the Minister to consider a suggestion that, in addition to the 50 per cent., local authorities be given discretion in the application of additional industrial derating subject to the employment situation in their areas. Even within Scotland there are towns—for example, East Kilbride—where until recently we had only a handful of unemployed. Because it is a new town, it has all the attractions imaginable for new industry—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon. Member will confine his remarks to the scope of the Order.
  Mr. Dempsey: I am just about to explain, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how the scope of the Order would be much more effective if local authorities had discretion in the granting of rating relief additional to the 50 per cent, outlined by the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to point out that new towns have special attractions that the older towns—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not wish to bring the hon. Member's remarks to a close unduly quickly, but I would like to point out that the scope of the Order is as it is written before us and not as any hon. Member might wish it to be.
  Mr. Dempsey: I am trying to point out again, if you will permit me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the scope of the Order is not sufficiently generous. That is a valid statement and, in my view, perfectly in order.
  Having said that, I repeat that towns like Coatbridge and Airdrie, the older parts of the country, could attract industry only if some additional contribution
  138
  were made by the ratepayers. I should like the Minister to consider—
  Mr. Douglas: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? I should like him to address himself to giving my constituency a little advice. How would he suggest that the ratepayers of Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire, whose rates last time were 41s. 6d. in the £, might be expected to give a little more contribution to the attraction of industry?
  Mr. Dempsey: I could give them some good advice, but they would tell me to mind my own business and the Chair would rule me out of order. There are many ways of reducing rates other than cutting industrial derating. That is the last thing to think of cutting if my hon. Friend wants anything like full employment in his constituency.
  Will the Minister consider, or will his Department study, the possibility of giving, say, a discretion to local authorities or giving them particularly generous facilities, legislation or provision, whatever it might be called, whereby they would be entitled, if they wished, to increase the amount of industrial derating beyond 50 per cent.? That is my plea because, coming from a constituency like Coatbridge and Airdrie, I cannot see any possibility of our breaking the back of the unemployment problem unless the financial inducements are much more generous than they are at present.
  One of the effective ways of doing that would be for the Minister and his Department to study the practicality of local authorities, provided they are so minded, being given powers whereby they could be more generous than the 50 per cent, mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. He knows that local authorities have such powers concerning, for example, the relief of charities. Fifty per cent, is mandatory, but they have freedom to go beyond that figure.
  I appeal to the Minister to consider extending that practice to industrial derating so that an additional contribution could be made, if a local authority regarded it as a wise policy to adopt, which would help to reduce the number of unemployed registered at our employment exchanges, especially at Coatbridge and Airdrie.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: We must all marvel at the courage shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), that he should advocate a change in the proportions of rates paid in different Scottish areas, as between householders, commercial and industrial subjects. I would not dare to do that in respect of my area. I am not sure that I can use the word "admire", but, as I have said, I marvel at my hon. Friend's courage. I know that he has been very concerned with bringing industry to his area, and I agree that few areas are more in need of industry than is the Coatbridge area.
  I can suggest many ways in which local authorities can seek to attract firms to their areas and, having done so, can encourage them to expand. There are many services which local authorities can render, and I urge them to do so. I urge them to welcome firms to their areas and to be ready to meet the needs of those firms. They can do a great amount of good in that way. However, I hesitate to advocate shifting the burden of rates from industry to other ratepayers.
  I want to touch on one point that very much concerns me, although even on that I hesitate to speak. When we talk about rates, the rate burden and the rating system, we usually preface our remarks by saying that it is very unfair system. We recognise that it is unfair, but we always have to admit that we have not yet been able to produce an easier way of raising as much money. No doubt on other occasions we can suggest ways in which present methods can be improved, but not on this occasion. I merely want to point out that in my constituency there is a heavy concentration of steel-making capacity.
  Although the borough of Motherwell and Wishaw has a population of only about 76,000 people, it is an astonishing fact that two or three years ago the value of industrial subjects in that area was second only to that of Glasgow, an industrial city with approximately one million people. Edinburgh is not an industrial city but it has a substantial body of industry. Dundee is an industrial city, as is Aberdeen.
  Until about three years ago the valuation placed upon industrial subjects in my constituency was greater than that
  140
  placed upon the industrial subjects of Edinburgh, with its 500,000 people. In the past few years there has been a slight shift, and Edinburgh may have moved slightly ahead, so that the value placed upon industrial subjects in that city is now slightly higher than the value in Motherwell and Wishaw. But it is still true that the borough of Motherwell and Wishaw, with a population of about 76,000, has an industrial valuation as near as makes no difference to that of a city with 500,000 people.
  It might be seen as a certain disadvantage to my area that the rating system, from an industrial subject point of view, is based not merely on the bricks and mortar that go to make up the factories but upon the fixed equipment. If the fixed equipment consists of very heavy and expensive steel-making or steel-rolling finishing equipment, costing perhaps hundreds of millions of pounds, one can see an enormous rating burden arising. This is the situation. I believe it is fair to say that one particular works at Ravenscraig in my constituency is rated nearly as much as all the industry in Dundee put together. I am guessing at this, and I may be challenged, but I do not think I am far out.
  There is no Exchequer equalization grant, as it used to be called. Certain burghs which I could mention were getting as much by way of Exchequer equalisation grant as Motherwell and Wishaw were getting out of this particular payment. I wonder whether, in view of the expensive fixed equipment which certain industries must carry, it is a sensible system to charge on the value of that equipment, which is the prevailing practice. This must have a very powerful deterrent effect on industries going to certain areas. We are pressing for this £1,000 million "green field" development. There is even a difference in the proportion of rates raised in Scotland as compared with Wales or parts of England, and this can be a very large factor in deciding where a particular industry will be located. It is bound to be a big factor in giving rise to second thoughts about still further developing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order: I appreciate the temptations which are before the hon. Gentleman, but I hope he will return to the subject of the Order, and within

  141
  the scope of the Order, which he has left for some considerable time.
  Mr. Lawson: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I cannot quite see where I am out of order. The Order relates to the derating of industrial subjects. I am describing industrial subjects. If a steel mill is not an industrial subject, I do not know what it is.
  With a system of charging 50 per cent, based upon the value of the fixed properties, a very slight modification could make a substantial difference. If it were 40 per cent, in Scotland it could be a heavy disadvantage, whereas if it were 60 per cent, it could be a substantial advantage. It is the relative position that matters. Taking the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), the charging of 100 per cent, could have an immense effect on whether a steel works developed or did not develop in that area.
  There are other matters that we should keep in mind. I should like a close look taken at this question of how we charge and estimate industrial rates, so that we could perhaps find some way of compensating in areas where a new method is operating. Under a system whereby there was a smaller proportionate industrial charge in respect of an industry structured in that way, I should expect there to be a compensating payment from some other source, the, resources rate as distinct from what used to be called the Exchequer equalisation grant.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary will think about it. There is bound to be a heavy discouragement against industrial development if one goes much beyond the bricks and mortar and charges rates on enormously expensive capital equipment. This is a factor which ought to have far closer and more sympathetic attention than it has had up to now.
  It may be said that, in arguing in this way, I am in a sense arguing against my own area, but I am sure that my area would be happy if the industry within it —here I come to a certain point of sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie—were made more secure than it might be under the heavy and growing charges put upon it as a result of the present system.
  9.6p.m.
  Mr. Peter Doig: It always sounds acceptable when someone is told, as is done under the present Order, that he can have something or get away with something. It is always popular to tell someone that he need pay only half his full rates, but it is popular only until people stop to realise that it does not reduce by a penny the amount of money which has to be raised for local government. If one group are told that they will pay only half their proper share of rates other groups will have to pay much more than their proper share.
  How long are we to prolong this system? We employ expert valuation and rating officers to assess valuations, sharing out the burden of the money which has to be raised. Then the Government, whichever Government it may be, muck the arrangement about, saying to one group "You will not pay any rates", and to another group, "You will pay only half rates". The groups which are left, of course, have to pay very much more, so they begin to go out of business.
  In streets such as Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow, one of the finest shopping-streets in Scotland, there are large shop premises empty, no one can afford to take them, and those who might take them are in the group who have to pay full rates. Then what happens? At the next revaluation, the expert looks at the properties again and says, "I must have been charging this commercial section too much, because people are going out of business. I shall have to reduce their share". In the end, nobody pays full rates. It becomes a farce.
  When will the Government end this farce? When shall we have a reasonable system for the financing of local authority services? The anomalies of the present system become obvious when we consider Orders of this kind. In Bearsden, for example, there is practically no industry at all, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) it is nearly all industry, and there are wide variations in between which are bound to create unfairness. In agricultural areas, an enormous amount of property goes virtually free of rates. Someone is paying far more than his proper share. Why do we bother to employ experts, highly-paid scarce

  143
  assessors? Why do the Government bother to pay them, when at the end of the day everybody, including the Government, will muck up everything they have decided? Once they have parcelled it out fairly, the Government chop and change everything.
  The whole system is out of date. Whilst I do not object to this Order at this time, how long shall we carry on the farce of the present system, which everyone knows is wrong? I could give a practical alternative now, but I presume that I should be out of order if I did so.
  We keep chopping and changing the system because it is faulty. A wrong impression is given to people. If an industrialist is making up his mind whether to build a steel strip mill in Motherwell, Wales, London, or elsewhere, at the back of his mind is the niggling thought, "If I go to Motherwell I shall be derated 50 per cent., but how long will it last?". He thinks that when the system is eventually changed he will have to pay twice as much in rates. That is not so, because if industry in a highly industrialised place like Motherwell were to pay full rates on its premises, it would not pay anything like double what it is paying now with 50 per cent, derating.
  We must sort the muddle out one day. I hope that Governments will not bring Orders like this before us ad infinitum, but will one day get down to devising a proper system for local authority finance. Why on earth they excluded the matter from the Wheatley Commission's terms of reference, I do not know.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. The hon. Gentleman, who was not present at the beginning of the debate, has gone far beyond the scope of the Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have heard the Minister's speech.
  Mr. Doig: I will end by repeating that the system gives a wrong impression to industrialists and could frighten them away, because they do not understand what the abolition of 50 per cent, derating would mean. It would not mean doubling their present rates, and it is time someone made that clear. I think that at the back of their minds is the fear that if they come to places in Scotland, like Motherwell, Glasgow, Edinburgh or
  144
  Dundee, they may be faced at some time with a doubling of the amount they must pay in rates, but that is not the case.
  9.13 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I had not intended to speak tonight, but the debate has ranged fairly widely, within the bounds of order, and it might be useful if I say a word or two. Some of the disquiet expressed is based on two old factors in the rating system. First, there is the general feeling that it is a highly regressive form of taxation. No one has yet come up with the alternative, although plenty have been advanced. I am disappointed that there is no suggestion that this is the last of the rating Orders, and that something more progressive has not been introduced. Second, there is disquiet that as an indictment the provision is not particularly effective— the comparison between the 12 per cent, in Scotland and the 14·7 per cent in England is a very small inducement—and in any case is remains an anomaly.
  We have a kind of Samuel Smiles situation, a self-help situation, and in the areas we are asked to help, which require the right kind of industrial investment, with incentives given to industrialists, there is a double Samuel Smiles situation. Not only within the depressed areas as a whole, but in those parts of them where we require industry because people are out of work, those very people will have to bear the burden of extra rates because of the 50 per cent, reduction.
  We are, therefore, in the peculiar position of seeing all sorts of theoretical and practical flaws in the system but saying that, because we have not produced the right kind of generating regional policy, we need to keep it, regressive as it is. However, if we got the right kind of dynamic regional policy, this system could appropriately be examined and perhaps, at some future date, rejected. My hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) recalled that, a few years ago, the Labour League of Youth advocated 100 per cent, reductions. That was pushing the Samuel Smiles principle to the uttermost because nothing else was coming forward. We should clearly be moving beyond that stage now.
  With reform of local government in the offing, I am disappointed that we were

  145
  not told that this will be the last such Order. We have urged industrial rating incentives and some of us have detected anomalies. As Under-Secretary of State, I brought in 50 per cent, derating of agriculture in relation to intensive farming, pointing out that if it was not agriculture at least it was industry and therefore deserved 50 per cent, derating. But, of course, this created anomalies in the rest of Britain. We are, in effect, calling upon the rate bearing communities to carry what should be an Exchequer form of direction of planning, because, by this system, we are removing planning from local government. That is an important aspect to Scotland because of the unemployment there, which is now over 123,000.
  Scotland, therefore, is crying out for the right kind of development incentives. This is not a party political point. A large part of the Tory Party in Scotland is calling for a return to investment grants and for getting rid of the nonsense in the Chancellor's Budget. If that were done, the Order would no longer be so important. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us that, while we must have this rather regressive situation because of the failure to develop proper regional policies, the Order will run for only two years and at the end of that time the Government will give proper regional incentives so that we can get rid of the desperate unemployment in Scotland.
  The demand for investment grants is being powerfully voiced by a large section of the Scottish Tory Party. I hope that, when its conference comes in a week or two, the Government will see the error of their ways and accept that point of view. In that case, the Order will no longer be quite so necessary. It is the incentive and unemployment situation that we require to pay attention to.
  9.18 p.m.
  Mr. Younger: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will reply to this interesting debate. It sounded, at times, more like a trailer for the debate on the Green Paper which we expect to publish later this year on local government finance.
  I will not stray into discussing the wide and interesting points raised by several hon. Members as to what might replace the present rating system or what major improvements one might make in it but
  146
  will confine myself to saying that I noted the points with great interest and look forward to hearing more about them in the debate on the Green Paper, which will be the time for these ideas to be properly deployed. I hope then that we shall have an opportunity of taking a major look at the whole system of rating and how other possible systems of financing local government might work.
  The debate is essentially—and the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) put this concisely—about the balance of rating expenditure carried by each individual category of rated subject. If one reduces the percentage carried by one category, one inevitably increases the percentage carried by one or more of the others. We are dealing tonight with a global total which remains constant, and we are discussing the splitting of its subsections and the various parts of the burden. Therefore, those who may advocate, quite properly, that we should have industrial derating are advocating as a result that there should be an increase in the rate burden on commercial, or domestic, or other subjects.
  Mr. Douglas: That does not necessarily follow. As I indicated in my remarks, the major element of disequilibrium in Scotland relates to the transfer in the housing revenue account. The Minister intends to remove that. If he does, he will alter an important percentage in the total.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) will not lead the debate out of order yet again.
  Mr. Younger: Perhaps I was too generous in giving way to the hon. Gentleman, because he strayed a little out of order and into another aspect of the problem which I was about to explain. We have, first, the balance between the categories I have described and, secondly, although it does not strictly come within this Order, to consider the actual amount of rates paid in these various categories, and they are not the same thing.
  It is no use saying that the rateable value of a subject is so much and that that is bad or good, without relating it to the actual amount of rates which have

  147
  to be paid at the end of the day. This is where the comparison between Scotland and England becomes so difficult. One has to take into account not merely the inevitable differences in practices of the assessors in the two countries, although they are supposed to be the same, but the different rating burdens of Scottish and English and Welsh local authorities, which are affected by substantial differences in policy and so on.
  I give one further figure which adds to the rather crude figure I gave earlier comparing Scottish and English effects. One may calculate a figure of rates paid on every £1,000 worth of sales in a commercial undertaking. This measures in a certain rough and ready way the actual amount of pain caused to ratepayers. The estimated figures for rates per £1,000 sales in manufacturing in Scotland show that, with derating at 50 per cent., Scottish industry already bears a slightly higher rate burden than industry South of the Border. The figures are £6·87 per £1,000 sales in Scotland compared with £6·21 per £1,000 of sales in England and Wales. It may not be a substantial difference, but it is not negligible.
  We have several different things to consider: first, the balance between the various categories of subject; secondly, the difference between the rateable value practices between the two countries; thirdly, the difference in the actual rates paid at the end of the day, which is affected by the matters which I have outlined.
  Mr. Buchan: Surely this myth of concealed assistance to industry in Scotland as opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom is exploded and this makes it more necessary to bring forward the right kind of investment grants?
  Mr. Younger: I do not want to stray out of order. Perhaps I can now refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire. The figures I gave earlier of different percentages for the rate burden carried by industry in England and Scotland, which have to be modified by this other figure—which is only a sample figure—show that in that case the figure was in favour of one side of the equation and in this case, if we take the per £1,000 sales rates paid,
  148
  it appears that Scotland is on the worse side. Generally speaking, we have come to the conclusion that on balance, taking into account all the difficulties of the system and the differences between the two countries, it is not far out.
  Mr. Lawson: Could the hon. Gentleman carry that interesting example of the £1,000 sale rate further and tell us how this might work out between different industries, for example the steel industry and other industries?
  Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point but I am afraid that I cannot give such a complicated calculation without notice. No doubt it is something that we could pursue with great profit at a later stage.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell also raised a point with which I have much sympathy—the question of how we can make more readily understandable the methods by which such things as industrial plant are valued. I must be careful not to trespass beyond the bounds of this Order or into what is essentially the task of the assessors. One thing we cannot do is to start taking on the job of amateur assessors. The C.B.I, has made representations, fairly similar to those of the hon. Gentleman. We are considering this carefully and we will also consider what the hon. Gentleman said. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) wishes to intervene I shall be glad to give way but he might have found it of profit to have been here at the beginning of the evening to hear what I said.
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman should know exactly where I was. If he reads his local paper he will know. It was not a very pleasant job. He said he would consider this and I ask him, having considered it, what does he propose to do about it?
  Mr. Younger: I think that I will continue with the debate that we were having before the right hon. Gentleman came in. I want to reply to some of the points raised by his hon. Friends.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the question of comparisons with England and the heavy burden on his own local authority of West Lothian. I can well appreciate the anxieties which this causes. As for

  149
  the help for bringing in services, etc., for new factories he will know that there is some element of help for local authorities in the rate support grant, so that it is not a total burden on the local authority. I accept that a local authority which follows a progressive policy in trying to make itself attractive to industry faces this problem in spite of the available grants. This is one of the things we shall be looking at in the reassessment of the whole rating system which will come when the Green Paper is published and discussed.
  The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire said that he thought the renewing of this Order for only two years would produce uncertainty in industry. I see the point but I do not feel that industry need have any feeling of uncertainty. I want to make it clear that the reason for the two years is not to make some shattering change but merely to leave the way open for any reconsideration which may appear necessary in the light of the Green Paper and consideration of it. There is nothing more sinister than that in the figure of two years.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned discussion which he and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had some months ago. I do not see any difference in what my right hon. Friend said then and what we are doing now. The hon. Gentleman asked him whether he was proposing to cancel industrial derating and my right hon. Friend answered, "No, we have no plans for that". He had no plans for it then and it appears that, having gone through all the processes, he has come to the decision not to cancel industrial derating. There does not seem to be any conflict here.
  Mr. Douglas: I asked the Secretary of State what was his policy regarding the continuation of 50 per cent, derating of Scottish industry and the right hon. Gentleman said that he had no announcement to make. What I objected to was the fact that he made an announcement on television two or three days later.
  Mr. Younger: I do not think one could count an answer to a simple question on television as an announcement when the question was, "Are you going to do something?" and the answer was, "I have no plans for that". Nobody could seriously call that an announcement. If that were the case, some very peculiar
  150
  announcements have been made by many people on many occasions. Therefore, I do not think the hon. Gentleman's point was valid.
  The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) raised some interesting new ideas which I hope he will deploy at greater length in the debate on the Green Paper. His suggestion that local authorities should be given the opportunity to give more than 50 per cent, derating out of their own pockets when they thought that industry needed it was new. However, I do not think that many local authorities would fall over themselves to have a power of that sort. It would be an expensive power for their general ratepayers. I will look carefully at what the hon. Gentleman said, but my first reaction is that it is possibly something which might not prove to be very practicable.
  The hon. Member for Motherwell raised the question of valuations on some subjects in his constituency about which we all know as being exceptionally large producers of revenue. He said that the industrial valuation of his constituency approximated to that of as large a city as Edinburgh, which is an interesting and surprising fact. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any magic solution off the cuff, because it all comes back to the question of leaving the valuation to the assessors and their technical and professional expertise. We must leave the matter there for the moment, but we shall consider it in the debate on the Green Paper. That is the time when it should be considered in the widest possible way with the most critical eye.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), who said that it was the balance between the categories which was important, made some interesting points. I am sure that he could make them with profit in a speech on the Green Paper.
  We have had a wide-ranging debate. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has been able to listen to it. Anything to do with a review of local government finance is naturally of great interest to him. For a considerable number of years he was responsible for the rating problems of a large industrial concern which, he tells me, had factories in Scotland, England and Wales. He says that there is no doubt that more headaches were

  151
  caused by rating in Scotland than were caused in the other two countries.
  I commend the Order and hope that the House will pass it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

  MINES AND QUARRIES, SCOTLAND (RATING)
  9.34 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move,
  That the Valuation (Mines and Quarries) (Scotland) Order, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.
  This Order is similar to one applying to England and Wales which was approved by the House on 29th March. It gives effect, in relation to valuation for rating in Scotland, to the changed view now taken of what a mineral royalty represents. Until recently these royalties were regarded as being wholly in the nature of a rent; and they were treated both for national taxation and local rating purposes wholly as income of the mineral owner. A royalty for the extraction of minerals is, however, partly a capital payment for the material removed as well as a rental payment for the occupation of the land. This was recognised in relation to income tax, surtax and corporation tax by the Finance Act, 1970, which provided that for those purposes mineral royalties should be treated as being half a rent and half a capital payment. The last Administration announced that they intended to make a similar adjustment of the basis of assessing mineral subjects to rates, and we have decided that this is a proper course to follow.
  The House will be aware that, for rating purposes, the annual value of property is based upon the rent which it may be expected to command. In pursuance of that principle a mine or quarry has hitherto been valued largely by reference to the royalty paid, or which could be expected to be paid, for the
  152
  extraction of minerals from it. Now that the royalty is to be regarded as having only a 50 per cent, rental component the Order brings this into effect, quite simply, in Article 4, which provides that in arriving at the annual rent or value of those mineral properties the element of value attributable to the right to win and work minerals is to be reduced by one-half. The element of value relating to buildings, plant and machinery will be unaffected by the Order. In common with the rest of industry in Scotland, mines and quarries will continue to be eligible for industrial derating, which will be effected by applying the derating percentage to the annual value arrived at in accordance with the Order.
  The financial effects of the Order on local authorities will be small. If the Order had applied in the current year the overall reduction in the valuations of mineral properties would have been of the order of £300,000, or about 0·2 per cent, of the aggregate Scottish rateable value. Because of the compensatory effect of the resources element of rate support grant, the additional burden on other ratepayers will be widely spread. However, in order to make the transition gradual, the Order provides for a reduction limited to one-quarter of the royalty part of the annual value for the first year, 1971–72, increasing to one-half from 1972–73 onwards. On top of that, as I have said, 50 per cent, industrial derating will apply.
  The Order was drafted after consultation with bodies representative of mining interests and the local authority associations. The local authorities deprecated the further erosion of the rating base which the Order represented but we told them that, standing the decision already reached about mineral royalties in relation to national taxation, the Government regarded themselves as committed to the Order.
  I commend the Order to the House. It introduces an equitable principle of taxation, already approved by Parliament, into the field of rating, and although its effect on local government revenue will be small, and on individual authorities hardly discernible, it will do something useful for the mining industries in Scotland.
  9.38 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: I have only a question. This Order relates to the rateable value of mines and quarries. The question in my mind, and, I am sure, in the minds of my hon. Friends, is, why just mines and quarries? Why not all those broad acres of land, so rich in Scotland? Why not? We have been arguing about the burden of rates and of different proportions of rates. I do not want to use strong language, but, really, it is a crying scandal that we have this little measure dealing with mines and quarries when there are all those acres crying out to be treated likewise. That they are not is a grave omission. Perhaps the Under-Secretary would like to take the Order back and have it amended, or else—although it would be a very poor second best—put in the Green Paper provisions about bringing into rateable value, on which so much depends, those broad acres not only of agricultural land but of much else besides, in order that they, too, may play a part in meeting the cost of the very expensive services which are regularly rendered to their owners or occupiers.
  Mr. Younger: With the leave of the House, perhaps I might thank the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) for his usual beguiling intervention, though he sought to draw me far beyond the bounds of rectitude in discussing an Order of this sort.
  The Order deals with a problem of the mining industry, and it is not open to me to go further at this stage. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will expand his argument in forthcoming debates on the Green Paper.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Valuation (Mines and Quarries) (Scotland) Order, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd April, be approved.

  MINES AND QUARRIES, SCOTLAND (RATING)

    CORPORATION TAX
    Ordered,
    That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the Green Paper on Reform of Corporation Tax (Command Paper No. 4630) and to report thereon:
    Ordered,
    That Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Kenneth Baker, Sir Tatton Brinton, Mr. Eric Cockeram, Mr. Denzil Davies, Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir John Foster, Mr. David Marquand, Mr. Peter Rees and Mr. John Roper be Members of the Committee:
    Ordered,
    That ihe Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order; and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time:
    Ordered,
    That four be the Quorum.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS (SELECT COMMITTEE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Scottish Affairs:
  That Mr. W. H. K. Baker, Mr. John Brewis, Mr. Dick Douglas, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Hamish Gray, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. George Lawson, Mr. Ian MacArthur, Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell, Mr. James Sillars, Mr. John Smith, Mr. Iain Sproat, Dr. Gavin Strang and Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon be Members of the Committee:
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order; to report from time to time, and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time:
  That six be the Quorum:
  That the Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference:
  That the Committee have power to appoint two Sub-Committees each consisting of not more than eight Members and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:
  That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report to the Committee from time to time; and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order:
  That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Committee:
  That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
  9.42 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: As one who has always wanted the scrutiny of this House to be furthered by the success of Select Committees, I confess that I am disappointed at the impact that the Report of the last Select Committee on Scottish Affairs had in Scotland. I say that rather sadly. We should not deceive ourselves. What was hoped for from these Committees has not materialised. I do not believe that any hon. Member in his heart of hearts thinks that Select Committees have mattered very much outside this House.
  I am not to serve on the proposed Select Committee. I have no recriminations against those who chose its members, and I make no personal complaint. However, if one wants an effective Select Committee, I think that here is the point at which television should be introduced.
  When the subject of television arose on a previous occasion, I was sad that it was not seen fit to carry out some experiments. On the other hand, if the full House were televised, it may be that after a few weeks it would turn into a crashing bore. I can see all sorts of reservations about the House being televised, continuously or selectively. But surely the intimate cross-questioning of a Select Committee lends itself to television.
  I take this opportunity to say to the Leader of the House—and I have no personal axe to grind—that I feel the time has come once again to look seriously at the possibility of televising these Select Committees. I can think of many confrontations which would have made fascinating television. For example, if the Public Accounts Committee had been more open when I was a member of it, I can think of all sorts of witnesses from the Departments, where no commercial secrecy was involved, when television treatment of the proceedings would have been of extreme educative value.
  Under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), or my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), or indeed the last Chairman, the one under whom I served, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), the proceedings on many occasions would have been extremely interesting. This also applies to the Select Committee on Science and
  156
  Technology, and many of my hon. Friends will be able to instance other Select Committees. The examination of many eminent witnesses would have been educational and, in a deeper sense, would have added to the prestige of the House.
  Far too often Select Committees of this House have turned themselves into Royal Commissions. But they are not Royal Commissions. One or two Select Committees—I will not name them—have dragged on for one, two, or even two-and-a half years, and their reports have not even been debated. I do not blame the Leader of the House for this, but I would ask what has been the end-product of all this work. For what reason have busy people been brought from Whitehall and industry to give evidence before those Select Committees? Certainly there should have been some end product.
  My hope for this Scottish Select Committee is that two things will happen. First, I hope that the Committee will exclude consideration of a general survey of Scottish economic affairs, since that is not the business of a Select Committe but is a matter for debate in the House of Commons. The second hope is that the work of the Select Committe, if it is to be useful, must be topical. Therefore, there should be a time limit upon its activities and I should like to see a time limit of months, not years. Instruction should be given to the Committee to report back to the House within a certain time. If these things are done—and the evidence would then certainly be more topical—I believe that the Committee's work will be taken more seriously. Then the Leader of the House would no doubt see that its reports were debated by the House.
  One of the saddest things to happen as a result of a Select Committee's work is that when its report is debated in the House very few hon. Members attend. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows that over the past few years when the House has been discussing reports of the Public Accounts Committee the attendance has been no credit to this House. The reason for this low attendance is that all the material is stale by the time it is in print and, after all the due processes have elapsed, the House is faced with discussing what has happened two years earlier.
  If Select Committees are to be as effective as I want them to be, then let them

  157
  be topical. I hope that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs will choose subjects which are topical. I hope also that it will report within a short period of time to enable Parliament to pass an opinion on any findings so that this may have some effect in the outside world. Far too often Select Committees get precisely nowhere.
  9.48 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: I disagree with a great deal of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) since I feel that he takes a wrong view about the work of Select Committees. He spoke about the impact of this work upon the House. One must remember the last massive document which was produced at the conclusion of a Select Committee's work which contained both the evidence and the findings of the Committee.
  These are all-party Committees, but it should be said that the document could have been much sharper if it had been produced, for example, by members on only this side of the House. We should have had marked views to express on various things, but the difficulty is that it would not have been an agreed report. As far as we can, we have to reach agreed reports. A Select Committee is not primarily designed to have an impact on the House. One of its basically important functions is that it can investigate and carry its scrutiny into Departments of State, for example, for which there is responsibility, much further than would be possible on the Floor of the House.
  The Public Accounts Committee or the Estimates Committee, for example, were not brought into existence to have an impact on the House in the sense of reaching the headlines. The purpose was to enable the Member of Parliament the better and more effectively to carry out the function of scrutiny. Perhaps we might see this as one of the most important rôles of the House, as distinct from the Government. I should like to see the power of scrutiny extended and improved in many ways. But the first purpose of this Committee and like Committes is to enable the individual member to delve much more deeply and closely into the manner in which all Government Departments function.
  On the first functioning of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, we took
  158
  in almost the whole range of Scottish governmental activity. That was far too big at the time, but we were well aware of the very large bite we had taken, and that we had bitten off a bit more than we could chew. Nevertheless, I suggest that if anyone wants to look closely into the manner in which the administration of Scotland functions, the different aspects of it and the Government Departments which have a bearing on Scotland, he can derive great profit from the evidence given in our report.
  On the question of the impact, I had not intended to speak in this way but my hon. Friend has provoked me.
  Mr. Dalyell: To be fair, I talked about the impact outside the House of Commons, and not inside the House.
  Mr. Lawson: Inside or outside the House—and it is not my impression that the primary function of a Select Committee is to have an impact outside the House. As I have seen the function of the Select Committee, it is one to enable Members of Parliament the better to carry out their job. If they find, for example, that something is materially wrong, they can have an impact. When they discover something that ought to be put right, they can headline it and have an impact. But let us suppose that they do not find anything very wrong and that Departments are working wonderfully smoothly: that has no news value or impact outside the House, but it could be a very useful service and a means of helping Departments to function smoothly. It might be a means of keeping Departments on their toes.
  When I was a member of the Select Committee, we thought that we might have an impact if we met in Scotland, and there was a great deal of talk about sitting in Scotland. We went to Edinburgh A great deal of publicity was given to that first visit. A member of the Press turned up, but not many of the public. We had quite a number of meetings in Scotland. We went as far as Inverness. But our experience was that public interest dwindled and dwindled. I remember one occasion in Glasgow on which two journalists turned up, obtained the evidence which one organisation was to submit, and cleared off without even listening to the evidence submitted and

  159
  the questioning which flowed from it. They got the story and that was all.
  On many occasions, when the Committee sat in Scotland, a great deal of valuable cross-examination was conducted, but it was often sufficient for the Press to have some headline only. Very little effort was made to inquire into what was being done. I do not blame the Press. Its job is to get a story. The more striking the impact, the easier the job.
  The great difficulties under which such Select Committees labour should be recognised. This is not to say that we should not seek to overcome the difficulties. If a Select Committee is effectively to cross-examine witnesses, at least one of its members must do a great deal of preliminary thinking about the central issues. The close questioning of experienced witnesses is a highly-skilled job. Even some of our more senior judges are not all that good at bringing out the best that can be got from witnesses.
  I compliment the Leader of the House on continuing the practice of enabling the Committee to bring in some skilled person or persons apart from the Clerks of the House, who do an invaluable job. The previous Select Committee was able to call in an economist, who did useful work. This Select Committee is to be given the same power.
  Let us not bite off as much as we sought to bite off last time. We must spend a great deal of time thinking about how we can derive the greatest benefit from our work. It is up to the members of the Committee. If the Committee fails, it will be the fault of its members. We shall have a sufficiency of power. If we are prepared to make a continuous effort, the power is there for us to make the Committee an invaluable instrument of keeping a close eye on how the different Departments function in Scotland.
  It has taken the Leader of the House a long time to set up this Select Committee, but I again thank him for doing so.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I should like to congratulate the Leader of the House, but I am not sure that I can. I am pleased that he is setting up the Select Committee, but I want to raise
  160
  one or two points. I know nothing about the usual channels, but I believe that there is a certain meanness about the selection of the 14 names. Six of them are excellent, and I have no quarrel about them. However, I think that the whole House would want the membership of a Committee such as this to be broadly based. It is true that the Committee's function will be to scrutinise, but it should do so from different points of view. I believe in democracy. I believe that our case is right and that the wider the discussion the more chance there is that our case will win.
  I therefore regret the fact that there is to be no representative of the Liberal Party on this Committee. I also regret that no Liberal Member is present for this debate tonight.
  Mr. Lawson: They do not want to be represented.
  Mr. Buchan: Whether they do or not, we should try to persuade the Liberals that they have something to offer. That is why I regret that no member of the Liberal Party is present for this debate. Given the chance, the Liberals might well have agreed to one of their members serving on the Committee. The Scottish Nationalist certainly wanted to serve on the Committee. As there is so much to be done, I should have preferred all parties to be represented on the Committee.
  That is my only reason for being hesitant about congratulating the Leader of the House, because I always like congratulating him. Secondly, we may be over-critical of what was achieved by the last Select Committee—
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Motion relating to Scottish Affairs may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Speed.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Buchan: The last Select Committee achieved a good deal. For the first time, we began, at least in the early stages, to see a scrutinising Committee of the House beginning to be reflected in the Press outside. There is always a difficult relationship between the Press and Parliament. If the Press prints what

  161
  we have said, we blame it. Sometimes when it does not print what we say, we blame it, too. In other words, very often the fault in this is ours.
  It is true that the last Select Committee went on for a long time, but it covered a good deal of ground. I do not think that what was important quite got through in the Scottish Press handled north of the Border in the same way as it did in the Scottish Press handled from this House, but it was beginning to break through. Things went wrong. One Member told the Press that she was coming up in a tangerine dress. Sure enough, that was all that was reported that day.
  I wish to back up the valuable suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) concerning television cameras. We have a peculiar situation. The Crowther Committee was televised, I thought, effectively. I saw excepts of one or two of the sessions. Nobody suggests that we should have a large Committee session shown on television, but there is no reason why a short, edited version should not be shown, as the Crowther Committee was shown effectively on the northern news bulletin. I believe that the Select Committee's visits to Scotland accompanied by that kind of extract on the news bulletin would build up the concept of Parliament being something more than meetings in the Chamber here. It would be a useful opportunity for experimentation.
  It seems to me valuable that instead of giving the Select Committee such a wide remit as the last one had, we should narrow its remit. It could be more effective in scrutinising and, at the same time, meeting what I regard as the greatest lack in parliamentary life—that is, the contact between what goes on here and outside. We could have a revolution on the Floor of the House of Commons and it would not touch the perimeter of the Palace of Westminster. We must make contact, and this is one of the ways that we can do it. We need scrutiny, therefore, over the short period, not a searchlight, more a laser beam—in other words, close, detailed scrutiny which, I am sure, would get the right kind of response.
  162
  I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider the composition of the Committee. I hope that there will be wide consultation on the remit which is given to the Committee and I hope, thirdly, that he will consider the possibility of television cameras on the Select Committee. It seems to me that we spend too much time talking about the holiness of the Floor of the House. I accept its sanctity, but we could sometimes add to it by the perimeter work of the House of Commons. The Committees can add to the value of our debates here. More importantly, they could have a life of their own in doing their important job of, first, scrutinising and, secondly, taking Parliament outside the Palace of Westminster so that people can feel, "Yes, it does belong to us."
  10.4 p.m.
  Mr. William Ross: I am glad that I managed to get back from Ayr in time to participate in this debate. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary had to question my absence. I was at the funeral of one of his more distinguished constituents, a very dear friend of mine and one of the finest public-minded people that Ayr has ever known.
  I express my thanks to the Leader of the House. We pressed him and we questioned him. He used a wide variety of replies in giving us the same answer every time. I do not know exactly what his difficulties were. It might well be that certain other Committees were rather prolonged and his people were suffering from overwork. At any rate, here it is. It is rather late in the Session, and I do not think that we can expect very much to be done by it during this Session.
  Much has been said about the width of the remit. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) suggested that the remit was too wide—unless I have misinterpreted what he said. In my opinion the remit must be as wide as possible to allow full freedom to the Committee to decide into what matters it wishes to inquire.
  Mr. Buchan: I am sorry, but my right hon. Friend has misunderstood what I said. I was saying that the last remit given was too wide in its scope, and that if it had been fragmented, with one or two remits given in succession, subjects might have been covered much more effectively.
  Mr. Ross: It was deliberately chosen for Scottish affairs. We did not want to narrow it to the Scottish Office, because much that is done in Scotland is done for the good of Scotland by other Departments, including the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment, and the rest. We depend entirely upon the Committee to decide where it wants the searchlight of inquiry to fall.
  It was understandable on the last occasion—taking into account the situation which then existed in Scotland—that there should be no evidence of narrowing the remit. Indeed, the decision of the Committee was to go into the wide question of industry in Scotland and the ways in which it could be helped. Unlike some people, I believe that an excellent opportunity was thereby provided for people to bring out the extent to which Scotland was being looked after by various Departments of Government, and it gave every member of the Committee an opportunity to probe even further and make other suggestions concerning Scottish affairs.
  I have always regarded Select Committees as an extension of the House at Question Time. It is wrong to compare Select Committees of this House with Select Committees in other countries. In the United States they are set up for the purpose of creating a bridge between the executive and the legislature. In this country we do not need that, because we have the executive and the legislature in one place. The Ministers come here. The Prime Minister must answer every Tuesday and Thursday, as must the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his turn. The Select Committee is an extension of the process of probing—of taking up some matter and going through with it to the end.
  I agree that it can be most effective if it is fairly narrow in its inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) wanted the Committee to inquire into the steel industry in Scotland. There is no doubt that that could be done much more effectively with a proper remit. We can think of many useful subjects on which the Committee might light. But the effectiveness of its work depends upon the Committee itself. To some extent Select Committees are on trial, and there success will depend upon the use made of them. I am speaking not from a party
  164
  political point of view but in terms of the position of the Government and their efficiency, and the efficiency of Ministers and civil servants.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about television. If he told the television authorities that they could come here I doubt whether they would, unless they were satisfied that there was a story, or something rather dramatic. It would do many people good to be able to appreciate the quality of our civil servants. There is no doubt that when the Royal Commission was televised one of the outstanding features was the quality of the answers and the agile minds of the civil servants in Scotland. We are very well served by our civil servants. But that is on the fringe of the matter, and beside the point.
  The power of the Committee to search into every corner of the Administration— the Scottish Office, Trade and Industry, the Treasury—as it affects Scotland, means that a power is given to the backbench Member which he had never had before. Whether they use it wisely, and the extent to which they use it at all, will determine its success and indeed the attitude of mind of the Leader of the House as to whether he wants to continue with it. But I think he is wise in continuing this for another year, and I hope he will give it the power to carry on whatever investigations it requires in this short part of the Session and into the next Session. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done.
  10.11 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): My hon. Friends and I fully appreciate the reason why the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was not here before. We fully understand the circumstances which he mentioned.
  The right hon. Gentleman has questioned the fact that we are setting up this Committee rather late in the Session. I agree with him. I respond at once to what he has said; I certainly hope that any inquiries which this Committee may have started will be continued in the next Session, and I should like to make arrangements to that end. I accept that that is very important.

  165
  I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what he has said about the value of these Committees as an extension of this House and their impact on the efficiency of government, and indeed their value in questioning what goes on inside the various Government Departments concerned. I know of no reason why these investigations should not add to the efficiency of government, as he says, and I very much hope that they do so.
  I should like to turn to the points made by the hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) about the impact of the last Committee on Scottish Affairs. I had an opportunity of talking to the Chairman, Mr. Tom Steele, who was our colleague in this House, as I wished to hear from him at first hand how he felt this Committee had worked. I value very much what he told me. I heard from him, and indeed from others—I say this perfectly fairly, I hope—how much the hon. Member for Motherwell had contributed to the impact of the last Committee. I therefore welcome very much what he said about its work.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian has questioned the value of the impact of this Committee and he went on to say that the fact that the matter was not debated in this House might in some way have detracted from its value. When we had the debate on the Green Paper on Select Committees there were those who said that there were some reports which needed debate in this House to implement their value; there were others that did not. I think this is a fair view. I was interested to find, when I discussed the work of this Committee with certain people in academic circles outside the House, that they placed considerable value on the work of this Committee, and I was very impressed by this point of view. I accept, of course, that the more we are able to debate these reports in the House the better. Nevertheless I was very impressed to find that this Committee had had an impact, and I am not altogether sure that a debate in this House would necessarily have added to the impact that it had.
  Mr. Lawson: It was debated.
  Mr. Whitelaw: It was indeed debated; but in any case it certainly had a considerable impact outside the House.
  166
  The hon. Member for West Lothian raised the question of television. This is a subject of which anyone in my position is wise to take a very careful view. The proposition was made in the last Parliament. I was one of those who favoured televising the proceedings of the House. I have in no sense retracted from the view which I then took, but I think that this is something for the House as a whole to decide, and a question to be carefully considered before we come to a final decision. If I were to stress my own view, it is that I think that there is considerable advantage in considering whether the televising of the proceedings of Select Committees would be valuable. Personally, I think that it might well be, but I think that this also is a matter for the House as a whole to decide.
  The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) questioned the composition of the Select Committee and sought to speak for those who are not present tonight. It is not for me to say what their views are on the matter. In the last Parliament, the composition of the Committee was: nine members from the Government side, five members from the Conservative Opposition, one Liberal, and one Scottish Nationalist.
  It is an inevitable feature of the setting up of these Select Committees that all Governments, by precedent, preserve the Government majority. Therefore, if places are to be found for other Members in opposition besides the main party, it is for the main party to surrender places for that purpose. This was done in the last Parliament. I fully recognise the position now, and I should not for a moment suggest that the party opposite should surrender its places to the other Members who might take part in this Committee. The situation is rather different now from what it was. In the last Parliament, I was the Opposition Chief Whip, and I decided to surrender places. I am not asking that anyone should do so now. I am merely pointing out what the facts were then and what the facts are today.
  I have done my best to give notice to he hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), who raised the problem with me last Thursday, that this debate would take place tonight, and, although he is not here, I hope that he will appreciate that, at least, he has given

  167
  every opportunity to be here to express the view which he put to me last Thursday.
  I think that this is the best way of setting up the Committee. I realise that there are always difficulties in these matters. The hon. Member for Western Isles made representations to me. In answer to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West, I can only say that the three hon. Members from the Liberal Party in Scotland have not made similar represenations. I feel, therefore, that the composition of the Committee is, on the whole, reasonable.
  I am grateful for what hon. Members have said about the work of the Committee. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock about the width of the remit, and I think that this is wise. I hope that the Committee will have considerable success and will be valuable to the House. I am grateful for what has been said, and, if it is felt that I have been somewhat late in setting up the Committee, I can only reply in the well known phrase, "Better late than never". I am grateful to the House for its support.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Scottish Affairs:
  That Mr. W. H. K. Baker, Mr. John Brewis, Mr. Dick Douglas, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Hamish Gray, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. George Lawson, Mr. Ian MacArthur, Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell, Mr. James Sillars, Mr. John Smith, Mr. Iain Sproat, Dr. Gavin Strang and Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon be Members of the Committee:
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order; to report from time to time, and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time:
  That six be the Quorum:
  That the Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference:
  That the Committee have power to appoint two Sub-Committees each consisting of not more than eight Members and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:
  168
  That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report to the Committee from time to time; and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order:
  That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Committee:
  That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.

  INCOME TAX (MR. A. W. FARROW)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. More.]
  10.18 p.m.
  Mr. David Stoddart: The subject of this debate as it appears on the Order Paper is the tax affairs of my constituent Mr. Farrow and the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner thereon, but I say at the outset that the implications of this case go rather wider than my constituent's affairs.
  On 13th February, 1970, Mr. Farrow was shocked to receive a notice from Her Majesty's inspector of taxes telling him that he owed £194 18s. 9d., this sum including an amount of about £89 brought forward from 1967–68. Mr. Farrow was then 67, and the shock of receiving the news made both him and his wife very ill. On 20th February he wrote to the Inspector of Taxes pointing out that he had given the Inland Revenue Department all relevant information about his tax affairs, and that the arrears must be the Department's fault. Receiving no response, he wrote to the People free advice service. That newspaper assisted him as far as it could, and ultimately, quite correctly, advised him to take the matter to his Member of Parliament.
  This the Farrows did, and my immediate predecessor took the matter up with the Treasury Ministers. As a result, the Farrows received a reply, but it was quite unsatisfactory. At this point the case was referred to me. After reading the details, I felt that something had gone seriously wrong in the tax office with the affairs of Mr. Farrow, but that it was fair that Treasury Ministers should be given another opportunity to take action. Accordingly, I wrote to the Financial Secretary

  169
  to the Treasury on 21st July, 1970, saying that I felt that the letter sent to Mr. Farrow on 2nd July was unhelpful, and asking the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the case with a view to waiving all or part of the arrears. On 5th August, I received a reply from the Minister of State, Treasury, saying that the waiving or reducing of the tax arrears could not be justified, but that their collection would be spread over four years.
  Since I was not satisfied with that reply, I referred the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner on 24th August, after obtaining a signed statement from Mr. Farrow. I later heard from the Financial Secretary that he, too, was rather perturbed about the case, and had discussed it with senior Treasury officials. I received the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner on 22nd April. However, in the meantime the Farrows had received a further demand from the Inland Revenue Department for a further £26 for underpayment of tax in 1969–70, making total arrears of £220. This meant that at £1 a week over four years Mr. Farrow would be 72 before the arrears finished being paid off.
  After dealing with the background of the case, the Parliamentary Commissioner came to the conclusion in his report that Mr. Farrow's income tax affairs had been badly mishandled by the Inland Revenue Department, and that the complaint was fully justified. The report is long, and I cannot quote from it at great length. It said:
  "In addition to making a number of errors affecting Mr. Farrow's P.A.Y.E. codings and leading to underdeductions of tax, the tax offices concerned did not follow departmental standing instructions when they reviewed his case after each of the tax years 1967/68 and 1968/69. These instructions require an Inspector, in circumstances such as those of this case, to write to the taxpayer before taking any steps to raise an assessment…"
  and to explain certain things to him.
  "On receipt of a reply the Inspector is then required to consider whether payment of the arrears would involve serious hardship and, if satisfied that this is so, he should take no further steps to recover the underpayment. In Mr. Farrow's case no explanatory letter whatever was issued in connection with the 1967/68 underpayment, and when Mr. Farrow complained of the way his affairs had been dealt with the Inspector decided not to reply, on the grounds that (as he noted on the file) 'It will only stir up more trouble than it is worth.'"
  We certainly have bureaucrats in this country, but at least they are honest
  170
  bureaucrats when they record something like that on an income tax file.
  In the case of the 1968–69 liability, the inspector sent a letter to Mr. Farrow, but it did not give an adequate explanation of the cause of the under-payment, as distinct from how it was calculated. The Parliamentary Commissioner finds that Mr. and Mrs. Farrow—he includes her because, although she is not legally liable for any part of the under-payment, she is closely affected and has been considerably distressed by this matter—have suffered an injustice as a result of maladministration by the Inland Revenue.
  He says:
  "By way of remedying this, the Department have expressed their apologies for the manner in which they have dealt with Mr. Farrow's affairs, but have told me that they did not think they would be justified in the light of his present circumstances in waiving collection of any of the arrears."
  In his conclusion, the Parliamentary Commissioner says:
  "I have considered whether the Department's proposals as stated above can constitute an adequate remedy for the consequences of their maladministration. I am not satisfied that they do. I have no reason to doubt Mr. and Mrs. Farrow's statement about the effect on their health of the worry caused by the Department's actions or Mr. Farrow's statement that, at his age, he would by now have considered giving up his part-time job, but for the additional amount he has to pay. In its First Report for the Session 1970–71, the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration expressed the view that it would be appropriate for the Inland Revenue to review their practice for remedying cases where, owing to departmental error, the taxpayer has sustained injustice; and to consider providing a financial remedy on an ex-gratia or compensatory basis in those cases where an extra-statutory concession is not considered appropriate, without sole regard to the degree of hardship caused to the taxpayer. In my view, this case should be considered on this basis."
  After receiving the report, I also received a letter from the Financial Secretary. I sought an interview with him, but I think that it is true to say that we got no further forward at that interview. Since I was not satisfied with that, I decided that this sad and sorry case should be taken as far as I could take it possibly, and I therefore applied for this Adjournment debate. I feel that the House will agree that this case has shown up serious defects in the Inland Revenue Department and has highlighted injustice that occurs to individuals every day.

  171
  Indeed, judging by correspondence I have received, as a result of the publicity which has surrounded this case, from many parts of the country, the Farrow case represents the tip of an ugly and treacherous iceberg upon which unsuspecting taxpayers can quickly founder. I will quote one or two cases which have come to my notice, because they are important.
  The first concerns an 83-year-old man living in Brough, Yorkshire, who is in hospital. He is still being pursued by the tax authorities for arrears which were no fault of his. This is worrying him stiff, and his family, too. Another case concerns a retired civil servant living in Somerset. He is 86 years old and has an ailing wife of 85, and he owes £107 to the Inland Revenue Department, which is pursuing him for that amount. Then there is the case of a man of 69 living in Romsey, who has had to find a job and borrow money because of arrears and the refusal of the tax authorities to extend the period of payment. These are heartrending cases and the public at large and hon. Members will feel the utmost sympathy for the people concerned.
  Nobody, least of all myself, underestimates the difficulties faced by tax officials throughout the country. It is not being suggested that the cruel heartless treatment of the Farrows and others like them stems from some sadistic desire on the part of tax officials to cause the maximum pain to the taxpayer. It is rather the system which is cruel and heartless, and the complexity of our tax laws, coupled with the extreme shortage of staff of the Inland Revenue Department, causes a situation in which mistakes are made and perpetuated.
  Clearly, the system has to be modified to take account of the serious situation which has been revealed not only by Mr. Farrow's case and others which have come to light but by the Report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
  I believe that the recommendation contained in House of Commons Paper 240 is reasonable. I have no time to quote it. I should have thought that this was the least that Treasury Ministers could do. Indeed, I fail to understand why Treasury Ministers have not done something about the matter to date. For myself, I believe
  172
  that the present rules for hardship are far too restrictive and, so far as I can gather, they can be applied only to those virtually on the bread line. Certainly the rules ought to be more widely drawn to give the tax authorities more scope for assisting taxpayers in difficulties and not necessarily only when the tax authorities have been at fault. Surely it must be right to allow the Inland Revenue Department to make ex-gratia or compensatory payments without sole regard to the degree of hardship where the tax authorities have made serious errors as they have in the case of Mr. Farrow.
  If justice is to be done and seen to be done, these measures must not only be adopted in future but must be made retrospective for a reasonable time in order that those like my constituents who are existing sufferers may be beneficiaries. Although there are many cases like the Farrow case, the cost to the Treasury would be relatively small. As the Select Committee noted in paragraph 31 of its Report, only some £82,000 was remitted by the Inland Revenue Department for the year 1969–70 out of a total of £5,000 million collected in taxes.
  Treasury Ministers should act quickly. I and other hon. Members will be satisfied only if in his reply tonight the Financial Secretary announces that he intends to come forward shortly with the necessary measures, including retrospection, to remedy what is a disgraceful and cruel situation.
  10.33 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I should like to express my appreciation of the moderate and reasonable way in which the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart) has dealt with what he rightly described as a sad and sorry case affecting his constituent. This is a case in which, fortunately, we have the advantage that all the facts are set out in a clear and undisputed form in the Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
  I say at once that I am certainly not here tonight to dispute the finding that Mr. Farrow's tax affairs were badly mishandled by the Inland Revenue over a period of years. Mr. Farrow all along gave prompt and accurate returns of his income, both of his pensions and his part-time earnings, and the various tax offices

  173
  which should have ensured that proper codings were made failed to do so, so that over a period of two years much too little tax was deducted. Added to these errors, there was the failure to give him an adequate explanation of how the arrears arose and, subsequently, in the instance described by the hon. Member, to reply to one of Mr. Farrow's letters.
  All this is fully conceded, and in once again tendering the apologies of Treasury ministers and the Inland Revenue I would emphasise that this case must not be regarded as in any way typical of the standard of work in the Inland Revenue as a whole or in the Swindon office in particular. The hon. Member said that he thought that this was the tip of an ugly and treacherous iceberg. Of course, mistakes occur from time to time affecting taxpayers of limited means. It would be quite wrong to deduce from that that unfortunate episodes of this sort are widespread. They do happen, but they are very much the exception.
  Some of the Press comment to which this case has given rise in recent days has had very harsh things indeed to say about the Inland Revenue officials, happily not echoed by the hon. Member tonight. This is ironic because Mr. Farrow, as I am sure the hon. Member knows, was at one time working as a temporary clerk in the Swindon office. He must know some of the difficulties there. We should all remember that the staff in the Inland Revenue are in one sense the agents of this House, collecting from people the taxation which enables the policies demanded and approved by this House to be implemented.
  We have in the past saddled them with an over-complicated system and in recent years this has, as the hon. Member recognised, strained the Department's resources to the limit. In these circumstances mistakes, even bad mistakes, are inevitable but it is quite wrong and unfair, as some have sought to do, to condemn the whole service on that account. Nevertheless, as I have conceded, this was a bad case and the real question is that raised by the hon. Member at the end of his speech—whether and in what circumstances, after mistakes of this nature have come to light, the Inland Revenue should waive the underpaid tax or otherwise relieve the taxpayer of the full obligation which in law undoubtedly lies upon him.
  174
  As the House knows, the Taxes Acts make express provision to allow both the Inland Revenue and the taxpayers to go back six years to correct mistakes which may subsequently have come to light. In the case of the Inland Revenue if a mistake comes to light it has a legal duty to do this. There would be no point whatever, the House having conferred this power and imposed this duty, if the tax were not then to toe recoverable.
  The issue here is whether, in all the circumstances, it is right to enforce payment of the arrears. The Parliamentary Commissioner has, in effect, urged that the Inland Revenue should waive part or all of the arrears, and it would be utterly wrong for Treasury Ministers to treat lightly a recommendation of that sort. As the hon. Member has acknowledged, at the time that he put the matter to the Parliamentary Commissioner I said that the case was one which was giving me cause for some concern.
  Yet in replying to the hon. Member I must make it clear that the decision of the Inland Revenue not to waive any part of the arrears in this case was fully in accord with its practice as it has stood over recent years. On the test of hardship which is set out in the Select Committee's Report to which the hon. Member referred, which has been applied in such circumstances, Mr. Farrow did not qualify for relief. His income and means were above the level which would entitle him to claim to have his tax waived. It would be quite wrong for the Inland Revenue to make a special exception in one case simply because the case has been pursued, as this one has been, with energy and vigour.
  To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he has not sought special treatment for his constituent. The case made is that if this is the result of the existing practice it is high time the practice was changed. The hon. Gentleman is in good company in urging that, for earlier this year the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration recommended precisely in this sense. The hon. Member has already read the relevant part of the Committee's Report and I need not therefore repeat it. The Committee made its recommendation because in a number of cases which were drawn to its attention no relief had been offered as the Inland Revenue did not consider

  175
  that the circumstances amounted to hardship.
  The core of the proposal put forward by the Select Committee is that a remedy should be considered
  "without sole regard to hardship".
  This is an important recommendation with some very far-reaching implications. I regret that I can do no more than tell the House that the Select Committee's Report is at present under active consideration by the Government. I am not yet in a position to say what the Government's decision will be, although I can indicate—and perhaps this will be some comfort to the hon. Gentleman—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer hopes to table the Government's comments on the Select Committee's Report fairly soon.
  The hon. Gentleman specifically asked me whether any recommendation would have retrospective effect. I can give no indication about that. The House must await my right hon. Friend's comments on the Report.
  In the meantime—and I fully realise that this will be a very severe disappointment to Mr. and Mrs. Farrow—there is no alternative open to the Inland Revenue
  176
  but to continue to operate on its present rules which have been in force for some time. Mr. Farrow's means are such that if the payment of the arrears of tax is spread over the four years mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the extra liability will not involve him in that degree of hardship which, according to current practice, would be necessary to allow the Revenue to remit any of the tax due. If Mr. Farrow's circumstances change—for instance, if he gives up work—the Revenue will of course reconsider the position.
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Mr. and Mrs. Farrow's position has been looked at very carefully, but their resources are such that they do not, as things stand today, come within the hardship category. Any right-minded person will feel a lot of sympathy for the Farrows who find themselves saddled late in life with an unexpected and unwelcome burden. The hon. Member has pursued their case with tenacity, and it is with real regret that I cannot offer either him or his constituents more tangible comfort.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Companies Acts (Enforcement)
  Companies Acts (Enforcement)
  Industrial Development (North-East England)
  Industrial Development (North-East England)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Unemployment (Church of Scotland, Hamilton Presbytery, Representations)
  Unemployment (Church of Scotland, Hamilton Presbytery, Representations)
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Gas Boards (Emergency Service Charges)
  Gas Boards (Emergency Service Charges)
  Companies' Donations to Political Parties
  Companies' Donations to Political Parties
  Merchant Seamen (Red Torches)
  Merchant Seamen (Red Torches)
  Coal Prices
  Coal Prices
  Exports
  Exports
  Vehicle and General Insurance Group
  Vehicle and General Insurance Group
  European Air Transportation Association
  European Air Transportation Association
  Newton Aycliffe Industrial Estate
  Newton Aycliffe Industrial Estate
  European Free Trade Association
  European Free Trade Association
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce Ltd.
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Paper Industry (Trading Practices)
  Paper Industry (Trading Practices)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Nuclear Power Stations)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Nuclear Power Stations)
  Stock Exchange (Solvency Requirements)
  Stock Exchange (Solvency Requirements)
  U.S.S.R.
  U.S.S.R.
  Nuclear Energy (European Collaboration)
  Nuclear Energy (European Collaboration)
  Linesman Mediator
  Linesman Mediator
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Motor Industry
  Motor Industry
  Edinburgh and Portobello (Intermediate Area Status)
  Edinburgh and Portobello (Intermediate Area Status)
  Air Accident (Barcelona)
  Air Accident (Barcelona)
  Queen's Award to Industry (Scottish Firms)
  Queen's Award to Industry (Scottish Firms)
  Tariffs
  Tariffs
  Airmiss Reports
  Airmiss Reports
  Northern Region (Winter Work Programme)
  Northern Region (Winter Work Programme)
  North-East (Government Offices)
  North-East (Government Offices)
  Electronic Equipment (BS 9000 System)
  Electronic Equipment (BS 9000 System)
  Trade Missions (Postponement)
  Trade Missions (Postponement)
  Plymouth (Factory)
  Plymouth (Factory)
  Supermarkets (Customers' Facilities)
  Supermarkets (Customers' Facilities)
  Supersonic Flight (Smoke and Noise)
  Supersonic Flight (Smoke and Noise)
  Scottish Trade Missions
  Scottish Trade Missions
  Super-Conducting Electric Motor
  Super-Conducting Electric Motor
  RB211 Engine
  RB211 Engine
  Departmental Telephone Calls (Delays)
  Departmental Telephone Calls (Delays)
  Secretary of State (Official Engagements)
  Secretary of State (Official Engagements)
  Companies Act (Requests for Government Action)
  Companies Act (Requests for Government Action)
  Dollar Land Holdings
  Dollar Land Holdings
  Heathrow Airport (Noise)
  Heathrow Airport (Noise)
  Shirley Institute
  Shirley Institute
  Pinnock Finance (Great Britain)
  Pinnock Finance (Great Britain)
  Metrication
  Metrication
  Tulketh Group
  Tulketh Group
  Unemployment, Yorkshire
  Unemployment, Yorkshire
  Non-Insurance Companies
  Non-Insurance Companies
  Mid-Wales (New firms)
  Mid-Wales (New firms)
  Cardiganshire (New Jobs)
  Cardiganshire (New Jobs)
  Coal (Imports from South Africa)
  Coal (Imports from South Africa)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  India (Fertiliser Factories)
  India (Fertiliser Factories)
  Education Allowances
  Education Allowances
  E.E.C., E.F.T.A. and Commonwealth Secretariat (Staff)
  E.E.C., E.F.T.A. and Commonwealth Secretariat (Staff)
  European Movement
  European Movement
  Peaceful Uses of the Sea Bed
  Peaceful Uses of the Sea Bed
  Old School Buildings
  Old School Buildings
  Fowl Pest
  Fowl Pest
  Government Activities in Wales (Report)
  Government Activities in Wales (Report)
  House Building
  House Building
  Aberystwyth Hospital
  Aberystwyth Hospital
  Agriculture and Forestry (Employment)
  Agriculture and Forestry (Employment)
ENVIRONMENT
  Office Development Permits (Dartford)
  Office Development Permits (Dartford)
  Derelict Land (Grants)
  Derelict Land (Grants)
  Alkali Acts (Industrial Processes)
  Alkali Acts (Industrial Processes)
  Housing (Richmond)
  Housing (Richmond)
  Housing (Huddersfield)
  Housing (Huddersfield)
  Substandard Properties (London)
  Substandard Properties (London)
  Slums
  Slums
  Homeless Families
  Homeless Families
  Control of Dogs (Byelaws)
  Control of Dogs (Byelaws)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Carlos Evertsz-Fournier
  Carlos Evertsz-Fournier
  Obscene Publications Act
  Obscene Publications Act
  Film Clubs
  Film Clubs
  Prison Service (Mountbatten Report)
  Prison Service (Mountbatten Report)
  Prisoners (Category A)
  Prisoners (Category A)
  Prison Officers (Houses)
  Prison Officers (Houses)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Non-Aggregation Rule
  Non-Aggregation Rule
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Aid to Industry
  Aid to Industry
  Output Per Man
  Output Per Man
  Decimal Coinage
  Decimal Coinage
  Voluntary Prices and Incomes Policy
  Voluntary Prices and Incomes Policy
  Children's Covenants and Trusts
  Children's Covenants and Trusts
DEFENCE
  York Trailer Company Limited, Corby
  York Trailer Company Limited, Corby
  Inspection Personnel (Government Contracts)
  Inspection Personnel (Government Contracts)
  Concorde Test Programme (R.A.F. Station, Fairford)
  Concorde Test Programme (R.A.F. Station, Fairford)
  R.A.F. Personnel, Brüggen (Married Quarters)
  R.A.F. Personnel, Brüggen (Married Quarters)
  Pensions (Increase) Bill
  Pensions (Increase) Bill
  Northolt Airport
  Northolt Airport
  Hurd Deep (Dumping of Unexploded Ammunition)
  Hurd Deep (Dumping of Unexploded Ammunition)
  Operation Varne Sweep
  Operation Varne Sweep
AGRICULTURE
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (OFFICERS OF THE CROWN)
  TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (OFFICERS OF THE CROWN)
  COMPANIES ACTS
  COMPANIES ACTS
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Civil Servants (Salaries)
  Non-Industrial Civil Service
  Non-Industrial Civil Service
  Smoking
  Smoking
EMPLOYMENT
  Members (Pay)
  Members (Pay)
  Plymouth and Gunnislake (Unemployment)
  Plymouth and Gunnislake (Unemployment)
  Retail Price Index
  Retail Price Index
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Reception, Northern Ireland
  Television Reception, Northern Ireland
SCOTLAND
  Burntisland (Ante-Natal Clinics)
  Burntisland (Ante-Natal Clinics)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Dental Intravenous Anaesthesia (Deaths)
  Dental Intravenous Anaesthesia (Deaths)
  Malnutrition (School Children)
  Malnutrition (School Children)
  Schizophrenic Patients (Drugs)
  Schizophrenic Patients (Drugs)
  National Insurance Commissioner (Appeals)
  National Insurance Commissioner (Appeals)
  Scientology (Report)
  Scientology (Report)

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

EXPORTS: INFORMATION SERVICE AND OVERSEAS BUYERS
LORD BROWN: 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 intend to advertise to overseas buyers in foreign countries the existence of the Ministry of Trade and Industry's Computerised Export information service as a means of getting in direct touch with British suppliers of the goods which they require.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, some advertising has already been undertaken on this subject on an experimental basis in Western Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Australia. Its effectiveness is still being assessed, and its continuation in these four countries and its extension to other selected markets will be considered when the results have been fully analysed.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer, and delighted to hear that the Government are spending money in this admirable way. No doubt the Minister is aware that until recently, at any rate, the number of inquiries being received per British post overseas per week was only of the order of 36 per post. I certainly hope that this advertising programe will extend the number very greatly indeed.

E.E.C. NEGOTIATIONS: POSITION OF THE CHANNEL ISLANDS
2.36 p.m.
LORD AYLESTONE: 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 in the negotiations for membership of the E.E.C. they have stressed fully the economic position of the Channel Islands and have endeavoured to safeguard their trade and industry; and have indicated to the E.E.C. the importance of maintaining the unique constitutional position which exists between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the position of the Channel Islands has not yet been discussed in the negotiations with the E.E.C. but Her Majesty's Government maintain close contact with the Islands' authorities so that their interests may be fully taken into account in the negotiations.
LORD AYLESTONE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for his reply, may I assume that there are not likely to be any constitutional changes?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the Channel Islands authorities have had continuing conversations and discussions with my right honourable friend and my noble friend the Minister of State at the Home Office, about a great many subjects, which at this stage must remain confidential, but these are all matters which will be taken into account when the time comes to discuss the matter.

LABELLING OF MEDICINES
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any progress report on

619
the question of the labelling of prescribed medicines since a reply was given to a Parliamentary Question on May 18, 1970.]
THE MINISTER CF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): Yes, my Lords. I understand that there has been good progress in the discussions between and within the professions on proposals to change the ruling convention between doctors and pharmacists as to the labelling of a dispensed medicine where the prescriber has given no specific directions. The opinion of the local bodies representative of pharmacists was again sought and consultation within the pharmaceutical profession is now completed. In the event of final agreement being reached between the professions I would expect them to approach the Department jointly with their proposals.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that rather helpful and hopeful reply, may I ask him whether he can give any indication of when action is likely to be taken on this matter? I would remind him that I have been asking this question every year for eleven years and I hope I do not have to go on asking it for another eleven years.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am aware of the number of times that the noble Lord has asked this question, and also that the answer has usually been, "Yes, my Lords." But at least the consultations within the pharmaceutical profession are now complete, and as soon as it can be agreed with the medical profession I hope we shall see some action.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, could the noble Lord give any indication as to the lines along which good progress has so far been achieved?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the pharmaceutical profession are happily considering the proposal that they should label medicines, unless specifically asked not to do so by the prescribing doctor.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the noble Lord has told the House about the discussions that have taken place with the medical profession and the
620
pharmaceutical profession, but is there not another great interest involved; that is, the interest of the patient? Is consideration being given to that? And how can we elicit the opinion of the patient on this subject?
LORD ABERDARE: I should have thought, my Lords, that the medical profession had the interests of the patient fully at heart.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, now that medicines are being sold by Her Majesty's Government, is it not obligatory that they should be labelled correctly?
LORD ABERDARE: I am not quite sure what the noble Lord's question is aimed at but, of course, we have not done more than to raise the fee which is paid; we have not altered the principle.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, on the slightly broader question of the labelling of medicines, have the Government yet issued regulations under Section 85 of the 1968 Act? If they have been issued, may a copy be placed in the Library?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am afraid that I need notice of that question, but I will certainly look into it and let the noble Lord know.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as we have waited very patiently now for some years, could the noble Lord let us know specifically when the announcement is going to be made?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I thought I had made it plain that the professions had not yet agreed on this matter. It has been agreed within the pharmaceutical profession but it is now a matter for discussion between the pharmaceutical profession and the medical profession.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But in view of the fact that the noble Lord, I think quite erroneously, believes that the medical profession always represents the interests of the patient, may I ask him whether he still thinks that the interests of the pharmaceutical profession are identical with those of the medical profession? They are not, and that is why there is this great delay. When are the Government going to decide the matter?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the interests of the pharmaceutical profession have now been cleared, and they have agreed, but the medical profession in this matter are taking into account only the best interests of their patients.
LORD ARCHIBALD: May I ask the Minister whether it is not correct that, in addition to the Council of the Pharmaceutical Society, the Committee on Safety of Drugs and the General Medical Services Committee are also of the same view? If these three bodies have similar views on the matter, what is holding it up still further?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I hope that it will not be held up much further, in view of the fact that most people are at one on this matter.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, can the Minister state what the position would be if the pharmaceutical profession agrees and the medical profession does not agree to this? If there is failure to agree in the final analysis, what is the situation? Is this going to be taken to arbitration, as in the case of a failure to agree in the industrial field?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question which I hope will not arise.

ROLLS-ROYCE RB.211 ENGINE AND TRISTAR AIRCRAFT
2.53 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE AND MINISTER OF AVIATION SUPPLY (LORD ARRINGTON): My Lords, I should like to make a Statement about the progress of the RB.211 negotiations. As the House knows, Her Majesty's Government and Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. have been in negotiations with the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation for the supply of the RB.211 engine to power the Lockheed TriStar aircraft. We have also had discussions with the United States Government. Negotiations with the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation have been in two parts. First, Her Majesty's Government have agreed with the Lockheed Corporation to finance Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. in the development and production of the engine and to enable them to maintain the necessary support facilities throughout the life of the engine
622
—provided that we can be satisfied that there is sufficient support to enable the TriStar project to be completed.
For their part, the Lockheed Corporation have agreed to a substantial increase in the price of the engine, equivalent to some £50 million for the first 555 engines, and to annul penalties under the old contract for delay in delivery of the engine. On that basis Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. have been negotiating a new contract with the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, which is on the point of agreement. The new contract will be governed by English law. Because the RB.211 has been designed for the Tri-Star and there is at present no other significant market for it, it was clearly necessary, as part of the contract negotiations, to be sure about the future of the TriStar project itself. Given the risk involved in large aviation projects and the known problems of Lockheed, it is clear that effective support for financing the TriStar project can only be provided with the assistance of the United States Government, just as support for the RB.211 engine can only be given by Her Majesty's Government.
The United States Administration have now announced that they are seeking authority from the United States Congress to guarantee up to 250 million dollars additional credits for Lockheed, which amount they anticipate will be sufficient to assure the continuity of the TriStar project. Before providing such guarantees, the Administration will, of course, have taken steps to satisfy themselves that the other requirements for the completion of the project are met. The main outstanding point here is that it will be necessary for both Governments to be sure that the airlines customers will still buy the Tri-Star, notwithstanding the delay and the increase in price. Representatives of Lockheed and the airlines are meeting in London at this moment with Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. for detailed discussions on this point and on the arrangements for completing the RB.211 project.
Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government are continuing to finance work on the RB.211 engine and the Department of Trade and Industry is discussing with Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. arrangements to provide the company with the finance it will need to give effect to the agreement

623
with Lockheed. This will involve some £100 million for completition of the development of the engine: to the extent that costs are not covered by the price increase which Lockheed have agreed there will have to be additional support for initial production engines. Against these costs we must of course set those which would be incurred, if the project did not continue, and the profits arising from the sale of spares.
The House will appreciate that there are still problems to resolve before we can be sure that RB.211 will go ahead. Her Majesty's Government have done everything they can to establish a basis for agreement that is acceptable to all concerned. In particular, they have kept RB.211 going, and will continue to do so, in the expectation of a satisfactory agreement. An early decision from the other parties concerned is a matter of increasing urgency. Meantime, the House will appreciate that delicate and complex negotiations are continuing.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for making that Statement. I am sure, too, that the House will welcome the substance of the Statement. We welcome it on this side particularly because it appears to re-establish the commercial integrity of this country. I would offer my congratulations, if I may, to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and indeed my admiration, for the way in which he has appeared to handle this affair. It seems a very long while since the day when the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack told us that there was no difference between Rolls-Royce and a sweet and tobacconist shop on the corner.
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, one or two questions? First, he said in the Statement that £100 million would be involved for the completion of the development of the engine but that further sums would be required if the costs of production are not covered by the price increase. May I ask whether this is an open-ended commitment? If not, to what extent is it intended to support Rolls-Royce in this regard? Secondly, may I ask to what extent the possible B.E.A. TriStar order has been involved in these discussions? Would
624
the noble Lord confirm that it would be quite intolerable if any undertaking were given to compel the British Corporation to go against whatever might be their commercial judgment when they came to buy their next generation of aircraft? May I also ask what the position is now of sub-contractors? They are people who will have built parts of the engine and have not received a proper return; yet we now understand that Rolls-Royce is to receive the full cost of the engine. Is this reflected in any way in the position of the sub-contractors?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I also add our congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, on the way he has regained the initiative for this country? After a very shaky start indeed it is wonderful to hear a progress report indicating that there is some chance of getting a viable package deal going. In view of the complicated and tricky negotiations which still have to be finalised, I do not propose to ask any questions.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful both to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for what they have said. It would be churlish of me to quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, after what he said, but I think I must defend, if he needs any defence, my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. I do not think he said anything of the kind. If the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will re-read my noble friend's speech, he will find that the context of his remarks was quite different from that in which the noble Lord, I am quite sure mistakenly, sought to place them.
The noble Lord asked me three questions. As to the open-ended commitment on the costs of production, this is a firm commitment on the part of Her Majesty's Government backing up Rolls-Royce (1971) in a contract with Lockheed to produce these engines at a price upon which we have agreed. Therefore those engines will be produced. Since the collapse of Rolls-Royce—since the old board asked for a receiver to be appointed—we have carried out a great many investigations into Rolls-Royce including one by the Committee of Three which I set up to inquire into the whole position of the production of the engine and the cost of the development. I think that the

625
position now is much more known to us than it was in those days. It is very unlikely—at least, I hope so, but all these things are uncertain—that the estimates that have been made about the cost of production will be greatly exceeded. So, to that extent, there is not an open-ended commitment, but there is a firm undertaking on our part to deliver the engine at that price.
With regard to B.E.A., Lockheed have made no condition in the contract that there should be an undertaking by B.E.A. to buy the TriStar. I have only seen reports that Trans World Airlines have made some such condition. I know nothing of them. With regard to subcontractors, the position is that Rolls-Royce (1971) will be responsible for the sub-contractors. In the case of what happened before the receiver was appointed, the contractors will of course take their place with the other creditors of Rolls-Royce.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we on this side of the House should like to add our congratulations to him on what he has achieved? Could my noble friend confirm that the trial engines, which are at present in the prototype, are functioning as well as the reports tell us is the case?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend. Yes, indeed. I read a report this morning that the engines were functioning extremely well and that Lockheeds and the test pilots were very pleased with them.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am sure that we should all like to congratulate the noble Lord for the vigour and shrewdness with which he has conducted these negotiations. Can he tell us whether on the best technical advice available to him the RB.211 is now going to be the beginning of a new family of aero engines? This, it seems to me, will be of extreme importance for the development of the engine.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the only thing that I have learned after being four months in charge of this project is not to believe everything that everybody tells me. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this is a new engine, designed on a new principle. It will
626
certainly be much quieter than the existing run of engines, and to that extent I believe it has a great future.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in order to inform the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that I am ready to believe what he tells me, I ask him this question. Would he clarify the position of the £100 million, presumably credit, provided for Rolls-Royce (1971) for the purpose of continuing the production of the engine? Is not the return on this capital provision for Rolls-Royce (1971) dependent upon the financial success of the Lockheed firm? If they fail, is there any possibility of a return of the main part of the capital?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The success of this project depends on the success of this aircraft. From all accounts of those who have flown in it and seen it, this is a very good aircraft indeed. If we can manage to get the airlines to continue their contract with Lockheed which they had under the old Rolls-Royce/Lockheed contract, I do not believe that this aircraft will be anything else than a success. But, of course, there is always in this matter an element of chance. What the Government are trying to do is to weigh up the pros and cons of continuing with the project; the pros and cons of the unemployment which would be created here; the question of British prestige; the question of the failure of Rolls-Royce, and a number of other factors: and to weigh them against the money that will be spent by continuing the development. What we have tried to do, and rightly I think, is to assess all these factors. We have come to the conclusion that if the airlines go ahead with ordering the aircraft, there is a good chance that this will be a successful aircraft and that, on balance, we shall be plus, rather than minus, taken as a total.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether or not the production will go on prior to the giving by Congress of approval to the American guarantee?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the development of the RB211 has been going on ever since February when the I receiver went into Rolls-Royce, and this

627
will continue. Your Lordships will appreciate that quite a lot of money is spent every week on the development of this engine. It really is to the benefit of not only us, but of Lockheed, who are spending a good deal of money every week on the development of the TriStar itself—the airframe—that there should be a decision one way or the other. It really is urgent that the airlines should make up their minds.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not think what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, told me about the position of the sub-contractors can really be said to be satisfactory. If they are not paid in full for the goods that they have supplied to Rolls-Royce Ltd., does it not follow that, to the extent that there is a short-fall, that amount must also be added to the Government's subvention as the true cost of supplying this engine to the American company? Is this really a satisfactory state of affairs? I might add that if I was unfair to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack I would withdraw what I said. But I can only rely on what I heard him say in the debate and what I subsequently read, when he said that the rules, the law, in these matters must apply impartially
"as much to directors of world-wide companies as to the trader operating as a sweet and tobacco shop."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, in view of the grossly inaccurate reference, which has now been withdrawn, will my noble friend confirm that what I told the House then, and what I repeat now, is that from the point of view of the legality of dishonest trading the same rules apply to the directors of a world-wide company as to the owners of a sweet and tobacco shop. I never said, or implied, or was thought to imply, that there was no difference between Rolls-Royce and a sweet and tobacco shop on the High Street corner.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have never hitherto been asked to confirm the legal opinion of a Lord Chancellor, but I willingly do so. With regard to the sub-contractors, as I understand it the position is this. Ever since Rolls-
628
Royce went into receivership, the receiver has been paying the sub-contractors. There will now be new contracts between Rolls-Royce (1971) and the sub-contractors. The debts that were not paid hitherto, of course, are in the same category as the other debts of the old Rolls-Royce Company.

GREAT SOUTHERN CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MOTOR VEHICLES (PASSENGER INSURANCE) BILL
3.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Cover for liability in respect of passengers to be compulsory]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved the following Amendment:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) Where after the commencement of this Act a person uses a motor vehicle in circumstances such that under section 201 of the Road Traffic Act 1960 there is required to be in force in relation to his use of it such a policy of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, then, if any other person is carried in or upon the vehicle while the user is so using it, any antecedent agreement or understanding between them (whether intended to be legally binding or not) shall be of no effect so far as it purports or might be held—

(a) to negative or restrict any such liability of the user in respect of persons carried in or upon the vehicle as is required by section 203 of that Act to be covered by a policy of insurance; or

(b) to impose any conditions with respect to the enforcement of any such liability of the user;

629
and the fact that a person so carried has willingly accepted as his the risk of negligence willingly accepted as his the risk of negligence on the part of the user shall not be treated as negativing any such liability of the user.
For the purposes of this subsection references to a person being carried in or upon a vehicle include references to a person entering or getting on to, or alighting from, the vehicle, and the reference to an antecedent agreement is to one made at any time before the liability arose."
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to redeem a promise I made on Second Reading and to abolish contracting out of the liability which is now compulsory. As I think my noble friend behind me told the House on Second Reading, a recent decision of Mr. Justice Ackner, in a rather peculiar set of circumstances, drew attention to, rather than established, the fact that contracting out of this liability was possible. I do not throw the smallest doubt upon the correctness of the decision, which I specifically endorse. I also think that so long as insurance was not compulsory it was rational and legitimate that people should be allowed to contract out of liability; but now that social policy is to be altered by rendering insurance compulsory, I believe that public policy demands that we should abolish contracting out. For that reason I beg to move.
LORD GARDINER: My noble friends would wish to support this Amendment for the reasons so clearly expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: This matter was discussed on Second Reading. The reasons for it have been outlined again by my noble and learned friend and supported by the noble and learned Lord opposite, so I do not think that I should take up time except to recommend that the Committee should accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendment.

RATING BILL
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
3.5 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 8 [Contributions to charity instead of contributions to trade union]:
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 7, line 7, leave out ("worker") and insert ("person").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may briefly recall to your Lordships that this Amendment was moved from this side of the Committee at the beginning of consideration of Clause 5. When the Committee proceeded to a discussion on it a number of points of detail were raised, and it became clear that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if the Government had an opportunity of considering it. There were points raised about the position of a number of categories of people occupied in industry, share fishermen, people who put themselves forward as self-employed in the construction industry, sub-postmasters and one or two others, and there were questions also put about the position of the members of the Armed Forces who are explicitly excluded from the definition of "worker" that appears in the Bill now before us.
I move the Amendment to this clause at this point in our proceedings because later in this present clause I think this

631
point does not arise, or certainly, save in clause 9, we have no Amendments put down on it for some little time, and I should therefore like to ask whether it is convenient to the Government to make any comments on the points which were raised when we discussed Clause 5
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): The noble Lord has recalled the very long discussion which we had on Tuesday of last week when we debated in Committee for nearly two hours whether the word "worker" in Clause 5(1) or the word "person" as proposed in the Amendment was the more appropriate. As the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has said, the position of the Armed Forces of the Crown was discussed and we have passed the conclusions of that debate on to the Ministry of Defence. I may say about that matter at this stage, that in general the position is that any member of the Armed Forces of the Crown is able to belong to a trade union but he is restricted in taking part in trade union activities, especially collective bargaining; and of course there is no right to strike, for the obvious reason that this exercise of trade union rights would come into conflict with discipline in the Armed Forces, but he can retain his membership.
We were asked in Committee whether this was an appropriate time to consider reviewing the existing restrictions that apply to members of the Armed Forces who are trade union members or who would like to become trade union members. I think the appropriate thing to do would be to return to this matter on Clause 158. In Clause 158(1) there is a very specific definition of the word "worker". It falls into three categories, on page 118, in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). In paragraph (c) the Armed Forces of the Crown are specifically exempted. So if noble Lords feel that the members of the Armed Forces should be included, that perhaps would be the appropriate time to discuss an Amendment, when we shall also have completed our discussions with the Ministry of Defence.
The only other point I might add to what the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has asked, is that the position of sub-postmasters was raised and I explained that the crucial relationship in Clause 5 was between the worker and his em-
632
ployer, and not between the worker and the trade union, which arises later on—in Clause 63 I think. But the noble Lord told us that there is an element of the income of some sub-postmasters which comes from the Post Office Corporation. Did this amount constitute employment or not? A meeting, I understand, is taking place shortly with the sub-postmasters to discuss this and other points.
LORD LEATHERLAND: May I thank the noble Lord for the Statement he has made about members of Her Majesty's Forces and their right to belong to a trade union. I raised this question at an earlier stage. I sought a declaration as to whether they were entitled to belong to a union. This is quite without reference to any rights that they may have in negotiating as trade unionists. The statement which the Minister has made answers my point. I am satisfied with it. That, of course, does not rule out the possibility of raising it at a later stage of the Bill.
LORD SLATER: I am pleased that the Minister has been able to inform the House that talks are now taking place in regard to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith. There are 20,000-odd of these sub-postmasters, some of whom work in a dual capacity, while others just run a sub-post office without any attachments or connections with anything else. The reply we have received is most satisfactory.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I also thank the noble Lord. There has been some criticism on radio, television, and in the Press, about the slow progress of this Bill. There was some special criticism that we spent some two hours discussing whether we should change "worker" to "person". There is a matter of considerable importance behind this, and I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that the two hours spent on it were well spent.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am grateful for what has been said. I am afraid that we are not through with it yet, because there are further Amendments to change the word "person" to "worker".
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. So far as the Armed Forces are concerned, we take the point that it would be more orderly and convenient to discuss this matter at Clause 158. Am I right in thinking that there is, without any shadow of doubt, a civil right of members of the Armed Forces to belong to trade unions, even though there is not at the moment under this Bill proposed to be a statutory right? I must press the noble Lord more on the civilian aspect of his answer. It is my recollection—and the Record will show this—that there were other cases which were mentioned. I recollect raising the question of share fishermen—whether or not they were covered as workers by the Bill. There is also the case, to which reference was made, of the substantial number of people in the construction industry who put themselves forward as self-employed persons, and who work under a variety of arrangements in many of which it is fairly clear that when one looks at it as a matter of common sense the relationship with the person who provides the funds upon which they subsist is a person who has towards them an employer/employee type of relationship. The question whether or not they are covered by the Bill and have the rights in respect of trade union membership which are dealt with within this Bill, is an important one. I am conscious of the complexity of the issue in this situation in the construction industry, and I will not press the noble Lord unduly upon it if he finds it more convenient to reply to the point about the construction industry at a later time.
With regard to sub-postmasters, when I first raised the question there seemed to be a disposition to treat it as though it was something I was raising because I could not think of anything better to talk about. Examination has shown that there is a point of substance here. I am not clear what it is that is now being discussed between the sub-postmasters and the Post Office Corporation. Those are the bodies, are they not?
LORD WINDLESHAM: No. I understand that discussions are taking place with the Department of Employment to discuss with the sub-postmasters, or representatives of the sub-postmasters, the nature of the payments received from
634
the Post Office Corporation and whether or not it could be argued that these amount to a relationship of employer/employee.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: It is accepted that there is an element of doubt upon this.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Not necessarily an element of doubt. The sub-postmasters feel that there are representations they would wish to put forward and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State naturally wishes to consider these.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Does that mean that nobody at this moment can say one way or the other whether they are covered by the Bill before us? Do I understand that nobody at the moment can say or advise with certainty?
LORD WINDLESHAM: We should be able to give a much better answer to that question after the meeting has taken place.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am merely saying at this moment that nobody would care to say with certainty what the position is. We are not anxious to pursue this point at this stage. We have demonstrated that there are cases of doubt; that there are cases of considerable complexity. I have still left over the question of the construction industry, to which perhaps the noble Lord will reply. Reference was also made to policemen. What we have already established by the exchanges last Monday and to-day suggests that there is field for legitimate doubt about the adequacy of the terminology at present in the Bill.
3.17 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: The noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, will no doubt recall that, during our rather prolonged debate on the clause in which it was suggested that "person" might be substituted for "worker", I suggested that we might compromise by substituting the word "employee". He has directed the attention of noble Lords to the definition clause, and in particular to page 118, which defines a worker as a person who engages in a contract for work, for employment. If the noble Lord looks at another part of Clause 158 he will find

635
at line 30, on page 115, the word "employee". It states:
"'employee' means an individual who has entered into or works under (or, where the employment has ceased, worked under) a contract of employment"
That is precisely the same language. The definition with which we are concerned applies in Clause 118 to a worker, but also applies, in similar terms, to an employee.
If the noble Lord refers to the pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will discover that that was a suggestion I ventured to make in order to effect something in the nature of a compromise. Otherwise the language appears to be redundant. The term "worker" is used. It means, to be precise, a person, individual or employee who engages to contract for employment with an employer. The term "employee" on line 30 of page 115 describes the matter in similar terms. Would my suggestion not be advisable, in order to remove any possibility of misunderstanding—because a matter of this kind might have to be interpreted by the legal gentlemen, the Industrial Court, or whoever it may be—if a dispute should arise? Therefore, it might be better to use the term "employee", which everybody understands and about which there can be no misunderstanding whatever.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The first point which the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, put was about the Armed Forces of the Crown. He asked: Is there a civil right, if not a statutory right? Well, we enter deep water, because of course many civil rights are given by Statute. The answer is that the Armed Forces of the Crown would be excluded under this Bill if it became law unamended; and there is no actionable right (let us use that term) at present because there is no one against whom a Serviceman could enforce it. So he has no right which is enforceable in a court of law. The noble Lord asked also about workers outside the Armed Services, and in particular those in the construction industry. I understand that labour-only self-employed sub-contractors are included in the definition "worker" in paragraph (b) of the definition of "worker" on page 118.
636
The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is that the definition of "employee" a little earlier, two pages or so back, is not the same as "worker"; it covers paragraph (a) but not paragraphs (b) or (c) which are dealing with the person who performs "personally any work or services for another party"—the labour only sub-contractor is an example; and office holders, civil servants (the reference is to Armed Forces of the Crown) and so on, who are covered by paragraph (c). What we are talking about here is interpretation. The word "worker" is very clearly defined. It is spelt out in the interpretation clause. But of course when a new Bill goes on the Statute Book with such far-reaching implications as this, there are cases of interpretation. It is quite right and quite proper that these cases should be investigated. The noble Lord has raised one good example of the sub-postmasters, who are in this rather unusual position of being in the main self-employed people but in some cases receiving part of their income from the Post Office Corporation. That is what will arise in the future. I do not think there is any doubt in the Bill. What will have to be resolved is the meaning of these words applied to a whole range of activities once the Bill becomes law.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I do not propose to pursue this matter further at this stage. I think noble Lords on this side remain of the opinion that the wider term which we propose has merit. As we see it, there can be no exclusions under it. Of course, it is no argument against it to say, as one noble Lord did—I think the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack—that this would open rights which might theoretically be enforced by people who clearly would have no intention of enforcing them and have no one against whom they could enforce them; which is surely a better situation than having people who in common sense thought they had the right but who by the wording of the Statute may be deprived of it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but he is on the central point here: that "worker" implies that there is a relationship with an employer. The word "worker" is used in Clause 5 in that very specific way. So we are not speaking about a general

637
liberty to join a trade union; we are talking about an actionable right with a remedy attached. If there is to be a remedy there must be somebody against whom the right can be enforced if it is breached. Therefore, the existence of an employer is crucial.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: It appears to me that if there is nobody who can in any way impede a person in exercising a right, there can be no person against whom the right can be enforced. This does not very much matter. It is much less serious to have categories of individuals who theoretically have a right, even though there is nobody against whom they would ever wish to enforce it, than to have people who are in fact and in common sense their employers but who, because of the wording of the Statute, are precluded from enforcing the right.
However, as I was about to say, in a sense the Government have recognised this because by the terms of the third subsection of Clause 158 they have given themselves a certain latitude in respect of office holders to bring people in by Order. We on our side can let the matter rest where it is at the moment. We should still like the Government to look at the wording in this provision to make sure that there is no way in which people who might wish to enforce a right will in fact be debarred from enforcing it by the wording of the Statute. As one of my noble friends said, we may wish to return to this matter on some later clause or at a later stage of the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.26 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 7, line 17, leave out from ("charity") to end of line 18.
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 69 standing in the name of my noble friends and myself. With this, it would perhaps be to the convenience of the Committee to discuss Amendments Nos. 70 and 72. This clause says that in an agency shop agreement a worker who
"objects on grounds of conscience both to being a member of a trade union and to paying contributions to a trade union in lieu
638
of membership of it, may propose to the trade union that, instead of paying such contributions, he should agree to pay equivalent contributions to a charity to be determined by agreement between him and the trade union."
The purpose of these Amendments is to make the designation of the charity to which such money is to be paid a matter for the worker alone and not for the trade union. The purpose of this is not to say that it is no business of the trade union—I think that to a certain extent it is—but a great deal of procedure has been put into this Bill which might be left out, and this is one of the most obvious bits. It is a complicated Bill with complicated procedures and many laws, tribunals and appeals dealt with in it, and I should have thought that without much loss we could get rid of this particular point.
It seems to me that in the first place it may lead to friction—and that is something we do not want. I remember one noble Lord on the Opposition Front Bench speaking about the friction which would arise if the ordinary trade union dues collector had also to collect dues from a man in an agency shop, who was not a member of the trade union but had to pay money to the trade union. I think that friction may be caused where they both have to agree upon which charity the money shall go to; and if someone was feeling a bit bloody-minded on either side—and in such a situation it would be surprising if there were not someone feeling a bit bloody-minded on either side, if not on both sides—there could be even more friction. There is a method of deciding this: there are appeal clauses, but that seems to me to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The trade unions, obviously, may feel they have a slight claim to have a say. If you are a member of a trade union you pay to the trade union; if you are not a member of a trade union and in an agency shop choose not to be, you have to pay to the trade union; and that is right. Even though we have been told that trade unions may not wish to accept this money, nevertheless it is right that people should have to pay for the services they get from the trade union. But where it is laid down by the law—rightly or wrongly laid down—that the money should go to charity and not to the trade union, it seems to me that so

639
long as it goes to a registered charity it cannot go to the workers' own particular purpose. That is laid down towards the end of the clause, and the laws on charity are already drawn very tightly. So long as it goes to a registered charity it really it not worth our while keeping this arrangement whereby it has to be agreed with the trade union, especially bearing in mind the number of difficulties and the amount of friction involved in the extra bit of machinery that we are setting up. If there is a chance to simplify the Bill, let us take it. I beg to move.
LORD SHINWELL: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in my judgment this Amendment "takes the biscuit". In fact it takes a whole factory of biscuits. I understood that it was the desire of the members of the Liberal Party in your Lordships' House to improve this Bill and certainly not in any fashion to weaken the power and authority and prestige of the trade union movement. The Liberal Party are always talking about the need for co-operation and conciliation. Here is an example of how to disrupt and weaken the authority and prestige of the trade union movement. Let me explain how I interpret this Amendment, and I shall read out the clause, because, quite frankly, it was difficult to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in his attempt to explain the Amendment. It reads as follows:
"may propose to the trade union that, instead of paying such contributions, he should agree to pay equivalent contributions to a charity to be determined by agreement between him and the trade union."
The latter part gives the right to the trade union, deprived of the contributions, to a say as to the nature of the charity to which the contribution should be made.
Let us understand what this is all about. A person, a worker, an individual, an employee—however you care to define him—working on the shop floor, refuses to join a trade union. He is not expected to be a member; he can contract out. That is part of the proposal. I am not arguing the merits or demerits of the proposal for the moment, but the trade union having provided by collective bargaining and collective effort an improvement for every person working on the shop floor, whether he is a mem-
640
ber of the union or not, is deprived of his contribution. According to this Amendment proposed by the Liberal Party, the trade union would not only be deprived of the contribution and of the membership of this particular person (or persons, as the case may be) but also would have no say as to the nature of the charity which is to receive the contribution. Is that not just asking too much? Indeed I regard it as an insult to the trade union concerned, and to the general body of workers on any particular shop floor.
They have to work alongside a person who is a non-union person, and they may dislike it, for one reason or another. I shall not enter into the merits or demerits of their sentiments for the moment, but over and above that when a person who is a non-unionist works on the shop floor and gains benefits derived from collective bargaining it is quite wrong that the trade union should have no further say in who should receive the contribution. I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. I have not consulted with my noble friends on the Front Bench but it seems to me that they must resist this Amendment with all the power and strength at their command.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Shinwell, particularly as I regard this business, except on absolutely conscience grounds, of paying into a charity instead of paying into a trade union as being an absolutely ridiculous idea. It seems to me to be a real incitement to charities to try to persuade workers not to join a trade union. I can foresee that in the future charities may not get young people to go on long walks but may try to round up employees and simply persuade them not to join a trade union.
LORD BROWN: I am against this Amendment but it has one merit. As the Bill stands, the trade union and the worker have to agree. There may be a factory in which 200 or 300 people are making in-lieu payments to charities and in each case, presumably, there will have to be 200 agreements between the trade union and the workers as to which charity should receive each particular in-lieu payment. There may be differences in every case. The amounts are not very large, so that it has that as a

641
merit. However, I am against the Amendment on the ground that the worker is getting services from the union which are otherwise free, and it is for the union to decide to which charity the money should be paid. I would ask the Government to consider placing in the hands of the trade union alone the right to decide which charity should receive the money. That might be done at the Report stage. It would simplify administration, because the sum would be paid over to the trade union, I hope, by the employer and there would be no argument. These are delicate issues in many factories, and the less argument there is about them the better.
3.39 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: Although I think it is possible to exaggerate the importance of this Amendment, I should have thought there was a great deal to be said for the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said that she considered this whole business of the conscientious objectors and payments to charities to be a lot of nonsense. That is a view for which I have great respect, but it is not raised by this Amendment. For the purposes of this Amendment we have to assume that there is going to be provision for the conscientious objector and there is going to be a payment to charity. The question therefore remains: what is the simple way of deciding? The proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, at least has the merit of simplicity, as has the Amendment now before the Committee. Either of them would decide the matter one way or the other. But let us see how the Bill as drafted leaves it. In the end, the matter would have to be determined by the tribunal. I should have thought that every charity, as defined in subsection (3) of Clause 8, is a perfectly respectable body; and the point is, on what principles would the tribunal decide? I think there is a great deal to be said for a perfectly simple way of deciding. Of the two simple ways, shall the conscientious objector decide, or shall the trade union decide?—and I agree that those are both simple and workable—I think that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has the greater merit.
I can fully understand the trade union wishing to contest the fact that the man
642
is a genuine conscientious objector. Then, of course, that matter would have to go to the tribunal. But why on earth should not the man himself choose the charity to which his contribution is to go, if it is decided that he is a conscientious objector? I should have thought that, on the grounds of simplicity and avoiding unnecessary disputes there was a lot to be said for the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I do not think the objection of the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, to the whole clause, which I appreciate, really has anything to do with the merits of this Amendment. It seems to me that we want something simple and workable. I cannot see that anybody would suffer appreciably if this Amendment were accepted. Nor do I think the prestige of the trade union would in any way be affected if, provided that the man was a genuine conscientious objector, he himself chose the charity.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I feel that if the trade union is to be deprived of a voice here in determining the kind of charity that should benefit from conscientious objectors' contributions, we shall be letting ourselves in for a lot of extra trouble on the shop floor. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, says that in the last resort the industrial tribunal may hive to settle cases such as this. I feel that the industrial tribunal will have quite enough cases to settle arising out of direct, vigorous conflicts on the factory floor without adding the burden of this kind of dispute. Let us imagine that I work in a factory which produces perambulators, that I am a conscientious objector to paying trade union contributions, that the union is not going to have any voice in the kind of charity to which I contribute, and that I say to the shop steward, "I am going to give my money to a family planning association". That hardly seems reasonable, does it? For I am cutting away the jobs from under my fellow workers' feet; and if we come down to the basic point, the conscientious objector who is contracting out so that he can give his money to charity, is going to benefit from the vigorous trade union activity that will take place and which will involve all the rest of the workers in that shop.
LORD SHINWELL: May I ask my noble friend to take note that it is not

643
going to be confined to the trade union. The language of the clause is,
"… to be determined by agreement between him …
that is the objector
… and the trade union".
So he is going to have a voice in it along with the trade union.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Yes, but this particular Amendment would cut out the trade union voice from determining the nature of the charity to which the contribution would be made. As I say, the whole of the worker/employer relations on the shop floor are conducted between the employer and the trade union, and it is distinctly unfair to the trade union to deprive it of a voice in connection with this particular matter.
LORD BROCKWAY: I do not propose to follow the discussion started by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and carried on by my noble friend, about conscientious objectors. We have already discussed that matter. This Amendment goes much further than the conscientious objector. It refers to any worker who on any grounds determines that he will not be a member of a trade union. As the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has said, the trade unions obtain better conditions for all the workers; that applies to the non-union member as well as the union member. Surely, in the case of a worker who declines to be a member of a trade union, it is legitimate that there should be a discussion with the trade union which has gained for him all those advantages. On those grounds, with some regret—because I have some sympathy with the Liberal Party in its defence of the individual—I am opposed to this Amendment. May I just add that the Amendment refers to registered charities. At the present time Her Majesty's Government are seeking to restrict the number of registered charities, even declining registrations which were previously received. I would ask Her Majesty's Government in connection with these provisions to take a much more liberal view of the view of the charities which the trade unions and the individuals concerned might be able to consider.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I find it difficult to differ from
644
such elder statesmen as my noble friends Lord Shinwell and Lord Brockway, but I think a tremendous fuss is being made about nothing. It seems to me that once you agree—and many noble Lords on this side do not agree—that it is legitimate to contract out of being a trade unionist by payment on conscientious grounds to a charity, I cannot see why the trade union should wish to nominate that charity or have any hand in it. It seems to me that the individual is paying his blood money; he is paying the money for the work the trade union does. I think it is absolutely right that he should, but I see no point in confusing the issue by having a tremendous conference with two or three secretaries of trade unions to decide which of 150 charities he gives the money to. My own view is that so long as the money goes to the charity let the men paying it decide to which charity. I do not think this is a matter of tremendous importance, but that it is important that noble Lords who bring forward such interesting Amendments to the Bill should, where possible, be supported.
LORD SAINSBURY: I should like to seek guidance on the word "charity". I understood that there were two types of registered charity: the ordinary straightforward charity and educational charities. I can conceive that educational charities might take, for example, an extreme laissez faire interpretation of history and be critical of the role of the trade union. Therefore, I should have thought that the trade unions had a right to have a say as to which educational charity this conscience money went.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: I want to make only a very brief intervention. Noble Lords on both sides of the Committee are talking as if this were something new. In fact there are already a number of closed shop agreements in industry under which contributions to charities are made by persons who are allowed to contract out on grounds of conscience. There is a reference to this in Professor McCarthy's book on the closed shop. I think it might be helpful to have information as to whether there is consultation or agreement between the parties on this matter at the present time.
3.50 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: In dealing with this Amendment, I should make it clear that we on this side have certain doubts about the whole purpose of this clause. These doubts arise from the fact—and I say this with great respect to my noble friend Lord Brown—that we have no expectation that there will be large numbers of persons who will qualify as genuine conscientious objectors, in the sense in which we discussed them earlier. My noble friend Lord Brown mentioned the possibility of as many as 200 in one establishment, but I cannot go with him at all on that.
LORD BROWN: Two hundred in a firm which employs 40,000 is not a very large proportion.
BARONESS WHITE: With great respect to my noble friend, that would mean 200 persons who were Plymouth Brethren, Jehovah's Witnesses, or something of that nature. I should have thought it was highly improbable—unless one had a remarkable concentration in one neighbourhood—that there would be such a large number in one establishment. But we can discuss that point more advantageously on the Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
We really do not feel disposed to go along with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in his Amendment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was quite right in saying that one can take either one simple method or the other simple method. He inclined towards the Liberals' views, but if there are to be such payments at all we incline towards the other simple method. It is quite true that there is room in the Bill for endless friction, discussion, dispute and, finally, the cumbrous procedure of having to refer the lack of agreement to the industrial tribunal, and I should have thought that, on reflection, the Government might very well agree that it would be desirable not to have that situation if it can be avoided. In our view, if we are to avoid such an appeal to the law, with discussions before the tribunal and a decision passed down by it, then one must decide whether the matter is to he left entirely to the discretion of the individual or left to the straightforward decision of the trade union. In each case, the payment would be to charity after agree-
646
ment by all that the person was a genuine conscientious objector.
Let us consider the circumstances in which these payments are to be made. They are to be made because a man does not wish to join a trade union. If they were simply contributions to a charity of his own choice, then he could pay them out of his ordinary income. It is of no concern to us whether he wants to support cats, budgerigars or educational or religious charities, because that is part of his own private life. What we are talking about is not a purely private matter: it is basically, an industrial matter, between himself and the union which, for conscientious reasons, he does not wish to join. I should have thought that in that kind of relationship it is the union that should receive the money from the person. After all, the appropriate amount of money will be decided according to the contribution which the man or woman would have made, as we discussed last week. Also, it is very important that the union should have records of the persons who are paying to charity as conscientious objectors. It would be very much better, and at least as simple, if the money were paid to the trade union, and in due course the union would account for those contributions as having been paid not into union funds but to a charity. No doubt they would have to produce receipts, and so on, in the normal and appropriate way.
We consider that this whole clause should be looked at again, and, if it is to stand at all (we have not put down an Amendment, but we shall if necessary be able to do so at a later stage), then the suggestion originally made by my noble friend Lord Brown, that the money should be paid to a trade union, which should pay it to a charity, is the more desirable course.
LORD CONESFORD: May I point out to the noble Baroness, whose treatment of the argument I appreciate, that there is a difficulty in her suggestion of adopting the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Brown? As she herself pointed out, charities differ very much in their aims, and I do not suppose that any single person approves of all charities. It would be a little difficult, would it not, to compel a conscientious objector to give his contribution to a charity of

647
which he might disapprove on conscientious grounds? That is why I suggest that the real alternatives must be between what the Government now propose under the clause and what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, proposes in his Amendment.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: May we get this matter into perspective? First of all, the number of people who will exercise their right under this clause is minimal. There is another law similar to this which affects trade unions: I refer to the law relating to the political levy. When the appropriate Act was introduced, everybody provided, very brilliantly, for contracting out; but you can count on your fingers the number of people who contract out. It is one of the peculiarities of democracy. On paper you can give people opportunities to do what seems right, but it is too much trouble for them to do anything. The only difference between this Bill and the law relating to the political levy is that, instead of our having to get hundreds of thousands of signatures agreeing to contract in, we shall have to get a few people to contract out. We shall not need big rooms to store records of people who contract out of the political levy, because they are very few in number and, in spite of endeavours to increase them, the numbers, do not increase. That is why I feel confident in speaking as I have done, and I should not have said that if I thought it would increase the numbers.
The Government have introduced an interesting principle about the right to choose whether or not to join a union. Forgetting the merits of the right not to join, with which I do not agree, there have now been created three types of trade union membership: the chap who is willing to join; the chap who is unwilling to join but is prepared to pay an adjusted contribution, and the chap who is a conscientious objector, perhaps not on anti-trade union grounds. It is now said that the last type will be dealt with on a charity basis, but once a person has to pay he will not bother about the charity or about anything else. Resistance to payment for services rendered is the basis of non-unionism in this country. I am sorry that the Liberal
648
Party have moved this Amendment, because it is the old approach of absolutism which is inappropriate both in society and in trade unions. In making these special arrangements, the Government are compelling the second category of individual to accept collective responsibility. The Government are saying that you need not enjoy the fruits of cash benefits from a trade union, but you will enjoy the fruits of the negotiations and you will pay for them.
I ask your Lordships to imagine a workplace of 5,000 people, where there are rules and collective obligations—because this is the way it works; this is the way the employers want it to work, and this is the way the trade unions will have to work it: on a basis of collective responsibility. Therefore, while the man who feels that he has good conscientious grounds for saying he ought not to pay has a right to those opinions, the people who are working with him, who have created the collective situation, the situation from which he benefits, equally have certain rights.
LORD BYERS: If the noble Lord would permit me to interrupt him, may I say that this is really not the point of the Amendment. I should like to make it absolutely clear that what the noble Lord is dealing with now are the grounds for conscientious objection. These arise only when the conscientious objector has been proved to have a conscientious objection. All we are trying to do is to simplify the working of the Bill. There is no question of absolutism: we just think it would be much easier.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: The Bill lays down, as to the treatment of the objector, that he shall pay to a charity, and all we are arguing about is: who decides to which charity the money shall go? The objector could choose the charity. The most charitable people in the country probably are the working people, when you get to know them, and I would find it difficult to think of a charity at this moment to which working-class people would object; but there could possibly be some offensive ones, and the objector could be a difficult character who might easily cause trouble in the workshop. I think the basic principle is the one which relates to the second category; that is, you have

649
got to pay. You are entitled to the privileges of freedom, you are entitled to your conscientious objection, but in the last resort you have got to pay; and in the paying I think the trade unions, who are creating the very thing for which you are paying, should have some say in who you pay the money to.
4.2 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: These Amendments would, as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, explained clearly at the beginning of the debate, prevent a trade union being able to challenge the conscientious objector's decision as to which charity should benefit from the financial contribution he makes in lieu of membership; and although the trade union would have to accept the conscientious objector's right to opt out of union membership and therefore lose his financial contribution towards the union's bargaining services from which he would benefit, the Amendments would not allow the union any say on the matter of which charity the contributions should be paid to—and the Government consider it reasonable that the union should have some say. Only in an extremely small number of cases is there likely to be any dispute as to which charity a contribution should be paid. The noble Earl, Lord Dudley, reminded us that under a number of existing closed shop agreements there are provisions of this sort already where the conscientious objector, the unions and the employers have jointly agreed on the charity to which payments should be made; and we think that in most cases there will be agreement. But in the interests of good and orderly relations in the workplace, which is what this Bill is trying to achieve, it is obviously preferable that there should be voluntary agreement. But in those cases—and there will be a few cases, I hope and believe—where the union and the worker cannot agree on the charity to which the contribution should be paid, it seems better for peaceful co-existence if the problem could be taken out of the workplace, where it would only serve to poison the relationship on the shop floor, and be determined by an independent third party, in this case the industrial tribunal.
In the course of this debate we have heard the extremes of view, in a sense. This is not a major issue, of course, but there are diametrically opposed views on
650
this point. There are those who, like the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, feel that it would be better if the individual who exercises his right not to be a member could determine for himself the charity to which the payment is made. On the other hand, there are those—Lord Shinwell, Lord Leatherland and Baroness White—who feel that it would really be a better system to leave it to the union, for them to decide on the charity. What the Government are doing here is to reconcile these two conflicting interests. We accept that both the union and the individual have an interest here. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, told us quite clearly why the union have an interest: because they are negotiating wage increases and other matters which benefit all employees, whether they are conscientious objectors or not. Therefore, to that extent the union have a legitimate interest. And the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, told us why he regarded this as being within the sphere of decision of the individual. So this is a reconciliation, and I believe a reasonable one, between these two conflicting forces.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway (whose interest in this matter is well known) and Lord Sainsbury about charities, and how the charity would be selected; what would amount to a charity for the purposes of this clause of the Bill. Noble Lords will see that in the Bill there is a rather tautologous statement which says:
"In this Part of this Act 'charity' means any institution or other organisation established for charitable purposes …"
In order to help noble Lords and the Committee, I have looked further into what "charitable purposes" means, and I find that there is—
LORD CONESFORD: My noble friend left out the important word, "only".
LORD WINDLESHAM: I beg my noble friend's pardon: that should be added, certainly. I find that there is no statutory definition of "charitable purposes". It is for the High Court to decide in the last resort what purposes are or are not charitable; but in practice the Charity Commissioners, and in certain cases the Department of Education and Science, consider applications from bodies which seek to be placed on a register, and in doing so they investigate the purposes for which the charity was

651
set up they examine its constitution and they consider whether or not these purposes are likely to be regarded as charitable in the light of a very substantial body of case law going back, I believe, to the year 1601. I do not think I need deal more fully with this point (although I am equipped to) other than to say that this applies to England and Wales only, and that the position in Scotland is different.
BARONESS WHITE: Before we leave this point, could the noble Lord perhaps elucidate this a little further? What will be the terms of reference of the industrial tribunal in these circumstances? Is it going to be a purely arbitrary choice, with the members of the industrial tribunal just picking their own favoured charity, or will they have to choose between two conflicting proposals which may be put before them? It seems to us that, on practical grounds, there may well be a good deal of friction on a thing of this kind; and it seems a little difficult to know what the principles will be on which the industrial tribunal will be required to make its determination. This was one reason which inclined us to the simpler proposition that really in all these circumstances it would be much easier if the trade union were given discretion. Perhaps I may also ask the noble Lord—he tells us that he is well armed—whether a public school would come within the definition of "charitable purposes only", because that is the kind of thing which might lead to certain discussion on the shop floor.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The purpose of looking to the industrial tribunal in this particular case is to try to bring the parties together, and we hope that this will happen, as the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, said, very seldom. He told us that in his experience—and we should pay attention to it—there will be very few conscientious objectors anyway, because there will be a larger group of people, presumably, who will accept that they should pay an appropriate contribution to the union itself. Although they are not members, they will pay the contribution, so the number who will exercise this particular right to object will be small.
The industrial tribunals have been selected because they are already in existence. They have been rather suc-
652
cessful; they are somewhat informal, not requiring lawyers to appear before them; the individual may sometimes be represented by a trade union member if he wishes. Many noble Lords are familiar with them from first-hand experience. They have had many cases of industrial training, of redundancy, of selective employment repayments, and so on. They try to get the parties to agree. It will be remembered that this dispute will not reach the industrial tribunal until the individual and the union have already failed to agree. On the question of whether or not a charity would be regarded as a suitable one, or whether a public school would be regarded as a charity, that will really turn on the purposes and the constitution of the charity or institution in question. I think it is very unlikely that that will arise.
The question upon which the noble Lords have not really touched, but which I think is really the true one, is: will the union benevolent funds benefit? I do not think it is a question of distressed gentlefolk or of public schools, which would tend to be included in closed agreements. Whether or not an institution is recognised to be charitable is in the last resort a matter for the High Court but in the first resort it is a matter for the Commissioners to see whether conditions for registration are fulfilled or not.
LORD SLATER: The noble Lord did make reference to the two sides, the trade union and the conscientious objector, having to agree on the contribution. But has thought been given to the time factor involved? No doubt the noble Lord will remember that I cited a particular instance: in so far as the trade unions are concerned, if it goes beyond a certain period of time the individual becomes out of financial commitment, and therefore is not due for any form of benefit; he cannot get the benefit because he has become a non-financial member. What is the time factor here between the two parties, in determining what the charity should be to which his contribution should go? Is it to be two, three, or four months, and then passed on to the Industrial Court for a decision upon it? If that could be clarified we should know where we were; but at the moment I am at a loss to know where we stand if the contribution is to go to a charity on agreement between the two parties,

653
because they have to carry out a form of negotiation.
LORD BROWN: This is an extremely trivial issue. I am with Lord Conesford and the noble Lords here. This rag-end should not he left lying about; it may cause a great deal more trouble. The Minister has made a long speech envisaging the industrial tribunal and even the High Court being brought in on an issue which, I should say, will involve a very small number of people. It seems unnecessary to envisage all this happening over such a trivial thing. I wish to see the unions make the decision, but if the Government are not prepared to accept that, then I would go along with the Liberal amendment and make the workman decide. But the decision should not to be left between the two, so that the opportunity is open—even if only a trivial number of people is involved—for legal proceedings. It would be a terrible thing to do that for such a trivial issue.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It is all very well announcing that that is not the way to do it. The Government have given a great deal of thought to this and have tried to pay careful attention to both points of view. They have come to the conclusion that both the individual worker and the union have a legitimate interest in practice. My feeling is that the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, is the one to which we should listen here. People are prepared to be firm, and they are prepared to be reasonable. They are prepared to agree upon what should be a suitable charity without going through a long procedure with the industrial tribunal, and so on. But if there is the one case in a thousand where people cannot agree, there really must be some way of resolving the difference. That is what this part of the Bill does.
The time factor is not really within the control of the industrial tribunal. If the individual will not agree with the union and is prevaricating—he is playing for time—we must remember that he is then in breach of contract with his employer, in an agency shop situation. Under Clause 10 the employer has agreed with the union that all his employees in a particular unit of employment will either be members of the union or will make an appropriate contribution in lieu of union membership. That may be by way of
654
a payment to the union funds or it may be—in the small number of cases we have been discussing—a payment to charity. He has agreed upon that with the union and furthermore he has agreed that it will be an explicit term and condition of employment with each individual workman that he will either join the union or make an appropriate payment in lieu. Therefore, if the individual prevaricating and has not done either of those two things, he is in breach of contract of employment, and it is through that avenue that the matter may be pursued.
LORD BYERS: It is surprising what difficulties one can get into by trying to be helpful. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was in any way justified in the outburst he made. He got it right in one part of his speech when he said that he thought that it was the aim of the Liberals to improve the Bill and not to weaken the prestige and power of the trade unions. That is exactly our situation, but I thought the outburst revealing when he went on to say that an example of how to disrupt and weaken the authority of the trade union movement was to deprive the trade union movement of the right to have a say in the vital policy decision as to where these contributions should go. That is giving this particular Amendment an importance it does not deserve. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, is quite right. We looked at this procedure and thought that it was a very heavy one and that it would be much easier, in the very few cases there would be, for someone to make the decision, and that that decision should be made by the man who has to pay the contribution to the charity.
However, that was an effort at simplification. We should be quite prepared to look at the other proposition: it might well be better—although we think it is marginally worse, on the face of it—that the union should make the decision. But it seems fantastic to consider the effort that might be involved over one of these cases going to appeal and so on, when in fact it could be decided by the worker or the union. We should be prepared to withdraw this Amendment and look at it from that point of view. I assure the House that this was merely an attempt to simplify what we consider to be very unwieldy procedure.
LORD SHINWELL: If the noble Lord, Lord Byers, imagines that my moderate observations may be described as an "outburst" he has not heard anything yet.
LORD BYERS: I listened to the noble Lord for many years in another place and I have known for many years exactly what was going to come. My purpose at the moment is to withdraw the Amendment before the Committee.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.20 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: We have spent some time on an Amendment which has drawn attention to complexities which some noble Lords have suggested might well be proved in the event to be exaggerated. But on considering whether this clause shall stand part of the Bill I want to draw the attention of the Committee to a more fundamental point. It is whether we are wise in leaving in the Bill this provision to deal with the problem of conscience in the way that it stands. Last week I ventured to raise this issue with the Committee and to initiate a preliminary discussion on it—because it is an important issue, from the points of view of both principle and its practical effects. I am bound to say that last week's debate and further consideration of the Hansard
record of it have strengthened my belief that the Government ought to look very much more closely at this issue if they are to avoid real difficulties arising on its operation. I hope that the Government will look closely at this for reasons that I shall try to set out.
I do not want to cover all the ground that I covered last week, but will briefly summarise what I then said. I began by emphasising that nothing that I said, nothing that was said on behalf of my noble friends, ought to be taken as suggesting that we did not attach the greatest importance to the safeguarding of the individual's conscience in all appropriate cases. I pointed out that in general the statutory safeguard for the individual's conscience arose on matters either of great public importance, when a man was making a most solemn declaration on oath or by affirmation, or when it was a question of his embarking on some act
656
involving the destruction of a human life which inevitably went to the very foundation of his ethical beliefs and personality. I suggested that, when looked at against such a background, to bring in the consideration of conscience over a matter of joining a trade union involved an appreciable change of scale.
The noble Lord who spoke for the Government on the previous Amendment laid particular emphasis on the speech of my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath. I agree entirely with what Lord Cooper said: that this is a situation well known to industry and one which I think nobody would suggest has ever given rise to any real difficulty. The essence of it is that there are individuals belonging to certain religious groupings who have an objection to joining a trade union, or to joining any association of people not entirely of their religious beliefs. I am sure that the experience of my noble friend Lord Cooper is the same as mine: that those very small groups are respected by their workmates, and invariably they have great respect for the trade unions. In many cases, with a little prompting, they will make a donation, not to charity but to the funds of the union, to show their good will. So this is not a problem which, on the face of it, necessarily requires statutory provision. One would think that it might be a question of trying to meet the situation of these folk in some other way which, in the light of experience, would prove as satisfactory—for I think that our debate so far has indicated how very much wider this can go if we start to put it on the basis of a statutory provision.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn—and I refer to him with some hesitation, for he does not appear to be in his place—is on record as taking the view that it would be possible to have a conscientious objection if the union to which an individual belonged took a particular course in regard to registration under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, made the point that in his view it would be permissible to have a conscientious objection to joining one trade union but not to joining another. He took as an example the conscientious objection that he would feel in circumstances where he was under some pressure to join a union which he regarded as

657
being Communist-dominated. If one reflects for a few minutes, one sees that we are going very much wider than the group of people or characters of opinion or difference with which most of us thought we were dealing when we initially looked at this clause. For instance, a difference of opinion over a conscientious objection of the kind to which the right reverend Prelate and Lord Conesford referred might be expressed in an atmosphere far more acrimonious than that in which one is considering a case of what I may call, for purposes of simplicity, the genuine conscientious objector or religious conscientious objector. I am anxious that the Committee should consider very carefully whether we want to put on to the Statue Book words which (if members of the industrial tribunal took the same view as expressed by the right reverend Prelate or the noble Lord) would substantially widen this group of people and, moreover, completely transform the character of this group and its whole relationship with the trade union movement.
I referred to the fact that in other aspects of industrial life there are grounds which I should regard it as permissible to call conscientious, but which, so far as I am aware, do not have statutory protection. I gave the example of a manager of a supermarket who finds suddenly that he is going to sell alcoholic drinks; or a man, a strict pacifist, who finds that the engineering firm in which he works has turned itself over to defiance contracts. I take now another example to which I did not refer earlier and which I think can be used to show that there are individuals who have very strong convictions, even though they do not always refer readily to their consciences to justify them. A few months ago there was an industrial dispute in the electricity supply industry. During the dispute a London newspaper published a cartoon purporting to show an electricity supply worker. I do not wish to elaborate on the cartoon; I believe that it will be in the memory of many. I think that the most sensible thing was done by the electricity supply workers. They invited the cartoonist to meet them to see how far they resembled his caricature. But the putting forward of that cartoon for publication roused very strong feelings on the part of the production workers
658
who were required to process it. I make no bones about saying that if I had been one of the workers required, for example, to make the block for that cartoon I should have felt the strongest and most bitter objection to doing so. I should have felt it was a prostitution of my skills as a worker to be required to do that, but not that I was entitled to advance a conscientious objection to doing the work that had been assigned to me.
I give that as an example of so many cases which can arise where as individual might feel intensely upon an issue and could propose, if he were so disposed, to represent it as an issue of conscience; yet we have not thought it right—and so far as I know nobody proposes to think it right—to give statutory protection to that sort of individual conviction. But we are well on the way to giving to strongly held convictions on particular points of trade union policy the status of a right or the status of "conscience" for the purpose of withdrawing from a trade union.
I think that we shall run into difficulties if we do not look at this matter closely. One difficulty we shall run into is a cynical treatment of conscience itself or of the claim to resist an action on grounds of conscience. I do not relish the propect which could arise if we go along the path that we seem to be disposed to take. My noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, or I or some other general secretary will be rung up by a branch secretary who says:
"Five of my members are troubled in their consciences about the speech you made last week, or the decision which the conference took, or the article which you wrote for the union journal"
and will go on to say "I am trying to do something about their consciences."
Within a trade union strong differences of opinion do arise: it is quite inevitable. They have to be argued out in a good spirit, and I think we are in danger of complicating the situation greatly if we do no try to confine the operation of this clause in a fairly strict and rigorous manner. Already under the Bill the Government have insisted on conferring a statutory right to be non-unionist. I hope we are not in danger of going further and casting some kind of moral lustre on being a non-unionist. I trust

659
that we can examine this matter. I am sure there is a serious point here which merits close examination.
4.32 p.m.
LORD PEARSON: It has been said that some attempts to contribute to this discussion from these Benches would be welcome, and it is for that reason that I venture to make certain suggestions not about matters of general policy or substance but about matters of form and the requisite statutory machinery. It seems to me that these three clauses, Clauses 7, 8 and 9, have certain weaknesses in that respect. A new system— I think it is a brand new system—is being introduced, of workers being allowed under a certain form of proposed agreements, to make contributions in lieu of membership. It is a fairly simple idea, and one would have thought that if the idea were right it ought to be possible to devise suitable, clear-cut statutory machinery for implementing the proposals. It might be a considerable advantage if that could be done, and possibly if it were successful it would have two advantages. One would be to shorten the Bill to some extent. I am sure we should all like, if possible, to shorten and simplify this Bill, even if only by the substitution of one clause for three. Another possible advantage, if it is an advantage—and that is a policy question—would be that at the moment, so far as I understand this clause, everything is left over to be negotiated and agreed
ad hoc in relation to each particular agency shop contract that may be concluded in the future. That will need a good deal of time and may generate a certain amount of friction, whereas if you could have hard and fast, clear-cut statutory machinery for the assessment, collection and payment of these proposed contributions, a good deal of time and friction might be avoided.
The first step—and, I would have thought, not a difficult one—would be to have a statutory formula defining what the amount should be. That does not seem difficult, subject to certain possible qualifications. The basic principle would be that the man who opts for this relief should pay by way of contributions the same sum as he would have paid by way of subscription had he been a member of the union. It may be that some
660
deductions are required. One seems to be included at the end of Clause 7(3),
"excluding any such contributions which (subject to his giving any requisite notice) he would not be obliged to pay."
It may be that any optional subscriptions or contributions ought to be left out of account. Otherwise it does seem possible to have a clear definition in the Bill as to what the amount is to be; and that would be an important first step which would not then have to be left to be negotiated for each separate agreement made afterwards.
Then there is a further step. Whether it can be taken or not is a matter of policy, but if it can it would greatly simplify the machinery. If it were possible to authorise or require the employer to deduct from the worker's wages the amount of the particular contributions—. I think it would be for the union to assess what the amount should be in the first instance: but only in the first instance, because there would be some possibility of raising the question afterwards—the rest would follow very easily. The employer, having deducted those sums, would pay them over to the appropriate recipient. The appropriate recipient would normally be the union: but if the worker, for reasons of conscience—and I will say something about that in a moment—claimed that his contribution should not be paid over to the trade union but to some charity named by him, then the next step would be easy and the trade union would either acquiesce in or object to his request. If they acquiesced, the money would be paid over without more ado to the charity named by him. On the other hand, if the union raised an objection and persisted in it, then the dispute would have to go to the industrial tribunal.
In the meantime, the money would have been paid. That is an important point, because as I understand the provisions as they stand in the Bill at present, there is great scope for the astute and not too conscientious worker who may raise some dispute, to spin it out for weeks and months and, in the meantime, not to make any payment. If before the end of that period he chooses to transfer to some other employment, how are you going to get the money out of him? Therefore, I would venture to put forward this idea of firm, hard and fast statutory

661
machinery to avoid those disadvantages. If the two steps that I have mentioned can be taken in the sphere of policy, namely, to define in principle what the amount should be; and, secondly, if it is possible to impose upon the employer the burden (if it is not too severe a burden) of collecting the money by deduction from wages, then the rest follows quite simply and easily.
The other point I want to make is that if something is going to depend on the worker's grounds of conscience, it is very important, at any rate from the judicial point of view, to have some definition of 'what is meant by those grounds of conscience. What kind of conscience is it to be? Is it to be religious conscience only? That would be one easy formulation; and, if so, it could be said that that is the only kind of conscience which is admissible. Does it include political conscience; and, if so, how far does it go? It would be very difficult, I think, for the courts, if they did not have any statutory definition to guide them, to know where they are. They would have to make guesses; and if different courts made different guesses, that would not be at all surprising. So I ask: if it is admissible to bring in matters of political conscience, how far will it go? Many examples have been given already, hut there are two that occur to me. First, someone might say that he was not willing to contribute to a union because he reasonably believed that for the moment the union was controlled by people of the Communist persuasion. He might reasonably believe—or, whether reasonably or not, he might genuinely believe—that there might be some outside interference with the affairs of the union. That is one case. Then there is the other case, where a man is a very keen politician; he may be a true blue Conservative politician, and regards his union as supporting the Opposition Party. Even though he may not have to contribute directly to the political levy he may nevertheless think, "If my money goes to this union, the union will be helped, and it will be giving general support to the Opposition Party; and therefore, indirectly, I shall be supporting the Opposition Party and supporting a cause in which I do not believe." I am not for a moment suggesting what the answers to these questions ought to be,
662
but I suggest, in fairness to those who ultimately will have to decide what is meant, that some further statutory guidance, by way of definition, ought to be given.
4.43 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: I think the whole Committee will agree that our debate has been enriched by the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, and I am sure that it was universally welcomed. I wish only to give my point of view on this clause. The matter was stated with great fairness by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, and I think it my duty to the Committee to make my view, which is sincerely and very strongly held, equally clear. I am not, of course, disputing for one moment the plea of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, that there should be more guidance to the tribunals and the court; though I want to say quite clearly that I do not think that the conscientious objection can be limited to religious grounds. I hold strongly, from the parallel of an argument of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that it is possible to have a respectable conscientious objection to joining a particular union, and I think it only right to give some indication of why I take this view.
It had not been very important, until we got to these questions of closed shops and so forth, and I know how members on both sides of the Committee desire, very naturally, to avoid discussing clauses in advance. Nevertheless, we all know that there is, later on, a clause for a strict closed shop in which membership of a particular trade union is to be universal, and from which the only escape is this conscientious ground. I ask fair-minded members of the Committee to picture an attempted compulsion of a man to join a particular trade union. I do not think that many would have difficulty of conscience if the union were engaged in ordinary trade disputes. But suppose that the union is under Communist domination—and some trade unions have been, and probably still are, under Communist domination. May I say that in my long interest in Communism and its dangers I have received the greatest assistance from trade union leaders, who have great knowledge of this subject? But what are some of these Communist-dominated trade unions doing? One thing they do

663
from time to time is to indulge in political strikes. They may be short strikes, but they are strikes to overrule the will of Parliament—no less. Others are engaged in activities which, in the opinion of those best able to judge, are designed and calculated to bring lasting injury to this country. All these things may be in the mind and experience of a man invited, or told, that he will be compelled to join a particular union if he is to carry on a particular occupation.
LORD PARGITER: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, does not wish to be unfair. A man may carry on his occupation in more than one place. It is a question of his occupation in a particular place; therefore the matter should not be confused. He is not denied the right to carry on his occupation; he may be denied the right to carry it on at a particular establishment.
LORD CONESFORD: I welcome that intervention, which I know is honestly intended. But, of course, it all depends on whether the occupation happens to be in a monopoly. Take a man engaged in the transport industry in London, for example. If he is excluded from one particular union (I am not saying that the particular union concerned is of the type I have just described), if it is the union controlling a monopoly occupation, it could deny a man his livelihood. I say that if we recognise conscientious objection at all—and I believe that the Government are right to do so—that conscientious objection must extend to joining a particular trade union. A man can have such a conscientious objection although he does not subscribe at all to any of those crank sects that prohibit him from joining any body of any sort. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, that under this clause we are discussing a most important issue; and I want to make it absolutely clear that in my view the conscientious objection must extend to an objection to joining a particular trade union.
4.50 p.m.
LORD SLATER: I am sorry that this clause is part of the Bill. I am also sorry to have had to listen to the speech made about Communists by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford. May I impress on noble Lords that we had, as a national union,
664
two General Secretaries who were members of the Communist Party in this country, but they were the most outstanding trade union leaders in this country, and negotiated on behalf of their membership to the best of their ability and arrived at agreement without any trouble inside the industry. It appears therefore that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has fallen into the same trap as did some members of his own Party in the other place: that every time they look under the bed they are looking to see whether there is a Communist underneath. That is the unfortunate position so far as people like Lord Conesford are concerned, when we are talking about Communism.
I was delighted to hear the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, from the Cross-Benches. It was full of fruit, full of ideas, full of proposals, trying to ease the position so far as the Government were concerned, and suggesting what should be done to improve upon this particular Bill. But the purpose and object of trade unions in this country is like that of a political Party. The purpose and object of a trade union is to try for 100 per cent. membership, if that is at all possible; but it does not always happen in that way. It is true that conscience can be flexible, and people can exercise their conscience in so many ways that they will find an outlet, even if this Bill goes through in its present state. In the same way, the C.B.I. tries to get 100 per cent. membership from industry.
I should like to conclude on this note: the clause talks about charitable causes and charitable organisations. The trade unions in this country have religiously contributed over the years to charitable organisations, whenever it has been possible, from the finances at their disposal, and this will continue. I know that the noble Lord who is in charge of this particular clause has given serious thought to all its aspects, and wishes to be as reasonable as possible. But when we have members who have spent their lifetime within the trade union world, we feel that we must defend its position and its membership, when we have to listen to observations made by certain people up and down this country, who say that, because the stand that a trade union leader may take is not the stand that

665
ought to be taken, we ought to be moving in a different direction altogether and trying to give support to the Government when they seek to introduce legislation of the type we have in front of us at the moment. Therefore I support my noble friends, Lord Delacourt-Smith and Lady White, who are in my opinion putting forward very constructive arguments as to why this particular clause should not remain in the Bill. It would be better for everyone if it were deleted from the Bill.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I am absolutely against this clause, and I think the Bill would be much better without it. I wish to comment on the utterly sincere speech by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, with which I do not wholly agree, though I sympathise with some of his reasons for making it. But what does the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, suggest is the way of overcoming or changing a trade union where the leadership is completely Communist and may be destructive? We have had leaders who have been Communist and who have changed, and who are great leaders—Les Cannon was one of them, I believe—so the whole subject is very complicated. I believe that there was also a time when the Electrical Trades Union was Communist-dominated. Then there was a movement to get more moderate people to attend the meetings and to vote, and they changed the leadership. The only way for workers to act, in a situation where they feel that the men at the top are not the people they want, is to go to the meetings and vote, and to change the leadership.
I wish to add only one more thing. My noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath made a very trenchant contribution when he said that this clause deals with three types of worker: the worker who belongs to a trade union; the worker who by this Bill is allowed not to be a member of a trade union, and the worker who has real conscientious objection to belonging to a trade union. These represent three different aspects of the subject, and this Bill really gives a license to print consciences—if noble Lords understand what I mean. Anybody will be able not to join a trade union and, instead, to pay to a charity, and it need not be a case of real con-
666
science. I am therefore absolutely against this clause.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: The late Henry Ford had a stock reply which he gave to any customer who was rash enough to wish to choose the colour of the Ford car that he proposed to buy. That reply was: You can have a car of any colour you like, provided it is black." This, I suggest, is almost exactly the attitude adopted by the Opposition in regard to this excellent clause. The person who belongs to a particular industry is to be compelled either to join a union or, if he does not join it, to pay the dues to a union, or to have chosen by the trade union the charity to which he will have to pay the equivalent of his dues. That, to my mind, does not exactly amount to liberty. I am in the fullest agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, in thinking that if there is to be any alteration made to this clause at later stages of the Bill—and some alteration may well be desirable, if not indeed necessary—it should be to widen tile basis of exemption rather than to narrow it, because on the Benches opposite, despite all the suavity of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, there appears to be a pretty grim unanimity in decrying the liberty of the individual. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Conesford, if I am right in understanding that he would like conscientious objection to be valid only if applied to membership of one particular union—am I mistaken?
LORD CONESFORD: Yes, quite mistaken.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am glad to hear it.
LORD CONESFORD: The conscientious objection mentioned in the clause can be to joining a particular trade union.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am grateful to my noble friend. There should also be grounds rather wider than religious grounds, although the religious grounds themselves are very important. At earlier stages of this Bill the case was mentioned of the Closed Brethren, who are fairly numerous in the North-East of Scotland. They carry what some people would call religious convictions to the point of fanaticism, but still, are

667
they not to have those convictions considered? They carry them to the point of refusing to eat with persons of other denominations; they do not vote, and they will not join any association, even a gardening society or something of that kind. All this may seem to us on both sides of the House to be rather ridiculous.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but, so far as I am aware, they do take wage increases.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: I am afraid that I cannot see the relevance of that. Are they going still to be permitted to follow their consciences, how-ever inconvenient it may he to a certain number of their fellow citizens? If we do not have liberty of conscience, which appears to be denied by the Benches opposite, then we are rapidly leading towards a Hitler-like régime. Therefore I think that the Government are very properly insisting on the right of the individual not to belong to a trade union, although they are equally rightly insisting that if he does not wish to do so, he cannot make money out of his refusal to do so. I hope that the Government will not in any way give way on this clause and that the Committee will ensure that it is retained in the Bill. As I say, any alteration that may be found necessary at a future stage of the Bill ought to be rather in the direction of widening the opportunities for not belonging to a trade union than of restricting them.
LORD PARGITER: I wonder whether the Government are really sincere in their desire for industrial peace, because there is nothing more likely to create friction than widening this clause. If we are going to have conscientious objection on religious grounds, that is fairly narrowly drawn and can be fairly interpreted and I am sure that most trade unions would be happy to do so. But if we are going to allow anyone to object to a union because it has a Communist member on its executive, I wonder where we are getting. It does not matter who are members of the executive, whether they are members of the Communist Party, the Labiour Party or even the Conservative Party; they are all bound by the rules of the union, and under the Bill the
668
union would be registered and the rules approved by the Registrar. Members of the executive, whatever the complexion of their politics, will have to operate in accordance with the rules. If we are going to get under the bed and find out the religious and political opinions of members of a trade union executive and make that an excuse to say, "I have a conscientious ground for objecting to joining the union" then there is going to be trouble.
The best way of ensuring industrial peace is to draw this clause as narrowly as possible. If it is drawn narrowly, then it can be operated, but if it is drawn widely there will be disputes upon every occasion. Let us have some sense about this. There have not been many difficulties in the past. I know that members of two organisations—the Plymouth Brethren and the Jehovah's Witnesses—generally object to belonging to any other organisation. We are not objecting to that; but if we are going to widen it to almost any person on almost any ground, where are we going? If the matter goes to the union and then to the tribunal, what sort of guideline will there be to deal with cases of this kind? It is in everybody's interest that this clause should be narrowly drawn. In fact, it would be much better if it were not in the Bill at all.
5.2 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: Before the Government reply, may I raise a matter of which I have given the Government notice and which arose out of the previous clause? I think this would be the most convenient time to clear up the difficulty relating to the Government's expressions of opinion, which are many and varied, as to the right of a trade union to use money received from a non-member for political purposes. This question was raised by my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I quote from Hansard, because the last time I raised the matter it was suggested that we ought not to rely on our memory. I quote from col. 462, where my noble friend said:
"May it"—
this kind of contribution—
"be used for political purposes …".
"LORD DRUMALBYN: These funds cannot be used for political purposes, and the Bill so provides."
"BARONESS WHITE: … I am not sure to which part of the Bill the noble Lord was referring."
"THE LORD CHANCELLOR: … the answer is that she will see it printed in Clause 7(3)."—[Col. 466.]
I looked at that subsection while my noble friend was replying and it did not seem to me, in my ignorance, that the proposition was self-evident. I therefore asked [col. 467]:
"I am asking the noble and learned Lord whether he would be good enough to look at this again. …"
Then, after an appropriate passage of time, when no doubt an opportunity of consultation was taken, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said:
"While we are talking about conscience, I regret to say that I misled the Committee on the: question asked by the noble Lord. Lord Shinwell. There is nothing in the Bill which limits the purposes to which a union may put contributions made by non-members."
And he added:
"I hope that noble Lords will accept my apology.—[col. 486.]
One would have thought that the position at that point was pellucidly clear. The reply and apology of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, explained two matters: (a) why the wrong information had been given in the first place, and (b), why a wise Minister like the Secretary of State for Defence should show hesitation, as he did to-day, in confirming the legal view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. But then unfortunately there was a later intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who doubted the proposition that had previously been made and who said:
"I was saying that I was not present when that was discussed with my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and I think that he and I ought to get together and sort it out."— [col.605.]
LORD WINDLESHAM: I have done so, too, and, in doing so, as I should explain to the Committee, I find that I was dealing with a separate point. I was dealing with the political levy and whether or not that would be included in the appropriate payment. The noble Baroness, Lady White, and I were correct in agreeing that it would be excluded. I was then told by noble Lords opposite that what I said contradicted what had earlier been said by my noble friend, and that turned out not to be the case.
LORD DIAMOND: I myself rose after the noble Lord's intervention to suggest that this was a matter which ought to be cleared up, and the noble Earl the Leader of the House said:
"I think noble Lords opposite may have a point here. What I would suggest is that we should look at Hansard tomorrow… [col. 606.]
et cetera. All I am asking for is final clarification. I am not asking for anybody's view to be withdrawn, if it referred to a different matter. I am not seeking any apologies. But this is a matter of considerable importance. We on this side think that the Bill is absolutely clear and we should not like any lack of clarity to be introduced, however unintentionally, by speakers opposite.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As I was listening to the earlier part of the debate, before the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, spoke, mainly about conscience, I recalled the words of Richard III:
"My conscience hath a thousand several tongues,
And every tongue brings in a several tale."
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, in his opening speech—a very reasonable and, indeed, profound opening speech—touched on some of the underlying worries of the trade union movement about this Bill. He was not confining himself to the narrow interpretation of this clause, but to the wider issues which it raised. I should like to reply in the same way, because I do not think it is right, if we are to look at what really lies behind the Bill, to confine ourselves to the arguments which arise on what is, after all, a relatively detailed aspect of the Bill.
So what is the present situation? It is that in perhaps 40 per cent. of British industry there are closed shop arrangements. These are very often of convenience to both sides, the employer and the trade union concerned, and that is why they have been agreed. So there are reasons of industrial convenience in some cases, though not all, leading to greater stability which are brought into the balance in favour of this arrangement. But, at the same time, there are on the record cases of hardship where individuals have suffered substantial harm and have had no means of redress. In

671
a number of these closed shop arrangements there are conscience clauses.
I referred earlier to a recently entered into closed shop agreement by British Rail with three railway unions which has exactly this clause, and indeed uses the word "conscience" in the clause. I also said that only 5 people out of the total work force of 207,000 had established grounds of conscience. As a result, a number of employers, some of them with up to 44 years' service, have either been dismissed or have been threatened with dismissal. We do not believe it is right that somebody's employment should be made conditional on whether or not he joins a union. We believe that in an overwhelming majority of cases the individual worker will want to join a trade union; we hope that he will; and indeed this Bill in subsection (5) of Clause 5, which was added on Report specifically for this purpose by the Secretary of State, is a declaration of intent that the Government wish people to act upon their right to join a trade union. That is the existing situation.
But here we have in the Bill a completely new approach. It is difficult where there is a new concept to get to grips with it; to visualise what it is, how it will work, and what are likely to be the advantages and disadvantages. What this part of the Bill is doing is to bring together three strains. It is bringing together the right of the individual to join a trade union of his choice, or not to join; the fact of his social responsibility as a member of a group whose standard of living is likely to benefit from the negotiations which are carried out by the trade union on his behalf: and the need for stable and collective bargaining throughout industry. The solution to this is provided by the agency shop. It is a completely new concept; we have not had anything like it before.
The agency shop, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and my noble friend the Earl of Mansfield reminded us, contains within it these two categories of people. We must not allow ourselves to get into the position of thinking that it is only on grounds of conscience that a man can stand outside the union: not at all. By far the larger number are going to be the men
672
who say: "I do not wish to join the union because I have objections to doing so". A man need not say what those objections are. There is nothing for him to prove. All he need say is: "I do not wish to join the union". And then he must make an appropriate contribution in lieu of his trade union due, which will normally be the same amount that the trade union member is paying, less the optional element.
So we are left only with this final residual category of the man who says: "On grounds of conscience, I am not even willing for the amount of money that I am to pay to go to the union. I do not think that is right; I have objections of conscience and of principle to that being done." So we now arrive at this difficult question of what is meant by "conscience". We have established, I think, that it is going to be a narrow ground, because it is not the first man who says, "I want to join"; it is the one hundredth man. The tribunal will look into a fundamental question—and this answers a question that has been raised by a number of noble Lords in the debate. It will look at the question: is the objection to joining a union, or is it an objection to what the union do? The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, touched on this and suggested that some union members may say: "I do not like what my union general secretary or president has been doing, and my conscience is such that I ought to opt out." I do not think that considerations of that sort will arise.
The system of industrial tribunals has worked well. There is a lawyer as chairman, a solicitor or barrister of several years' standing as the representative of employers, and a representative of the trade union movement. They are informal bodies, and have been regarded generally as fair minded on issues of redundancy, industrial training and other matters that they have to consider. What they will have to address their minds to, in the light of their industrial experience, first, and in the light of the particular case, secondly, is: what is equitable in the circumstances? We can look at what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told us on a number of occasions, and repeated in his speech at Aviemore to the Law Society of Scotland over the weekend: the law

673
is not something archaic and mysterious; the law is merely codified common sense.
We have here the well established concept of what is regarded as reasonable, and this is the test that will be applied by the industrial tribunals. They will be in touch with one another. I understand that they have periodical conferences, so that these matters can be discussed. A body of case law will be built up.
Let me say, I think on behalf of all noble Lords in the Committee, how grateful we were to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson. As he said, the Law Lords have a considerable contribution to make to our consideration of this Bill. The noble Lord asked about the method of collecting the contributions which are made in lieu of trade union subscriptions, the amount and questions arising from those two points. Let me say a word or two about the method. This will be a matter for agreement between the employer, the worker and the union, and may be included in the agency shop agreement under Clause 10. In the case of the man we are discussing at the moment, who has conscientious objections, there will be three alternatives. The first would be that the employer would deduct the appropriate amount and pay it over to the charity direct, notifying the worker and the union that he had done so, perhaps quite informally by sending a copy of the bank transfer; secondly, the worker might pay the money to the union which would pass it on to the charity, notifying the worker that it had done so; or the worker himself might pay to the charity direct, obtaining a receipt to show to the union and the employer. While the obligation to make payment is clear and specific, with appropriate enforcement provisions in the Bill, the method by which payment is made is a matter for mutual convenience between the parties, so an analogy could be made perhaps between the way in which these payments are made and the way in which a man's remuneration is paid. It is a term of his contract of service that he should receive remuneration at an agreed rate. This is a binding legal obligation. But the method of payment, whether it shall be in cash, by bank transfer, 'by Giro, and weekly or monthly, is not a matter for statute but for mutual convenience.
674
On the question of the amount, the noble Lord felt that there was a case for settling the amount in some way in the Bill, but there is a fairly clear-cut formula in Clause 7 which sets out in some detail (we discussed this on Thursday night) what the maximum amount will be. It cannot be in excess of the normal union subscription. The difficulty about defining precisely in the statute is that one would have to try to put a figure on the benefits the non-unionist had obtained from collective bargaining. This would vary considerably from one case to another, but I can tell the noble Lord—and I hope this will go some way to meeting him—that on the question of collection, which seems to us crucial, the method by which payment is made will vary. I have already said, in answer to an earlier Amendment concerning lists of non-union members, that the Government intend to look into the possibility of introducing a provision which will meet the noble Lord's second point, and will consider automatic deduction of the appropriate contribution from wages and salaries of a non-member where he agrees that this would be appropriate That undertaking was given to my noble friend Lord Amory and to the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, in the course of the debates last week.
I have spoken, I am afraid, for some little time in reply to this general debate. I could reply now to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, on his somewhat separate point about the political purposes to which contributions might or might not be made. It is a lengthy and detailed answer; there are complicated points of law here. Alternatively, I could answer him on the Question, That Clause 9 stand part. Since the point arises out of Clause 7 we should be no more out of order in discussing it on Clause 9 than we are now. But I am in the hands of the Committee.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Before the noble Lord sits down, and without prejudice to anything my noble friend Lord Diamond may wish to say on the point he was raising, may I ask a question, arising out of what he has told us? I understood him to say that in the case of some closed shop agreements recently made, which covered, I think he said, 207,000 people, there were five people

675
who had conscientious objection to joining unions and that conscientious objection was sustained.
LORD WINDLESHAM: That is not exactly what I said. I think we should get it right. I think the figures given to us previously were 131 applied and 5 were confirmed.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: This is exactly what I was going to ask the noble Lord. Did he give us a figure for the people who I understand were dismissed as a result of this? Would he care to give us the figure? I did not pick up the figure of 131.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The position—and this is the point I am seeking to make—is that there have been only five employees of British Rail who have established conscientious grounds before the tribunal. There have been a substantially larger number of applications, and a considerable number of appeals are pending, so one must not read too much into the figures. We would not wish to debate details of the agreement without full information in front of the Committee. I was using it in the relative sense of saying that this is a very narrow gateway for the man who does not wish to join a union to go through since only five out of 200,000 people have gone through it in the case of this particular agreement.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I fully understand the point, and the figure. I did understand the noble Lord, after he had given the figure of 5, to refer to people—I think he said some with 44 years' service—who had been dismissed as a result of this; and it is that figure that I should like to have.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not have the statistics. I speak with some previous preparation; I have a number of examples, though I do not have the actual figure. The instance referred to was not a fictitious one but the case of a man who has been dismissed. He was a man aged 61, a train guard, with 44 years' service, who was dismissed because he refused to join the union. It is not a hypothetical case, it is a real one.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I was not suggesting for a moment that it was
676
hypothetical; I was asking how many people were involved.
LORD DIAMOND: In reply to the noble Lord's question, I should have thought it might be convenient if Lord Windlesham is the Minister who is going to reply, and he is here, and as I am the individual who asked the question, and I am here, and those noble Lords who were good enough to listen to the question are mostly here, that we should have the reply now.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: Before the reply is given, may I raise a point about the political law? I do not see the difficulty at all. Under the present law, if people do not contract out—you know how many there are and what the contribution is and you know what the political income is, and under the law a trade union has the obligation to set up quite separately a political fund. As for the chap who does not want to join a union though not on conscientious grounds, but pays a contribution, I should be amazed if he was of such a nature as not to want to join a union yet was willing to pay the political levy. But if he was willing to pay the political levy that, too, could be collected and could be put into the political fund. I do not see the difficulty, simply because the two funds have to be kept very distinct—an industrial fund and a political fund. The industrial fund can be spent only for industrial purposes, but, strange to say, the political fund can be spent for industrial purposes as well as for political purposes.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I hope I shall not infringe on the patience of the House. This is a complicated subject of law as well as of practice. Two separate but related questions arose last week, and they became confused. One was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who asked whether the appropriate contributions paid by a non-member in an agency shop could be used by the union for political purposes. The other question was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady White, who asked whether the words in Clause 7(3),
"excluding any such contribution which (subject to his giving any requisite notice) he would not be obliged to pay"
excluded the possibility of the nonmember being compelled to pay the political levy as part of his appropriate contribution in lieu of membership.

677
If I may be allowed to answer the second question first, I would confirm that Clause 7(3) excludes the non-member in the agency shop from contributing any political levy. Both the noble Baroness and myself were under the impression that it did so exclude such a person.
LORD PARGITER: If the man chooses to contract in he pays a political levy. If a person does not belong to a trade union and is asked, in making the contribution in lieu, "Do you wish to contract in or out of the political levy?" he can please himself.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord is on the wrong point. I would appreciate it if I can make this explanation and we can discuss this afterwards. The noble Baroness and I were discussing Clause 7(3), which is concerned with what is called the "appropriate contribution" in lieu of trade union membership made by somebody who has exercised his right not to be a member of a union in an agency shop. Clause 7 deals with the amount of that payment, and it says that it should exclude the optional elements. I was asked whether or not the optional elements included the political levy. The answer is that they do, and therefore the amount the man pays does not include the political levy.
Moving on to the Trade Union Act 1913, which is applied to this Bill by Amendments in Schedule 8, this requires trade unions which adopt Party political objects to keep a separate fund for Party political expenditure, and to adopt political fund rules approved by the Registrar of Friendly Societies. Where a union has adopted political objects the rules must provide, inter alia, for the exemption of any member of the union from the obligation to contribute to the political fund if he gives notice, in accordance with the Act, that he objects to making such a contribution. The Act imposes on the officials of the union, at the time it adopts political objects, the duty to give notice to existing members of their right not to contribute. For a new member, subsequent to adoption of the political fund rules, the obligation to contribute to the political fund does not operate until the expiration of one month from the time the member is supplied with a copy of the union political
678
fund rules, and only if he does not claim exemption meanwhile. It will be clear to noble Lords that since the member of a union cannot be obliged to pay the political levy, the political levy cannot, under the provisions of Clause 7(3), be made part of the appropriate contribution paid by the non-member.
The Trade Union Act of 1913, which is crucial, established that any organisation satisfying the definition of a trade union in that Act may pursue any lawful object included in its constitution. However, with respect to certain political objects the Act imposed special conditions. The objects to which these conditions apply are "Party" political objects, in the sense of either supporting political candidates or furthering some political purpose outside the regulation of relations between employers and workers and the other related statutory objects of trade unions. They are listed in Section 3, subsection (3), of the Act as being the expenditure of money: (a) on the payment of expenses incurred by a candidate or prospective candidate for election to Parliament or any other public office: (b) on the holding of meetings or distribution of literature in support of such a candidate or prospective candidate; (c) on the maintenance of a Member of Parliament or person holding a public office; (d) in connection with the registration of electors, or the selection of candidates for Parliament or any public office; (e) on the holding of political meetings or distribution of political literature except where the main purpose is the furtherance of the union's statutory objects. Any union, whether registered or not, must, if it is to apply its funds either directly or indirectly to "Party" political objects satisfy the conditions set out in Sections 3 to 6 of the 1913 Act, which provide that: (a) the pursuit of such political objects has been approved as an object of the union by a ballot vote of the members, held under special ballot rules approved by the Registrar; and (b) the union has adopted political fund rules, also to he approved by the Registrar, providing for the keeping of a separate political fund and for the free exemption of any member who does not wish to contribute.
It may be seen, therefore, that the nonmembers' contribution could not be added to a union's political funds or expended

679
on "Party" political objects. The expenditure of money, including the appropriate contributions of non-members, from the general funds of a trade union on Party political objects could form the subject of criminal proceedings. But the 1913 Act leaves the union free to draw on its general funds, which would include the appropriate contributions of nonmembers, for expenditure on other political objects, if so authorised by its constitution. The scope of the "Party" political objects contained in Section (3) of the Act has never been interpreted by the counts, but the Registrar of Friendly Societies is understood to interpret the Section as not extending to the wide range of activities which can be grouped under the heading of "politics": for example, propaganda in favour of objectives which cut across domestic Party lines. I apologise for the length of that explanation, and its complexity, but it is useful to have it in Hansard in the light of the questions and discussions that we have had.
5.36 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I am sure the Committee is grateful to the noble Lord for that full explanation. There is nothing in what he said which contradicts the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when he said that there is nothing in the Bill which limits the purposes to which a union may put contributions made by non-members. The noble Lord has referred to other enactments outside the Bill which are not before us. All we have power to deal with is the Bill which is before us. There is no need to dwell further on this topic because both noble Lords—and this is a very happy occasion both for the Government and the Committee—are now agreed that there is nothing in the Bill which limits the purposes to which a union may put contributions made by non-members. I express my own appreciation, and I am sure the appreciation of the Committee, for that full reply.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to ask one more question. In company with my noble friend, Lord Pargiter, I am not entirely clear. Could we be enlightened as to the position about the political levy? One can see under Clause 7(3) that any such matter would not be included in the payment which would be an obliga-
680
tory in lieu payment for someone who wished not to be a union member. But is there anything to stop a person who does not want to belong to the particular union in question in the agency shop, but who still might have some affection for a political Party, from contracting-in if he wishes to for that particular payment?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think anyone would be precluded from paying more than they were required to pay if they wished to do so for any purpose whatever.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I take it that this announcement is the 5.30 "late night final" on this point?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: After that interesting discussion on the applicability of the monies paid by non-unionists, I must seek to bring your Lordships back to the grounds on which I suggested that this clause ought not to stand part of the Bill. Those grounds were that the clause as drafted, with the reference to "conscience", was such that, especially in the light of the discussion earlier in the Committee, there was a danger that "conscience" might be interpreted much more widely than it has hitherto been, and that this might give rise both to difficulties and to friction which need not arise, and to a certain degree of undermining of the genuine attention and protection which ought to be given to conscientious objection.
I was a little surprised by the views attributed to me and my noble friends by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I do not think that anything I have said this afternoon or when I spoke in the presence of the noble Earl on the same subject last Thursday gives any justification whatsoever or in the slightest degree for suggesting that we are not concerned about individual liberty and that we are not concerned about the proper protection of conscience. Incidentally, if I may say so, I did not understand the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, to be arguing in the direction which the noble Earl attributed to him—arguing that there should be a widening of the exemption on conscientious grounds. If I understood Lord Pearson correctly, he was suggesting that there should be a closer definition—whether wider or narrower I do not think he indicated. He felt (and I am completely at one with him; this was

681
indeed the essence of much I was saying) that this matter ought to be much more closely defined for the benefit of all of us and for the avoidance of friction and difficulty which will do no good and which is avoidable.
As I understand it. we are all completely at one in agreeing that hitherto nobody has had any serious complaint—certainly nobody has voiced any serious complaint—about the treatment by the trade union movement of those individuals who reject the idea of joining a trade union because their religious beliefs lead them to the conviction that they ought not to join associations of any kind with people who do not share their religion. I think that this applies to the Close Brethren in the Northern parts of Scotland. Indeed, I know there are one or two who are employed in the occupation which I myself am concerned with and who, as I undersand it, are in happy understanding and mutual respect with the trade union. This, I believe, is the general situation: that their convictions are respected; that they, for their part, understand and appreciate what the union seeks to do, and, so far as I am aware, this is not a situation which gives rise to animus or friction. It is accepted on both sides.
The essence of my point to the Committee was that we are in danger of moving into a quite different situation where not only do we widen considerably the concept of conscience but we change the whole character of the relationship between the trade union and the individuals who claim on conscientious grounds to reject union membership. This is a point which I believe has been quite fairly established. The noble Lord said it was difficult to visualise how some of these things would happen. I agree, it is very difficult indeed to visualise how many of the features of the Bill will operate in practice, which is what makes it such a tragedy that the Government have conducted themselves in a way which has made proper discussion with the trade union movement upon this Bill impracticable. The noble Lord gave his belief and his impression about what the tribunals would do. He told us that they would consult together; that there would no doubt be uniformity, and all sorts of desirable things would happen. What he did not do was to give us any
682
justification at all for believing that the unfortunate consequences which can result from widening the whole definition and concept of conscience would not arise if in fact the words in the Bill before us remain as they are at present.
Further, noble Lords repeatedly refer to this question of conscience as though it applied or had bearing only where there is an agency shop or a closed shop. They take the same view about the statutory right to be a non-unionist. They imply that it does not matter except where there is an agency shop or a closed shop. If I may respectfully say so, this again reveals the remoteness of so much of the drafting of this Bill and of so many of the arguments put forward in respect of it from the actual problems of day-to-day life in industry; because the vast majority of our industry—perhaps not the vast majority, but certainly at least 60 per cent. of it—is covered, not by closed shops or anything like them; it is covered by arrangements whereby people, join trade unions on a perfectly voluntary basis, and trade unions have to keep up a constant programme of explanation, education and propaganda to maintain their trade union membership.
What the Government are doing in Clause 5 and in this clause, quite apart from the other problems and difficulties to which they are unnecessarily giving rise, is to make the job of the trade union more difficult in those fields where voluntary arrangements and voluntary recruitment are the order of the day. As my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath said on an earlier debate, there are manifold reasons why a non-unionist will refuse to pay union contributions and why, if he possibly can, he will resist being enrolled into the ranks with his fellow s. And the Government have given him two splendid new arguments. First of all, he can say, "I have a statutory right to be a non-unionist". It is quite irrelevant, but it is another argument; it is an answer. Then, if he is not satisfied with that, he will say, "I have a conscientious objection. I read something which the general secretary said or which the union resolved and I did not like it. It offended my conscience", and that will be another argument he will apply to the chap who is trying to recruit him into the union on a voluntary basis. That is what I meant when I said that not only are the Government giving a statutory

683
right to the non-unionist; they are in danger of putting a moral halo around his head.
Nothing I say, and nothing my noble friends have said, in any way underestimates the importance of the individual who, it is common ground, should be excluded from union membership and whose conscience should be respected. I am not referring to that. We are conscious, too, of the strong views which individuals hold about trade unions, their policies and the personalities involved in them. But the place to give expression to those strong convictions is inside the trade union; and it is a thousand pities that the Government, instead of encouraging these people in every way to join trade unions, are giving them every possible excuse and every possible shred of justification for refusing to do so. It is a very great pity indeed. I know the Government will say that they do not intend this, and they will point to admirable speeches which have been made by various Ministers to the contrary. Then I do wish they would make their measures as set out in this proposed Statute coincide with their intentions, if their intentions indeed are to promote collective bargaining. However, I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us, even at this last minute, that he will take this matter back; that he will take note of the anxieties which have been expressed, I trust in a constructive way, from this side of the Committee. If he does not feel able to do so, I shall have no alternative but to ask my noble friends to divide the Committee on the issue.
5.48 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I apologise for being late, but it is sometimes very difficult to follow what is going on in this House, even if one is early. We seem to be discussing Clause 7. We have had a very helpful explanation, as we did in the last debate. We then went back to Clause 8 and I now take it that we are saying that Clause 8 should be excluded. We have come back to that, and that is what I wish to speak about. First of all, I was delighted to hear the noble Lord speaking for the Government say that this is something new. I happened to be in the United States of
684
America some years ago when all this business was going on there about the agency shop and about making contributions to charities. It is not new at all; it has been plucked out of a burning bush. The idea is, however, something absolutely foreign to all that is going on. The true fact is that when the Donovan Committee were discussing this matter they said that the legal right not to be a unionist was designed to frustrate the development of collective bargaining. Let us face it—that as much as anything is one of the consequences of these clauses which we have been discussing. All one wants to look at is what happens when there is an agency shop system and a registered trade union. We cannot go into the question now because it would be out of order, but we must remember that there are many hurdles to overcome to get the registered trade union and there may be delays of two years; but We have not yet reached that frustrating debate.
Let us suppose that I have a conscientious objection and I am working beside trade union members in a busy factory or mine, and there is a major accident. Many noble Lords seem to think that the only function of a trade union is collective bargaining but, as I said the other day, over the past hundred years there has grown up, by trial and error, a massive amount of expertise in the trade union movement. They may be "sea lawyers", as they are sometimes disparagingly described, but they have a massive amount of information about the working of Acts of Parliament and about industrial injuries and industrial diseases. On the shop floor we shall have two types of animal, one a bona fide member of the trade union movement and the other with a conscientious objection. It has never been explained how we can guarantee that the man who has a conscientious objection to joining a union will not be looked upon disparagingly by his comrades on the shop floor. None of these points has been considered in depth.
The pity about this is that in the euphoria of winning the General Election the Party opposite, with hundreds of years' experience of government, with the wise people and the judges in it, did not stay the hand of the young Poujardists

685
who have entered the Party and let them wait to get some practical experience before this mish-mash of verbiage was thrust upon the House; before we had this mix-up of ethics and jurisprudence. I frankly say to the Committee that this will not work in practice. It will lead to all kinds of differences, and far from helping productivity and a peaceful approach to industry and between the two sides of industry, I believe in the long
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 8 agreed to accordingly.
run it will be frustrating. My only hope is that we shall have a General Election before this Bill is put on the Statute Book.
5.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Monck, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Effingham, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Allerton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mountevans, L.

Alport, L.

Exeter, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst, E.

Ferrers, E.

Norwich, V

Amory, V.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Oakshott, L.

Atholl, D.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Balerno, L.

Gray, L.

Radnor, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Barrington, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rea, L.

Beauchamp, E.

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

Rothermere, V.

Belstead, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Halsbury, E.

St. Helens, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hankey, L.

St. Just, L.

Blackford, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Boston, L.

Harlech, L.

Sandford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Caccia, L.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Carrington, L.

Hood, V.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Chandos, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somers, L.

Clwyd, L.

Howe, E.

Stamp, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ilford, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Courtown, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strang, L.

Cowley, E.

Jessel, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kemsley, V.

Sudeley, L.

Crathorne, L.

Killearn, L.

Swaythling, L.

Croft, L.

Latymer, L.

Teviot, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Teynham, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lothian, M.

Tweedsmuir, L.

De Clifford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Verulam, E.

Derwent, L.

McFadzean, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Dudley, E.

Mansfield, E.

Willingdon, M.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Yarborough, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Fiske, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Balogh, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Beswick, L.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Birk, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Heycock, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, Bs.

Brown, L.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Jacques, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Snow, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Sorensen, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Movie, L.

White, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Faringdon, L.

Pargiter, L.

Clause 9 [Reference to industrial tribunal of dispute relating to contribution]:
6.4 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 71A:
Page 7, line 28, leave out ("person") and insert ("worker").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is the kind of amendment which in fact my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith is rather better equipped to discuss with your Lordships than I am, and if it is convenient to your Lordships I will now introduce him to you.
BARONESS WHITE: It is I who have to apologise to the Committee for not being here to move the Amendment; this new method of voting means that it is difficult to return to the Chamber after the Division. This is a probing Amendment because we were a little puzzled as to why the Government, having refused our suggestion in a number of other places to substitute the word "person" for "worker", in this particular place and in a following Amendment, No. 71C, themselves use the word "person" instead of "worker". This is done in a context which, to us at any rate, does not make it at all clear why in this particular clause they are quite happy to have the word "person" used, whereas in the various clauses where we thought the word "person" more appropriate they insisted on using the word "worker". Possibly the noble Lord can give us a simple explanation why they use the other term here.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The distinction between the use of the word "worker" and the use of the word "person" is as follows. "Worker" is the expression used only in relation to an employer, as I explained several times in the debates on Amendments Nos. 22 and 68. In Clause 5(1) the worker is given specific rights to which remedies are attached against the employer. The definition of the word "worker" is in Clause 158(1). The word "person", on the other hand, is any private individual, and is the term used in Clause 63 and elsewhere vis-á-vis the individual and trade union membership. It thus includes anyone, such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who, we heard,
688
is a member of a trade union. There was a debate between my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith about a five-year old child; all these would be persons who would not be workers, in that there would be no relationship with an employer.
However, as the noble Baroness has pointed out that there might be possible inconsistencies in the wording of this part of the Bill, concerned as it is with agency shop agreements, we have looked again at this point. As noble Lords opposite know, we are anxious to be as reasonable as possible, as accommodating as possible, in meeting points of view, and having taken a second look at it we are inclined to agree that there may be something in the argument of inconsistency. The Government have strongly resisted the argument to delete the word "worker" and substitute "person", and we are pleased to know that our counter arguments are being accepted in this Amendment. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing to these two unauthorised "persons"—there is another Amendment in a moment—and shall be glad to ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
LORD BROWN: May I point out to the noble Lord that the inference of what he has said is that the Bishop of Blackburn may find himself involved in an agency shop agreement. It is an illogicality. I merely point it out; I do not wish a reply.
BARONESS WHITE: I want to express a certain degree of gratitude that on this particular point the Government have for once shown themselves flexible rather than rigid. I must say that as the person concerned would be paying in accordance with an agency shop agreement in that particular context, it seemed to us curious and illogical not to use the word "worker." which was insisted on in another place. We are happy to accept the Government's agreement to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 71B:
Page 7, line 32, leave out from ("or") to end of line 37.
The noble Lord said: I think I can move this Amendment very briefly,

689
because it may be there is an explanation. What puzzles us is how it is possible for a situation to arise under subsection (1) (c), that is representing
"an arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination by the trade union"
against the individual, if it is not already contrary to either subsection (1)(a) or subsection (1)(b). If, indeed, there are no sets of circumstances which could arise under paragraph (c) which would not already arise under either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b), then it appears to us that the words in paragraph (c) are unnecessary, and we move to delete them. I beg to move.
6.10 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving his Amendment so briefly, and I shall try to emulate him. The Government have taken note of this Amendment and have looked at this point again. When the Bill was first drafted, it was considered that there might be occasions when an individual could be unreasonably discriminated against by a trade union in regard to the payments for an agency shop. But as the noble Lord has put down his Amendment we have looked at this point again even more closely and, rather like the noble Lord himself, have come to the conclusion that possibly the provisions of paragraph (c) are, in fact, covered by paragraphs (a) and (b). The only trouble is that we could not accept the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands, because I do not think he has put in his Amendment quite what he intended. He has moved to leave out from the word "or" to the end of line 37, which means that paragraph (a) would read,
"is not payable in accordance with the agreement, or"
as it does now, but the word "or" would be left, as it were, hanging in the air. Also, he has excluded paragraph (b), which he probably did not mean to exclude. But if the noble Lord will be good enough to withdraw the Amendment, we shall see that an Amendment is moved at Report stage to eliminate paragraph (c) which he really wants to eliminate.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am very happy to receive the noble Earl's
690
assurance. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS WHITE: I beg to move Amendment No. 71C.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 1, leave out ("person") and insert ("worker").—(Baroness White.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
6.13 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I think I suggested when we were discussing Clause 5 that, as a result of the terminology of that clause, we had at some stages provided a series of steam hammers to crack nuts, and a good deal of Clause 9 also merits that description. We see it as a direct consequence of the provisions to which we have already raised objection. We object to the arrangements proposed for the agency shop agreement, and Clause 8 seeks to give what is potentially a very wide definition to an arrangement to safeguard the position of those who have genuine conscientious objections. Clause 9 follows so naturally from the preceding clauses which we have sought to remove from the Bill, that we feel it quite right to seek to signalise our objection to its provisions by dividing the Committee against its inclusion.
LORD BROWN: I rise to ask my noble friends on the Front Bench not to press this Amendment. If we are going to have agency shop agreements—and we all know that we are—then there are going o be in lieu payments. If there are in lieu payments then, unless you can lay down the exact amount in the Bill, there is bound to be some tribunal which will decide what they should be in cases of dispute. You cannot leave a trade union, whose rules are not clear on what the in lieu payment should be, to name any figure it likes, because I fear that some of the less responsible unions may seek to victimise those who take advantage of their rights under the Bill and the end result will be a furious squabble between the person and the union. We on this side object to all sorts of aspects of the Bill, but, obviously, the agency shop agreement has been

691
decided in another place by the elected representatives, and if we cannot get the Party on the other side to agree to delete this whole business, then we shall have to face it; and if we have to face it then we shall have to have an appeals mechanism. I am afraid that we shall argue about the deletion of this clause for a very long time, and I do not want to listen to hours of argument which it will be really impossible to end and which will be illogical in the face of the Bill as it is going to be.
I know that many people are going to say to me, "You do not understand politics". Many people on both sides have said that to me many times since I entered this House, but my opinion is that I do understand politics. I understand them now to be something which very frequently wastes a hell of a lot of time—and not only on this side of the House. I have sat on the other side and have had to face barrages of discussions which were obviously not cogent, and I have had to do it patiently because I was a Minister and one cannot get irate when one is a Minister. I always resolved when I faced those barrages that one day, if we had to cross the Floor of the House, I should not indulge in the same sort of activity, and I am asking my noble friends on the Front Bench not to proceed with this Amendment. They know that they are going to lose the Division, and they know that if they won it a host of other changes would be necessary to the Bill. In fact, it would mean the deletion of the agency shop agreement. So why go on with it?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I apologise—
LORD DIAMOND: Will my noble friend forgive me? I am bound to say to my noble friend Lord Brown, whose normal opening to a speech is "I appeal to my Front Bench to withdraw their Amendment", that he has now picked on a peculiarly inappropriate occasion to do it. First of all, we are not discussing an Amendment. Secondly, we have moved three Amendments, each one of which in turn could have been subjected to the same point of view, but each one of which in turn has been accepted by the Government—the second one in principle, and the first and third in precisely their
692
words—as improving the Bill. So I hope that my noble friend will return to that frame of patience and good humour which I gather he exhibited throughout the period when he was a Minister.
LORD SHINWELL: There is one point which I should like to make and, afterwards, my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek can take charge with my consent for as long as he likes. I am bound to take exception to one point which my noble friend Lord Brown made. My noble friend has told the Committee that he knows all about politics, but, speaking as an apprentice myself, perhaps I may offer an observation on what is a constitutional issue—and I understand constitutional issues. I have been a long time experimenting with constitutional issues. My noble friend asked: if in the other place the elected representatives have come to a decision, why should we go any further?
LORD BROWN: I said nothing of the kind. I said that if the elected representatives in the other place have come to a decision and we on this side have not convinced the Government to go along with us, then why should we spend a lot of time arguing it?
LORD SHINWELL: In that case, we should adjourn and be done with it. That is really what my noble friend is saying. I can understand the impatience. I am sometimes a little impatient myself. I have to listen to a great many speeches.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh !
LORD SHINWELL: It is a fact. There is only one thing worse than listening to one's own speech, and that is having to listen to those of others. My noble friend has told us that he sat on the other side of the House for quite a long period of time and had to listen to arguments, some cogent and some hardly cogent. I have had that experience myself, on both sides of the other place, and for a much longer period than my noble friend Lord Brown.
A NOBLE LORD: You have worn very well !
LORD SHINWELL: I am not sure whether he was born when I started. I was almost an elder statesman before the First World War; so my experience

693
counts for something. No; I disagree entirely, fundamentally, vitally and wholeheartedly—and I cannot go beyond that at the moment because of the time limit.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: I rise merely to say I wonder whether it is in order for the noble Lord to be discussing what he is discussing, which is a difference with his noble friend, instead of the Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part?
LORD SHINWELL: I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet. She is an old colleague of mine from the other place. But I do not hear awfully well, and she will perhaps forgive me if I do not respond. Anyway, I will not take up much more of your Lordships' time. The point is that the mere fact that the other place have come to a decision—and the Government naturally accept the decisions of the other place: that is a foregone conclusion—is no reason why we should not debate every issue. Nor is it any reason why we should not divide on every issue. That was done in the other place. Indeed, when a subject is transferred from the other place to your Lordships' House, surely the obvious thing to do is to debate, argue, probe and carry on until we reach firm and reasonable decisions.
LORD BROWN: My noble friend really must no go on any longer distorting what I said. I am merely making a plea that we should not debate in a non-cogent fashion. I am not suggesting that we should debate nothing; of course we should. My plea is entirely based on the particular Motion before the Committee now, the argument for which is not, in my humble submission, a cogent one.
LORD SHINWELL: My noble friend is getting deeper and deeper into the ocean. He has not only put his feet in: his whole body is immersed now. This simply will not do. He says that because he is not satisfied with the nature of the arguments, the arguments are not cogent, and therefore we should not proceed. Are we to understand that every argument that is adduced here, on either side of your Lordships' Committee, must be regarded as being cogent? We have to speak as we feel. It is far better to speak
694
as one feels than to read elaborate treatises carefully and deliberately prepared.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Would the noble Lord like to divide on this issue?
LORD SHINWELL: What is happening now is this: I would not be faced with this interruption or with the interruption from the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet, had it not been for the observation of my noble friend. I did not initiate this row—not at all. I am merely responding to it, trying to calm things down; to hold my temper. That is what I am trying to do. Now I come to my conclusion, and I hope that noble Lords will not mind if I do, to satisfy my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, because I can see that he is straining at the leash. My noble friend Lord Brown pleaded with cur Front Bench to withdraw and not to divide on this Question. I take the opposite line: I make a strong, urgent appeal to my noble friends on the Front Bench not to withdraw but to divide in order to show the strength of our feelings and the urgency of the subject.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: May I—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: The Question is, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Are we not to have any reply from the Government justifying the insertion of this clause?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I have given way with courtesy instead of using the number of decibels that I very well could. Having learned to be a little more elegant in this place, I decided not to shout down my noble friend Lord Shinwell, which would be very difficult, and I certainly should not like to overcall anyone else. I just want to be brief but, I hope, apt. The apt point I want to put is this. We have a perfect right to explore what these 'tribunals are going to do, and we have a perfect right to say that Clause 9 shall not stand part of the Bill. Part of the purpose of our opposition is to get such wonderful explanations from the Front Bench opposite as we had half an hour ago from the

695
noble Lord who spoke on Clause 7 and Clause 8 at the same time, which was of inestimable value to the understanding of the Bill and which clarified things which were not clarified in the other place.
Now let me come to the nub of this little argument—and I assure noble Lords I shall not be very long. The purpose of this clause is to establish industrial tribunals, and to enable references to them of disputes relating to contributions. Subsection (3) of the clause reads:
"Any matter determined by the decision of an industrial tribunal … shall have the like effect for the purposes of this Act as if it had been agreed between the worker and the trade union".
Now, that tribunal having made a decision, in come the unfair practices—and God knows how many of those are there! There is the possibility of unfair practices now creeping in between the worker, the union and the employer. We are told that members with relevant industrial experience will be on these tribunals, and that there will be this system of local courts. Some are in existence now. These will be the existing industrial tribunals which at present deal with appeals concerning claims for redundancy payments and the application of contracts under the Employment Act. Now we are adding a further burden. That is why, the other day, I said that this is a young barrister's bonanza. This will make a fortune for a young barrister. I wish I had bothered a few years ago in the other place, to spend a couple of years sitting for law. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Shinwell and I are not yet too old. I think I will discuss this prospect with him. It is a good sideline.
LORD SHINWELL: No, heaven forbid! We have got enough legal gentlemen without having any more.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Let me come back to the point at issue. The broad intention of these systems, then, is that they will deal with these appeals. All I want to ask is: am I right about these tribunals? Is it right that they increase the area of the possibility of punitive action if unfair practices are so designated after the decision of a tribunal? My last question—and I thank
696
noble Lords for listening so patiently to the whole of the debate from my noble friends—is this. Are we going to extend this system of tribunals, and is there somewhere in the Bill later on (I think there is) a point at which, instead of delaying your Lordships now, we shall have the possibility of discussing and deciding the set-up of these tribunals, together with their purpose, in greater depth?
6.30 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, if he thought he was being given a slight sign of discourtesy by the Government not having replied earlier, but it will not have escaped his attention that there was a certain degree of competition on the Benches behind him to take the floor, and it was only in deference to that competition that I failed—it is not that I did not attempt, but failed—to rise a little earlier. The noble Lord moved that the clause should not stand part with a degree of brevity which, again, I shall do my best to emulate, because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said, this particular clause follows so clearly and so obviously on the earlier clauses that it would be, as I would suggest, quite wrong that it should be eliminated.
The previous clauses have dealt with the matter of the agency shop and the payments that have been made by people who do not wish to become members of a specific trade union. Clause 8, dealt with people who make payments on the grounds of conscience. All that this clause says is that if, after all the normal courses of discussion have been gone through (we believe that the majority of these agreements will be undisputed) and there has been a failure to reach an agreement, then there will be recourse to the industrial tribunal to try to make a decision fair to both sides in resolving the problem.
I really think this is a last resort. The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, described this as a sledge-hammer to crack a nut. That description is possibly a little unfair, but it is correct that the nut will only be a very small one. As noble Lords have sought, not unsuccessfully, by three Amendments to amend this clause, I therefore suggest that the clause should remain in the Bill.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: The noble Lord, Lord Brown, is absolutely right. Clause 8 has been accepted by the Committee. Under Clause 8 there will, unfortunately, from time to time be disputes; some method of solving them must be found. That could be done by accepting Clause 9 as it stands, or by amending it. It cannot be done by throwing Clause 9 out, and it is a waste of your Lordships' time if this matter is taken to a Division.
6.32 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: It is a feature of this Committee that there are differences of opinion within it. However, since there has been so much adulation poured upon this clause and the necessity for it, let us really look at what it does in two parts. First, in relation to the agency shop situation, apparently one has to have an industrial tribunal to resolve whether or not something is payable in accordance with the agreement. The only issue that can arise there so far as I can see, is whether a man is a member of the trade union or not. If he is a member of the trade union he pays whatever contribution. If he is not a member of the trade union he pays whatever contribution is appropriate under the agreement. I am unable to see what great issues can arise which will turn on whether the payment is payable under the agreement or not. Then there is the amount of payment. Almost a page is devoted in Clause 7 to setting out in great detail what the contributions are which a non-member shall pay. If we really have to go to industrial tribunals to decide whether the amount is to be two shillings or two shillings and sixpence a week, and we are building up this issue into something so great that, without knowing that there is a tribunal to go to, ordinary men of common sense cannot resolve it, I really do not know what we are coming to.
The second part relates to the position of the individual who claims exemption on conscientious grounds. We have already made it quite clear that we are exceedingly concerned about this concept and the danger of its being widened. It is
698
proposed that we should have industrial tribunals to pronounce on whether the individual's conscientious objection is sound or not. As to providing for tribunals to decide that issue, it would be very much better if we in this Committee, as part of the legislative process, gave a much closer, clearer and less ambiguous definition, rather than pass it to a tribunal. Indeed, we would much regret a term so nebulous as this being allowed to stand in that form in the Bill, and the possibility of a considerably wider interpretation being given to it by the tribunals.
Then we have to determine to which charity the money goes—whether, for example, to the Queen Alexandra Rose charity or the National Society for Children's Welfare, is it seriously expected that there are going to be such great disputes over this issue that we must have a tribunal in the background to resolve them? What contributions will be equivalent to the appropriate contributions to the trade union? I should have thought that, here again, we are casting doubt upon the common sense approach which legislation proposed in this Bill—even under some of the fantasies of legislation proposed in this Bill—if we think we must have an industrial tribunal to resolve the great disputes which arise on these matters. As I suggested, we are putting into the Bill a great sledgehammer to crack a nut; we are puffing up these issues which, if they are to arise at all, ought to be susceptible of speedy settlement between reasonable men.
The only issue of serious importance is that of determining the degree of conscientious objection, and whether it is valid or not. For the reasons we have already explained, we on this side do not believe that it is appropriate to put the issue in such broad terms into the Bill in its present form and pass the matter to the industrial tribunals to interpret. Those are the grounds on which we have moved the deletion of the clause. I should have thought: they are sufficiently clear to anybody, and in particular to my noble friends who have read the clause in the context of the Bill.
6.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 9, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
6.46 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This may be a convenient moment for me to move that the House do now resume.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 125; Not-Contents, 42.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Essex, E.

Mountevans, L.

Allerton, L.

Exeter, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Amherst, E.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amory, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Oakshott, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Gisborough, L.

Radnor, E.

Balerno, L.

Glendevon, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour, of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rathcavan, L.

Barnby, L.

Gray, L.

Redesdale, L.

Barrington, V.

Greenway, L.

Redmayne, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rhyl, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hacking, L.

Rockley, L.

Belstead, L.

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

Rothermere, V.

Berkeley, Bs.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boston, L.

Halsbury, E.

St. Helens, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hankey, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hatherton, L.

Sandford, L.

Caldecote, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Chandos, V.

Hood, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Clwyd, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ilford, L.

Somers, L.

Courtown, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stamp, L.

Cowley, E.

Jessel, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Craigavon, V.

Kemsley, V.

Strang, L.

Crathorne, L.

Killearn, L.

Strange, L.

Croft, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Cromartie, E.

Latymer, L.

Sudeley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lauderdale, L.

Swaythling, L.

Daventry, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Teviot, L.

Davidson, V.

Liverpool, E.

Teynham, L.

De Clifford, L.

Lyell, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Derwent, L.

McFadzean, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Digby, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Verulam, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vivian, L.

Dudley, E.

Merrivale, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Dundee, E.

Milverton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Molson, L.

Wolverton, L.

Eccles, V.

Monck, V.

Yarborough, E.

Effingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gardiner, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Ardwick, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Heycock, L.

Serota, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Snow, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Stow Hill, L.

Diamond, L.

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Faringdon, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

White, Bs.

Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD BESWICK: Before starting the next Business I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn, will make it clear that we are resuming the Committee

701
stage of the Industrial Relations Bill after spending one hour on the Education (Scotland) Bill.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie was going to start her Second Reading speech by saying that we should discuss the Bill until 7.45 p.m.
On Question, Motion agreed and House resumed accordingly.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
6.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMU1R OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill restores to education authorities the power to charge fees in a limited number of schools. It has been one of the most controversial of the present Session and occupied 24 sittings of the Scottish Standing Committee which must be some kind of record for what was then only a three-clause Bill. The controversy was expected, however, because the Education (Scotland) Act 1969, which abolished the power to charge fees in authority schools, was one of the most strongly contested Bills of the last Parliament. The present Secretary of State for Scotland, then leading the opposition to that Act, promised that in due course there would be amending legislation to repeal the relevant part of the 1969 Act. Those Members of your Lordships' House who attended the Committee stage of the 1969 Bill will recall that some Amendments to the Bill were made which proved unacceptable to the other House. When the Commons Reason for Disagreeing to the Lords' Amendments was reported to this House my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn repeated the pledge given by the then Opposition in the following terms:
"When the Party to which I belong is returned to power we shall restore the position to what it is now, if it is practicable to do so and, of course, if the education authorities so desire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24/7/69; c. 1168.]
That promise was made on July 24 1969. Since then there have been many discussions about the future of the former fee-paying schools, but they have remained selective and have not been included in schemes of comprehen-
702
sive reorganisation. The first of my noble friend's conditions, that it is practical, is therefore met.
The second condition was that the education authorities should desire a restoration of the previous position. Consultations were carried out with the local authority associations in September last year. The Association of County Councils made no comment. The Counties of Cities' Association left it to individual cities to reply. The two largest, Edinburgh and Glasgow, made it clear that they would welcome the opportunity to charge fees. This Bill therefore honours the promise made in 1969. However, last week, its noble Lords will no doubt know, the composition of Glasgow's Council changed somewhat. Although this change may prove to be but fleeting, statements have been made to the Press that Glasgow Education Authority may not, after all, use the powers in this Bill, when it becomes an Act. But whether they do or not, the Bill restores in some measure the true relationship between the Secretary of State and the education authorities. The present Government do not with to impose any particular form of school organisation. We believe that education authorities must know local conditions best and, most important, the wishes of the parents in their area. Therefore this Bill restores the former right of authorities to charge fees if all concerned wish this to be done.
I turn now to the Bill itself. Clause 1 substitutes a new Section 3 for Section 3 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 as set out in Section 1(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1969 which amended it. Section 1(1) of the 1969 Act substituted new sections for Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the 1962 Act. We have no wish to replace the new Sections 1, 2 or 3A which are set out in the 1969 Act. We do, however, want to repeal Section 3 and replace it by a very different one. This is what Clause 1 does. Subsection (1) of the new Section 3 qualifies the general statement that school education should be provided by an authority without payment of fees and makes it subject to subsections (2) to (5). Subsection (2) empowers an authority to charge fees for school education in a limited number of schools. Subsection (3) is a new provision which allows an authority to give remission of

703
fees in whole or in part. Such remission is to be related to ability and aptitude. Remission on grounds of hardship can be covered by an existing power in Section 49 of the 1962 Act.
Subsection (4) lays down the condition which has to be satisfied before fees can be charged. This is in response to representations from the Opposition in another place, and it is similar to the 1962 Act in that the charging of fees should be without prejudice to the adequate provision of free school education. Free school education can be provided in an authority's own school, by agreement with the managers of grant-aided or independent schools, or, by agreement with another authority, in their schools. Subsection (5) which is a new provision, provides for the charging of a higher fee in respect of a pupil from outside an authority's area attending a fee-paying school and also for the charging of a fee in respect of a pupil from outside an authority's area attending a non-feepaying school. Subsection (6) repeats the substance of the latter part of Section 3 set out in the 1969 Act. This subsection enables an authority to make charges for the use of facilities for voluntary further education and for social, cultural and recreative activities.
Clause 2 of the Bill amends subsection 1 of Section 11 of the 1962 Act, as amended by the 1969 Act. The new amendment places a duty on the authority to provide free books only when pupils are receiving free education. Individual authorities will be able to decide whether or not to give free books to pupils at fee-paying schools.
Clause 3 gives the Secretary of State power to vary a rate support grant order made before the coming into force of the Act by taking into account any income accrued or relief from expenditure obtained by authorities as a result of the corning into force of the Bill when enacted. This clause was added during the Report stage in another place, and was a consequence of the meeting which the Secretary of State had with the local authority associations about the Rate Support Grant Order 1971. As the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill makes clear, the saving will be small; but it is right, of course, to take it into account for rate support grant purposes.
704
Clause 4 is mainly in standard form and does not require much explanation. I should, however, like to say a few words about subsection (4) and to describe the procedure that will be followed before the charging of fees can be restored. Under the 1962 Act, authorities are required to exercise the powers and duties conferred in the first few sections in accordance with schemes prepared under Section 7 and approved by the Secretary of State under Section 70. The schemes dealing with school education are known as schemes of educational provision. No scheme of educational provision can at present provide for fee paying in authority schools, and therefore before fees can be restored a revised scheme, or the modification of an existing scheme, will have to be submitted to and approved by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
My Lords, the Bill, if enacted, will not come into force until August, 1971. There is no reason, however, why authorities should not undertake the necessary preparatory work, after the Bill has been passed, to restore fees in the Session 1971–72. That is why Clause 4 allows the submission of modifications to schemes between the passing of the Act and August 1, when it should come into force, and allows the approval of the Secretary of State in that period although the approved scheme cannot take effect until August 1. This Bill restores the power to local authorities to offer to parents greater freedom of choice in the education of their children, and it is for this reason that I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
6.58 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, for quite a while I wondered whether the Government were going ahead with this Bill, because, quite frankly, after it is passed it is not going to have very much effect in Scotland, if any at all. But inasmuch as it has been introduced as a Bill into your Lordships' House, we have to deal with it as if it may become an Act of Parliament. I should like to take up the last point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir—in fact very nearly her concluding sentence—when she said that what the Government are doing in

705
this Bill is to restore freedom of choice. Of course she knows as well as I do that they are doing nothing of the sort. There is no freedom of choice, first of all, because these schools are limited to very few pupils—very few indeed—and it can be only by a form of selectivity that pupils can gain admission to them. Even if they are sufficiently, good, they have to pay the fees, so that only those parents who can afford to pay will in fact have the choice of sending children to these schools. They will not be misled by the whole series of means tests which the noble Baroness mentioned, either as to school fees or school books, because we feel that this is against the whole system of Scottish education.
This Bill aroused considerable dissent when it was introduced in another place, and the noble Baroness was quite right in saying that it took some 24 meetings of the Scottish Committee to get it through its Committee stage—I think rightly so, because there is a considerable history behind the Bill. In fact it seeks to repeal legislation enacted as recently as 1969. The noble Baroness said, "Of course, your Lordships know that legislation was before your Lordships' House; we passed a series of Amendments which did not prove acceptable in another place." This is true, but I think the noble Baroness will concede that those in another place who rejected the Amendments have a considerable knowledge of corporation schools and education which apparently is denied to most noble Lords and noble Baronesses on the Government Benches to-night. I question very much—I do not say it disparagingly—whether there is a single noble Lord sitting on the Government side of the House who has had a comprehensive education in a corporation school. But that is the subject this House is discussing, and perhaps for that reason the other place rejected the Amendments of 1969.
The noble Baroness then presented what I thought was one of the weakest parts of her argument for the Bill. She rightly reported—I admit it—the opinions expressed by local authority associations in Scotland. One of them did not pay the slightest attention; I do not think they even bothered to reply. The second one said to the Government, "We are going to do nothing about it; we will just let everybody decide for themselves."
706
So the Government fell back on the argument that there were still two authorities left that might want to take advantage of these proposals. One was Glasgow. But the noble Baroness has had a very firm assurance that neither the Corporation of Glasgow nor the electors are going to have anything to do with this idea. This, I think, she will admit, and I am sure that there is no noble Lord who would care to deny it. Whether we like the local government election results or not, they have put paid to this particular proposal.
My Lords, I want to say something more about the Glasgow position. The noble Baroness said there was no reason why local authorities should not go ahead with their provisions now, in case this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. But she is bound to know, as well as any Member of your Lordships' House, that this is exactly what Glasgow have been doing, without an Act of Parliament, even before we had a chance to debate the Second Reading of this Bill. The Corporation, or the Council, of Glasgow, which has just been thrown out, had made all these preparations, despite the fact that there was no Act of Parliament, that no Bill had received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House. They did not wait for the gun. They went ahead, apparently with the approval of the Scottish office, preparing plans in accordance with an Act of Parliament which did not exist. I do not regard that as being very smart, though it is true they would have had to wait until an Act came into existence before they could put their plans into effect. They hoped, I suppose, that they would get away with it, but the Glasgow electorate thought otherwise.
That leaves one city, Edinburgh. I would remind your Lordships that there is not a single authority in Scotland who adopted this procedure—not one; and not even before Glasgow and Edinburgh were deprived of it were there any local authorities in Scotland who had this type of fee-paying school, or any other type. The noble Baroness will remember that clarion call from the Highlands of Scotland by the late Alasdair Mackenzie, who knew much more than most people about education. The one thing that he rejected out of hand was the very idea fees should be imposed if the children of Scotland were to be educated. He found the whole

707
idea repugnant, and it is to his credit that he said so in very firm language. So none of your Lordships on either side of the House has thought this system such a good one that he wished to incorporate it in his own education authority.
If these are the facts, my Lords—and they are—what comes before your Lordships' House to-night is not a Scottish Education Bill but a Bill to deal with the problem of Edinburgh, which is the only place that can be affected. I suggest to the Government when they talk about a waste of time, that surely it is a waste of time to bring in a Bill—and call it a Scottish education Bill—when it can affect only the City of Edinburgh. If the Edinburgh City authorities are so enthusiastic that they want to introduce this system, they have a remedy; they can promote private legislation and say, "We, the Edinburgh Corporation, desire to impose fees, and we want the authority of Parliament to do so ". But Edinburgh is the only place that can be affected, and, I repeat: there is not a single noble Lord who can deny that. I would remind your Lordships that Labour is the largest Party in the City of Edinburgh, and that there would have to be a combination of what are known as the Progressives with the Tories—and they are not seeing eye to eye at the present moment—for any success to be made of this. Against that we have three very distinguished Liberal councillors from Merchiston Ward in Edinburgh, one of whom has just removed the City Treasurer from office, so I think that we could count on them. So the division in Edinburgh is very narrow indeed. I hesitate to think of Edinburgh even wanting to take steps to bring this into operation.
What is the reason behind the Bill? The noble Baroness said, "We gave a pledge". But Governments, of course, say things in the course of a propaganda campaign. The Prime Minister said he would bring down unemployment and cut prices at a stroke, but he has not done so; he has not honoured that pledge. I am certain that your Lordships would greet it with great enthusiasm if he did, and we should be unanimous in supporting him. What does the Bill do—if it does anything at all? Let me remind your Lordships, if you need reminding, that in another place the Bill was de-
708
scribed from the Liberal Benches and the Labour Benches as a mean, petty, contemptible little Bill. What the Government are seeking to do is to take education years and years back, and to say to the parents of a certain number of children, "Unless you can pay, your children are going to be denied this piece of education".
There is something more than that, because what it does is to preserve selectivity in education; it is a blow to comprehensive education. That is the main purpose of it. If the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, is unaware of the fact, let me remind her that it was not the Labour Party, or the Liberal Party, but the Comprehensive Schools Committee which had this to say:
"Comprehensive schools get rid of selection. Children are no longer labelled a success or a failure at 11 years of age."
I would remind your Lordships that this could mean selection not at eleven but at five years of age. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, would deny that. With his knowledge of these schools in our area he knows that selection takes place at age five. The Comprehensive Schools Committee Report puts it up to eleven. The Report goes on:
"Comprehensive schools offer children a greater variety of courses of subjects and a wider choice of educational opportunities than they have under the old system."
It is the old system to which the noble Baroness and the Government wish to take us back.
This is a little Bill, and it is a mean little Bill. I do not think it will have any real effect in Scotland. Obviously it cannot have. The noble Lady must be aware of that, it simply cannot have any real effect. If it has got any hope of it at all—and that hope is very little indeed—it can only be in the City of Edinburgh; and if that is all it seeks to do, then let Edinburgh accept its own responsibilities. If we were not in the habit of not dividing on Second Reading I would certainly have asked my noble friends to show their contempt for this little Measure. I express my regret to the noble Lady that she should have the job of introducing this Bill. I am certain she is not proud of it, but she puts on a very good face as a Minister,

709
as I have known throughout the years. But she is not proud of this one; she certainly is not. If it were not for the rule, then I would willingly go into the Lobby and throw this little thing into the river.
7.11 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I hope your Scottish Lordships will forgive me for intervening. As I think you know, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, would have liked to be here, but he was unable to arrange to be here after business was changed to put this Bill in this place. He had intended to speak on it, and I feel I must say a word. I think, and hope, that what he would have said would certainly be in line with what my friend David Steel said in another place, and the late Alasdair Mackenzie said on the 1969 Bill, and I recommend to your Lordships his speeches on that occasion. I have been doing my homework and looking through them on Committee stage, arid I think they were probably the finest speeches of his career. I suppose there is one thing that we can say about the fact that the Conservative Party in this House are putting this Bill through: that, thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, they are not open to the gibe that was always made in another place, that all the proponents of the Bill actually went to Eton.
The truth is that this Government have no real mandate in Scotland to put this Bill through. It reverses an Act put through by the Labour Party when the Labour Party had a majority in Scotland itself, as well as in Great Britain as a whole, at the 1966 Election. In the 1970 Election the Labour and Liberal parties have a great many more seats than the Conservative Party—and although this is distorted—and I admit this to the noble Baroness—by our idiotic rating system, even on the basis of votes there is a majority against the Conservative Party in Scotland. Luckily, as the noble Lord has pointed out, the effect of this Bill in Glasgow is likely to prove nil. If the results in Edinburgh are anything to go by—and I thank the noble Lord for his kind reference to our success in Edinburgh—perhaps in Edinburgh it will not last very long.
The effect of it would be to keep certain schools, now in Edinburgh only, on
710
a fee-paying basis, or to put them back to being on a fee-paying basis. These schools become schools which can be entered by paying, and also, for a few children, by scholarships, by passing examinations. They have a slightly higher teacher/pupil ratio than the other schools in Edinburgh. It is not very great, but I think it is significantly so. That must mean that in some sense the mere fact of putting these schools into a separate category, making them scholarship schools, does make other schools second-class schools—not that they are necessarily worse schools; but in the public eye it puts them as second-class schools. It produces a situation where you get selection at the age of 5. It produces a situation where you can buy your way into a school. England abolished fee-paying schools within the State system in 1944. Scotland abolished them in 1969.
We are told that the purpose of this Bill is to enlarge parental choice. My Lords, I cannot take this seriously. I may not be a Scot, but I am a spokesman on education. The whole problem of parental choice is an enormous and extremely serious one, and I would strongly welcome moves to tackle the problem of parental choice. To pretend that this Bill really extends parental choice, except in the tiniest little way, is not really fair to the vastness of the problem which needs to be tackled. It is a reactionary Bill, it goes against most modern educational thought. As it affects the younger children, I would go flat out and say it goes against all modern educational thought, and it is I think very sad that it has got as far as it has done. I do agree with the noble Lord that, if it was the custom of your Lordships' House, I would feel very strongly that we ought to divide.
7.19 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said about getting a mandate from Scotland for this Bill. True, the Labour Party polled more votes than the Conservative Party at the last General Election, but the reason they obtained such a disproportionate number of seats was a failure to redistribute the seats as should have been done at the right time. There was an element of gerrymandering which was extremely helpful to the Labour Party at the last General Election, but luckily just not quite

711
enough. The assertion that the majority of the Scottish people are against the proposal in this Bill requires some examination, because it cannot be said that the Labour Party in Glasgow are unanimous on this point. There have been quite a number of members of the Labour Party in the Glasgow Corporation who in past years have voted against the majority of the Party in this particular respect.
I would like to take up the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, on the question of preserving selectivity at the age of 5. You may be selecting for something at the age of 5, but I do not think you are selecting or failing to select for the same things as you are trying to select for at the age of 11. It might have been more honest, if there were other reasons, than selecting for IQ at 5, which is what I take to have been implied. As the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, continued by saying that this was a blow at comprehensive education, I would suggest that my noble friends on these benches are not against comprehensive education as such—there should be some comprehensive education—but what we are against is universal comprehensive education. That is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, did not make.
LORD HOY: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? When he uses that argument, I hope he will remember that, out of all the thousands of school children in Scotland, this can only affect 12 at the most.
LORD BALERNO: Did the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, say twelve school children?
LORD HOY: I said, of all the thousands of children who go to school in Scotland, this can only affect 12,000.
LORD BALERNO: Are 12,000 school children unimportant? Twelve thousand school children in Scotland are important, and they are worth paying attention to.
My Lords, I wish to approach this from a different angle from the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, and the other speakers. My Lords, variety is the spice of life. It is also the essence of education, and this is true in respect of the method or the system of education as well as for
712
the individual scholar. Variety of methods and variety of ethos in different schools are essential for the discovery and elaboration of new methods and of new ideas. Experience has shown that many ideas in education do not work as the idealists claim. For bad ideas, there must be an opportunity to prove that they are bad; and good ideas must be tested against the different systems, otherwise the failure may be due to their being just ahead of their time. And that is what this Bill is all about—to maintain variety in education and so make progress in the methods of education.
Now for the other virtue of variety in education. It is a basic concept that opportunity be given to the individual boy or girl to develop his or her peculiar talents. While the local school usually caters pretty well for the majority of children, there is always a minority—it may be only 12,000—to whom it does not give fair opportunity. Where the local education authority agrees that there is such a minority, and that the opportunity for them can best be developed by continuing one or more of the old fee-paying schools, then this Bill permits the continuance of a very long-established policy.
This is the bicentenary of the birth of Walter Scott. Without decrying his natural genius, it is no exaggeration to say that what made it flower was his education at the Royal High School of Edinburgh, under the most enlightened and progressive educationist of his time in the whole of the United Kingdom. Unless Parliament passes this Bill, this great school, with its great tradition, not the least in experimentation in methods of education, will be levelled down. Not for a moment am I claiming any superiority for the Royal High School over any other form of schooling. What I claim is that it is different and that the difference should be preserved. And how different can a school be, which has produced on the one hand, Lord Chancellor Brougham, the most colourful of all Lord Chancellors—at least until the present noble and learned Lord who occupies the Woolsack—and at the other extreme, Alexander Graham Bell—three men of great genius and how varied ! It is just because the Royal High School is so different that it has made such a

713
significant contribution to the welfare and the pleasures of mankind. I most proudly support my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie and ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading with acclamation.
7.23 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, as I believe that the principle of diversity and experimentation in education is crucial, I should like to say to the House that I believe in many different types of school. I believe that there are children who have special talents in one direction or another and who are having their opportunities destroyed, to the great loss of society. I can remember being told by the Director of Education for Leicestershire about a youngster who was in the bottom class in a secondary modern school. It was not considered that the likes of them should have a string orchestra, but they were tried out with wind instruments. When the youngsters were asked if they would like to join the band, one hesitant hand went up from the bottom of the class, the hand of a boy who thought he might have a go at the trombone. He was given a start, and he proved to be an exceptional musician. Obviously, at a secondary modern school he was not going to have a chance, and so (I hope that I am not being indiscreet in saying this) the director of education and the headmaster of the local grammar school went into an honourable conspiracy to move the boy to the grammar school, in order that he could get ahead with his musical education. It was assumed that he was not able to pass his "O"-level examinations: they were not concerned about anything else. The sequel was that this boy became quite brilliant in all the other subjects, as well as in music, and he is now one of our leading musicians.
I feel strongly that we ought to be able to give children specialised types of education where they have specialised talents. That is one reason why I thought the public school system had a great deal to commend it. But I can also tell your Lordships what is wrong with it. It readily took in the bright boys as well as the dull ones, those interested in sport and those interested in academic subjects. It did not humiliate one or the other. They all wore the same uniform, had the same standard of life, came from the same sort
714
of family, and they all went their different ways. The only thing wrong with the public school is that it is for a small minority of children of wealthy parents.
I believe strongly in diversity and experimentation in education—but that is not what this Bill is about. I am not only a Scot; I suppose that I am also a pedantic Scot, and particularly pedantic about constitutional matters. I think it is quite wrong for your Lordships' House to vote against the Second Reading of a Bill that has been passed by the elected Chamber, and therefore I agree with my noble friend Lord Hoy that we will not vote against the Motion. However, I hope that no one will underestimate just how strongly some of us feel about an attempt to perpetuate something which has nothing to do with experimentation and diversity in education, with trying to help children with special gifts or with special difficulties, but is simply seeking to perpetuate a monied and class selection, which is hard for the children who are selected for these schools and harmful for those rejected. Therefore, although we cannot win the votes in your Lordships' House, there should be no doubt whatever of our strong feeling. What we want is a broad highway, along which all our children can go forward together and then there should be diversification in their education according to the qualities of the children and not according to the size of their parents' purses.
7.29 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: I did not mean to intervene in the debate, not having put my name down, but may one comprehensive school pupil from Scotland follow another comprehensive school pupil? I think we have misunderstood the term, because we thought it began with John Knox. Although I come from Forfar Academy, I do not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in citing names but I wonder what our roll can show against a Lord Chancellor, Sir Walter Scott and Bell—though do not let us Forget that Bell emigrated; he was a brain-drain. I think that this is a pretty futile exercise. After all, Robert Burns did not go to the Royal High School.
This seems to me, as my noble friend Lord Hoy said, one of the meanest Bills I have ever heard of. I had imagined that a battle was being fought on something to which we might have given

715
our great minds; but in point of fact, as has been said, we are talking about a private education Bill for the City of Edinburgh. Therefore, as my noble friends Lady Lee of Asheridge and Lord Hoy said, in not voting against this Motion for Second Reading I should not like any noble Lords to have any doubt about the feelings of some of us who happen to have as high a regard for the highest ideals of Scottish education as anyone else in this House. If we do not divide the House, I hope that it will not be misundertood.
7.30 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I should like to intervene, but I shall do so quite briefly, due to the shortage of time. Without this Bill fee paying schools in Scotland would disappear altogether. There is an opportunity, at least for Edinburgh, to continue to have fee paying schools should they so desire. When my noble friend Lord Hoy (I call him my noble friend, because I have known him and debated with him for so many years) was speaking, it was as though this fee paying business was something absolutely new. But it has been going on for some hundreds of years. The High School at Glasgow has been in existence, I understand, since about the year 1200. These schools have produced many remarkable people. The Glasgow High School has produced two Prime Ministers this century. The school I was at—it was not a corporation school, but it was a fee paying school—has produced seven or eight Members of this House of my generation. That is a pretty good effort for any school.
It seems to me that when the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said—unless I misunderstood him—that fees were imposed on people, he was quite wrong, because they are not imposed at all. They send their children to the schools well knowing that they are going to pay fees. If you go back in Scottish education, the village schoolmaster used to be paid by the pupils. You went with your money and paid the schoolmaster on quarter day. I remember my own father telling me the amount of money (I will not repeat what it was) which he was given every quarter day to hand to the schoolmaster. You might think that this is a great innovation, but it is
716
nothing new. Why take away from people the opportunity of doing something that they want to do? I do not understand it. I strongly agree that unless you have some difference in the schools of the country you are bound to get a kind of settled, stiff, unalterable syllabus put up year after year, and it seems to me that this would defeat the whole object of education. I strongly support my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir in putting this Bill before the House.
7.34 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords on both sides of the House who have taken part in the debate. Although the speeches have been short because of the pressure of time, and however strongly views are held for or against the Bill on either side of the House, I think we should all agree that it has been a good debate. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, with respect, that I did not think he was quite on his usual form, because for him to say that this Bill was not worth while because it applied to only a very few pupils was unlike his usual sense of fairness. I should have thought that 12,000 pupils whose parents wish of their own free will to pay fees were worth caring about.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want the noble Baroness to misunderstand me. She was arguing that this left freedom of choice for the people of Scotland. All I was pointing out was that it did nothing of the kind, because at the most it could affect only 12,000 children out of the total school population for Scotland.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it is perfectly true that at this moment of time only the two largest cities in Scotland have said that they wish to take advantage of this Bill and, as my noble friend Lord Balerno pointed out, the members of the newly-elected Corporation of Glasgow are by no means unanimous one way or the other. But the point is that this Bill provides an element of choice for everybody if at some time in the future they wish to exercise it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said: "Why take us back to the old system?" The old system was in 1970. Therefore I

717
do not think it was very old. He also suggested that noble Lords on this side of the House had not perhaps had the advantage of going to some of the comprehensive schools in Scotland or the fee paying schools. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde has just given his example. While I myself did not go to a comprehensive school—nor, happily, did I go to Eton—because I was unable to, having a father in the Army, nevertheless I have two girls who were at the Aberdeen High School for Girls now called the Harlaw Academy; and very good it was. Therefore, I have seen both sides of the coin, fee paying and non-fee paying.
The noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said: "Why have the Government produced this Bill? They did it because it is the kind of thing that Governments do in a propaganda campaign." That may be something that his Government did, but when we say we will do something, we do it.
LORD HOY: What about prices and employment?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: That is coming. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, made an interesting point about the fee paying schools having been abolished in England in 1944. I should like to return to that in a moment. I think my noble friend Lord Balerno was absolutely right, with his great knowledge of education, to say that we want to have all types of education within the Scottish system. The noble Baroness, Lady Lee, said that she felt very strongly indeed, and said that this was a money and a class-selective Bill. But it is odd (is it not?) that there are still people who are prepared to pay the modest fees ranging from £10 to f40 with which we are concerned here to-day? There may be some that charge more, but I do not think their fees will be very much more, because many of these schools have kept their fees steady for about ten or twelve years. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, also spoke of the question of how this type of fee paying school had been abolished in England.
It is of course true that fee paying at local education authority schools in England was stopped in 1944 under the Education Act introduced by my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron
718
Walden, whereas the Bill introduced in 1945 by the late Mr. Tom Johnston, which became the 1946 Education (Scotland) Act, provided for the continuance of fee charging at a limited number of education authority schools. Surely it is clear, therefore, that there must have been something in the educational systems of the two countries which caused these two distinguished men to appear on what would generally be regarded as the "wrong", or perhaps the unexpected, side over this issue of fee paying.
It is perfectly true that we have kept the system because we feel that it is what is called a middle sector of educational choice, which the education authority fee paying schools offered to parents in the Cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow right up to 1970. They were more than just City schools. They offered this choice to parents from a wider region surrounding the Cities. In my view, if I may say so, the Labour Party in Glasgow acted very responsibly and recognised the valuable part that these schools had to play in the city's and the country's education system in their consistent decision over twenty-five years from 1945 not to abolish fee paying school. It is surely on of the strengths of the Scottish education system that it has been allowed to develop without having to copy all the features of the English system. It would be a mistake to argue that what was right for England in 1944 must necessarily be right for Scotland to-day.
I would only say, in conclusion, that I feel strongly about this Bill. The positive argument for it is that it restores to education authorities the freedom to offer to patents of relatively modest means the opportunity to exercise some choice in their children's education in return for a modest financial contribution. We are not talking about the fully independent schools or indeed the grant-aided school. The 1969 Act, in taking away this freedom from authorities, did not affect the rich or the comfortably off who could afford the fees for independent or grant-aided schools. It was picking on the most vulnerable group who had chosen to contribute to the cost of their children's education and removed their choice to do so. It seems to me that where authorities decide to make use of the power in this Bill they will be

719
opening up again the possibility of choice of school for a wider range of the population of Scotland, and it is for that reason that I commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.
LORD HOY: Before the noble Baroness sits down, I think she said that parents would be making a contribution. Is it not a fact and did she not explain—perhaps I misunderstood—that, because these schools will now charge fees if they choose to charge fees, so automatically will the Scottish Office reduce the education grant to them?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I made that perfectly clear. It is in Clause 3 of the Bill. It affects the rate support grant and this has been done after consultation.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
7.43 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
Clause 10 [Agency shop agreement]:
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 8, line 20, after ("unions") insert ("or other independent organisations").
The noble Baroness said: Throughout the Bill an attempt is made to distinguish between registered and non-registered unions, and one of the main reasons for this particular Amendment is to safeguard the position of a trade union which, for reasons which seem good and proper to itself, may have decided not to register. Therefore we feel that it is extremely important from our point of view to make sure that there is a place for other independent organisatons of workers.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the noble Baroness will forgive me, I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss a whole host of Amendments at the same time as this one. I count 29 Amendments with exactly the same words. There are also scattered through the Schedules and in Clause 10 and Clause 16 many others that all hold together. I wonder whether it is the noble Lady's intention
720
that we should discuss the principles of these together. If she wishes to take them separately for a Division later that would be in order.
BARONESS WHITE: In the light of the request made by the Minister it may perhaps be convenient to have a more general discussion on this particular Amendment. He is perfectly correct in saying that there is a series of subsequent Amendments which touch on the same point, mostly in the same words, though in one or two places we use slightly different phraseology. If we are going to have this more general discussion—and we have no objection to that—I think in the circumstances, I having moved this Amendment, I will ask my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith to carry on the discussion. If we are going to have the general discussion in this particular place in the Bill it may be more appropriate for someone who is himself a general secretary of a notable trade union to put the major points and the general philosophy behind these Amendments.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has pointed out, this Amendment is the first of a series of Amendments of considerable importance. The general intention of these Amendments is to introduce into the Bill a greater degree of parity of esteem, if I may so call it, between the trade union and the independent organisation of workers. We all know, of course, that a trade union is an organisation of workers, but it is an organisation of workers of a special type; it is an organisation of workers which has been registered. I do not think there will be any dispute by noble Lords opposite that it has been the purpose, is one of the intentions behind, and is one of the leading features of this Bill, to try to place the trade union—I use the term as it is used in the Bill, as a registered organisation—in a preferential position compared with the unregistered union. We are, in this series of Amendments, calling that into question and indicating to the Government that we believe that their action in imposing registration in this way and giving so much in the way of advantage to the unions who have gone through this process, is not justifiable. It is, of course, in effect. a completely new feature of our industrial relations law.

721
It is true that we have a Registrar of Friendly Societies and that we have registered trade unions and unregistered trade unions; but the distinction, for practical purposes, between a registered and an unregistered trade union as our law at present stands, is a very small one. The purpose of the Government in widening the gap, in making such a great distinction between these two types of organisation, is to induce trade unions to place themselves under conditions of registration. That, I think, is a course which requires much more justification than the Government have hitherto seen fit to advance. As at present a trade union establishes itself, secures its credence and secures its position by what it does, the service which it gives to its members and the recognition which it wins from employers. It is an organisation which, subject to the supervision of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, develops its own rules and conducts its own affairs. It is no part of our case, and it never has been, as the noble Lord opposite will know, that there is no need for any changes in the industrial relations arrangements in this country. It is one thing to accept the necessity for change in industrial relations and in the organisation of trade unions, but another to accept the code which is now before us and, as part of it, the requirements to which we are particularly addressing ourselves in this Amendment regarding registration.
There are few parts of the controversy surrounding this Bill which illuminate more clearly the unfortunate approach of the Government than does this matter of registration. The Donovan Commission examined the question of the rules of trade unions and made a series of comments upon them. There is no justification for saying that the Donovan recommendations justify the kind of detailed regulation of the internal affairs of trade unions by the Registrar which is proposed in the Bill. The Donovan Commission made recommendations for certain changes; they recommended a review body which should stand between the trade union movement and the Registrar. There is nothing of this in the Government's proposals.
The framing of the Bill by the Government has ignored the efforts which were undertaken by the trade union movement
722
itself in the period following the presentation of the Donovan Report to effect reform in its own structure. The proposals put forward by the Government ignore this fact, as (and it is one of the defects throughout the Bill) they ignore the part which the Trades Union Congress should play in any reform of the trade union movement, particularly so far as its internal arrangements are concerned. The trade union movement in this country has grown up on the basis of establishing itself with its members and with the employers. The clauses which we are now embarking upon, and in which we are seeking to put an unregistered organisation of workers on the same footing as a registered trade union, are clauses in regard to which it is essential that an organisation of workers should demonstrate by its functioning and working that it is suitable to carry out its representative and collective bargaining functions. This is not a matter which to such a great degree should be in the hands of a Government official as is proposed. The failure of the Government to appreciate the feelings of the trade union movement on this issue of registration is one of the clearest examples of their failure to come to grips with the realities of industrial relations. They have not appreciated that such a great degree of technical regulation and detailed regulation by the Registrar of Friendly Societies is almost bound to do far more harm than good, and will impose far more impediments and hindrances on the proper functioning of the trade union movement than it will confer advantages, either on the movement or the public.
There is only one field at the moment in which trade unions are subject to the detailed and meticulous regulation of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, to the kind of detailed, meticulous regulation of their affairs which, as I read the Bill, will now extend to all of them to the full extent of their affairs. That area is related to the administration of political funds, and certainly to the holding of a ballot to establish political objectives and to write political rules into the union rule book. When one has to go through this process (and I have personal experience of having gone through this process not so many years ago) one realises the degree to which the activities of a union

723
can be held up on a pure technicality if any individual member is disposed to raise it with the Registrar.
I recall the case of the taking of a political ballot to establish political objectives. In one branch there had been what everybody concerned recognised to be a purely technical infringement of the rules, undertaken quite honestly with no member having suffered any detriment, and with no question of the purpose of the rules having been disregarded. But the validity of the whole ballot was called into question by a member who raised an objection. It is true that the Registrar, having investigated this case, concurred in the view that it was an infringement which was purely technical and should be overlooked. But it caused delay and a considerable amount of union officers' time was spent in the investigation and in the appearance before the Registrar. It gave a graphic indication of the kind of practical difficulty which trade unions are in danger of experiencing when this extremely detailed control of the Registrar can be applied to the whole range of their diverse activities. It is not purely on some speculative or highly hypothetical grounds that trade unions deplore this particular feature of the Bill.
There can be no doubt that to subject trade unions to this degree of meticulous regulation is out of keeping with what one would expect in the light of the tradition and history of the British trade union movement. Perhaps I can illustrate this by quoting a resolution which was adopted by the Executive Board of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions—an international organisation of trade union movements which covers virtually the whole world outside the Soviet and Chinese areas of influence. The view which they expressed was one of deep concern at the proposals in the Bill. They said that the Bill now before us would:
"… restrict the free exercise of trade union rights and impose penalties and requirements on trade unions, their officials and members, which were without precedent in Britain. The British trade union movement was among the oldest and most mature in the world. It was respected in every continent for its responsible and tolerant approach to the many problems of relations with Government and employers and thus had become a model for democratic trade unions everywhere."
724
It is against the background of a world reputation of that kind that this Government are proposing in this legislation to subject the British trade union movement to a degree of detailed surveillance of its affairs by a Government official, which may be appropriate, understood and expected in a society which was immature and passing through very rapid change, in which there was no experience of democratic trade union organisation, and in which the trade union movement had not 100 or 150 years of experience and service to the community behind it. But it is being applied in this country. It is for this reason, and for the reasons which I have explained, that we regret profoundly the apparent intention of the Government to seek to draw distinctions between registered and unregistered unions in a way that has never been done before, with the objective of seeking to bring the whole trade union movement, if they possibly can, within registration and surveillance.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It is not my intention to speak long on this series of Amendments, but they are most important and I want to add any emphasis that is at my command to the words which my noble friend, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has just addressed to the Committee on these Amendments. Last Thursday I addressed a series of questions to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asking him the reasons for clauses of this type in the Bill. He came back eventually with a weak answer, saying that they related to the Donovan Report. This clause of the Bill is not based upon the Donovan Report at all. It is more obviously based upon
Fair Deal at Work, a Tory pamphlet published before the Donovan Report was issued. I thought the noble Lord's answer was very weak, and I should like to repeat my questions, which are in Hansard, asking the reasons for this endeavour to separate the unions in the way these provisions will do, and which makes us seek to insert the words "or other independent organisations". This carries a very significant ring to many people who have not considered the Bill.
This type of wording is brought about, as my noble friend has said, by what is, in effect, the blackmail of the Government in compelling the trade unions to register, unless they take the distinct line that they will not register. This is something new, and undoubtedly is likely

725
to harden feelings instead of healing the breach, if there is one, in industrial relations. We pleaded with the Government to be realists on this matter and to withdraw this type of provision. If they want to show any willingness to back up what the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has said—namely, that we have here the best trade unions in the world—why do not the Government accept the Amendments we are moving here in order to bring the whole of the trade unions into this type of structure? Separation is fatal.
There are some 500 trade unions in the country to-day, and only about 130 are affiliated to the Trades Union Congress. One can imagine when this Bill ultimately becomes an Act that, if this is the procedure adopted with regard to the voluntary trade union movement—quite a number of organisations preferring to work on their own—this trend will continue, and there will be a large number of unregistered trade unions which will be subjected to all the rigours of the law that this Bill will impose. In the final analysis this will lead to prison sentences; if there is refusal, that will be the penalty ultimately inflicted. I appeal to the noble Lord opposite to think again about this, because it is tremendously important. We should try to heal any breach which may exist in industrial relations.
8.5 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: We are here at one of the key provisions of the Bill, and the structure it proposes to set up. It is only right that we should devote a little time to this matter. It is, after all, a fundamental principle of the Bill that the privileges and rights which it affords shall be restricted to those organisations which accept the requirements and responsibility towards their members of the registration provisions. The requirements of registration are not onerous, and I think the noble Lord has much exaggerated the burden they will place upon the unions. But they will ensure that the rules conform to reasonable standards.
We believe that when organisations claim to exercise considerable power in our society and economy they cannot any longer be treated wholly as private
726
organisations. Exercising as they do considerable power in the community, and rightly so, it is not unreasonable to expect trade unions to accept the responsibilities of leadership and of power, and to submit themselves—as other bodies within the community and even the Government themselves do—to some degree of supervision by an independent body, to ensure that their rules are fair—fair to the members of the organisation and also in the public interest—and to ensure that the rules are observed. This is the basis of registration. Since trade unions are such organisations, and have such power, we believe it to be an absolutely essential point to the whole Bill that they accept the responsibilities as well as the privileges of power within the community.
Some people think that organisations of workers should have no privileges not enjoyed by the rest of the community; but experience and history show that the law should allow some such privileges. But legal privileges must be accompanied by legal responsibility. That is why this Bill sets out to ensure that most of the privileges are confined to those organisations which accept and observe those responsibilities. The right to enter into an agency shop agreement or, in exceptional circumstances, to obtain approval of a "closed shop" agreement, are very important privileges conferring very important powers. They place important obligations on individual workers, both union and non-union members, and affect in an important way the interests of both employers and the community at large. That is why we believe such privileges should be confined to registered bodies and should not he given to unregistered bodies. It is an absolutely basic concept of freedom under the law —freedom with responsibility—that when, as individuals or as organisations, we seek to act in a way which vitally affects the rest of the community we must be subject to some supervision and control; some limitation of our freedom is the very condition of existence and the survival of freedom itself.
What does registration involve? First, it requires the union or organisation of workers to satisfy the Registrar that it meets the guiding principles. Anyone

727
looking objectively and impartially at the guiding principles that are laid down—noble Lords will find them in Clause 63—could not possibly say that there was anything unfair or inequitable about them; or, anything inequitable about requiring that an organisation of workers, in claiming the right to exercise great powers, not only over its members but in the community, should satisfy those principles, and that if it cannot do so it should not possess those powers. Any good trade union should be able, easily, to comply with those principles, and most do so most of the time.
Secondly, registration requires the union to have rules on certain subjects. When we come to examine the provisions regarding registration, noble Lords will not find that there is anything very difficult about them. It is not a question, as the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-smith, implied, of the daily intervention by the Registrar in the affairs of the trade unions. It is simply a question of when they have to register they have to send their rules to the Registrar along with their application for registration. The Registrar will then examine those rules to see that they comply with the rules set out in the Schedule and with the guiding principles.
LORD POPPLEWELL: They do that now, do they not?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Exactly, so why do noble Lords worry so much? Or does the noble Lord mean that they have to send the rules to the Registrar now?
LORD POPPLEWELL: Yes, certainly; under the Friendly Societies Act the trade unions must send their rules to the Registrar. But this is a new type of Registrar; a new law has been created in this Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In what respect is this a new type of Registrar? The noble Lord says that the rules are already sent to the Registrar. What the Bill lays down is a standard of rules by which the Registrar can judge. The Bill also lays down something suggested by the Donovan Commission: that the Registrar should receive complaints and should deal with complaints of offences against the rules. That being so, I find it ex-
728
tremely difficult to see why the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, should have taken the line that he did about this and say that it is a completely new provision and that it is contrary to what the Donovan Commission proposed. That is not so.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Surely the noble Lord is splitting hairs on this. There are so many unfair practices coming into this. There are various things which have to be settled by the N.I.R.C. and ultimately by the Commission itself. These of necessity will be the guiding principles by which the Registrar, when he is considering the rules, will have to ensure that the rules are in accordance with the guiding principles that are now something new, and have never been known before. That is the considerable difference that arises between the present structure and the new Registrar's duties that are going to be set up.
LORD PLATT: Before the noble Lord gets further into his stride, surely this is an entirely new concept for the medical profession—and presumably we are included in this. The noble Lord may well laugh, but there is a statutory body called the General Medical Council which has governed us for about 120 years. Are we now to be under some registrar? The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, said that the British trade union movement was the most mature and responsible in the world, and he said that it is on this basis that the Government now seek to impose a detailed surveillance that has never been inflicted upon the trade unions before. Every word of that could be applied to the medical profession with even more emphasis than was employed by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith. I hope that the Minister will address himself to the medical profession when he is replying in regard to the trade unions. Of course I speak only for the medical profession, but there are other professions involved as well.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: May I also make two points? First, the test of registration will be absolutely and completely different from what it has been in the past. It is a great departure in English practice. The other point is that if you are not able to satisfy the Registrar, or if you do not wish to register, you lose a right which is over 100 years old, and I hate to lose a right.

729
But the right to strike is absolutely fundamental. If you do not register you do not have the right to strike, and we have had that right without registration for over 100 years.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord is of course quite right. As I said at the outset, the purpose here is to restrict privileges to those who will follow the rules. This is the principle of the Bill and we believe that this is absolutely fundamental to the Bill. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Platt, perhaps anticipated a speech which he is likely to make later, because we are now on the narrow question of the registration of trade unions. No doubt we shall have an opportunity of dealing with that aspect on an Amendment that we shall come to before very long.
I was just posing the question as to what registration involves. First, it requires the union or the organisation of workers to satisfy the Registrar that it meets the guiding principles. The noble Lord, Lord Cooper, may say that that is something new but it is something which is not unreasonable. These are standards that the unions, at their best, do observe. There is nothing new about these standards; they are good standards and all we ask is that they should be observed.
Secondly, registration requires the union to have rules on certain subjects. Many opponents of registration have talked as though the registrar was to write the union's rules for them. That is not so. All the union has to do is to satisfy the registrar that it has rules on certain subjects, as noble Lords will see from the Schedule. The guiding principles will have to follow under the Bill. Those subjects on which they must have rules are important, and the rules on them must be clear and unambiguous. The registrar will help to make them clear and unambiguous but it is entirely up to the unions what rules they have on those subjects. Indeed, one of the criteria for registration is that the organisation should have power to alter its own rules.
What are the subjects about which they must have rules? The election of the governing body; the election and appointment of officers and shop
730
stewards; the powers and duties of these officials; rules about the way the union can discipline its members; rules about the way in which the property and funds must be safeguarded. Surely, these are proper subjects for registration and supervision. The unions ought to have such rules, and most unions do have them. Let there be no mistake about it, without such rules individual members are at the mercy of autocratic officials, and unions could become the masters and not the servants of their members.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear !
LOUD DELACOURT-SMITH: If the noble Lord will forgive me for a moment, he is telling us of a number of things that could happen. Is he saying that they have happened or are happening at the moment?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: It is wishful thinking.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not saying that they are widespread, but cases have been quoted in the past of things that have gone wrong. In any case, as a matter of principle it is surely absolutely right that just as companies have to register so trade unions should also have to register in order to be brought under the general surveillance of the community.
The Government regard the question of registration as very important indeed, and so did the Royal Commission. The Party opposite may have changed their mind about the White Paper In Place of Strife, but that also provided for registration. If they have changed their mind I really think they must almost have lost their mind in this matter. The Registrar's power will not be arbitrary. He will have no power of his own to enforce his decisions. When matters are referred to him or when he initiates an inquiry and he cannot get voluntary agreement he can only operate through going either to the National Industrial Relations Court or the industrial tribunal, according to the nature of the case. At these courts anybody who objects can argue his case about what the Registrar is seeking to do. Any party has the right of appeal against the registrar to the National Industrial Relations Court or the Industrial Court, as the case may be. Registration is a

731
central feature of the Bill. It is reasonable, it is democratic, because a democracy has to have laws to govern the behaviour of individuals and groups in so far as the rights of others require, and the requirements it imposes should be easily met by any trade union.
So we believe that in order to protect members of unions and to protect the public interest, the rights and privileges which the Bill provides for organisations, including the ones we have been discussing, should be confined to those bodies which accept the very reasonable responsibilities of registration. Finally, we believe that registration is very much in the interests of the responsible unions against the onslaughts of irresponsible and disruptive elements from within or from without.
LORD SLATER: The noble Lord said that registration is at the centre of this Bill and that it is democratic. My noble friends who have had long experience within the union world have already brought home to him why each trade union in this country, affiliated, as it were, has had to be registered under the Friendly Societies Act, and we who come from the trade union world have our own rules, objects and everything else attached and examined by that registrar. The conclusion I have arrived at is that this Government have no confidence whatever in the registrar who has been responsible for looking after the examination of rules of any specific union that has been operating on behalf of its people up and down the country regarding the terms and objects of that particular union. I remember as far back as the 1930s, when we had a resurvey of our own particular union in the Durham area. We spent days—I think, as a matter of fact, three weeks—as an association, while we went through all our rules, terms and objects of that particular union, and those had to be submitted to the Registrar of Friendly Societies for approval; they were submitted and accepted, and those terms and objects have worked on behalf of that membership; there is nothing wrong with it.
I begin to wonder to myself how many of the members of this Government understand what Labour relations in this country means. There are two sides
732
I attached to industry. As I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, he seemed to direct his own attitude of mind against unions who are not prepared to register because they are afraid that, because of the terms and objects of their organisation, their rules will be turned down by the registrar that the Government are talking about setting up. I think it is about time that the Government underwent a little self-examination. I think it is time that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity—who has been attached to the old Labour Ministry and has now taken on the new mantle as Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity—along with his Civil Service staff within that huge Department that he controls, should be now looking at this thing. Instead of the imposition which they are seeking to inflict upon the trade union organisations and other organisations, it is about time that they were looking at this in another light.
What this Government are seeking to do—and make no mistake about it—is to enforce a form of imposition. You talk about freedom of opportunity, freedom to meet, freedom to associate, but one thing you are seeking to do as a Government is to do away with the right to strike, the right to withhold labour. I say to the noble Lord that this is what is behind the whole sentiment, the whole object, of this particular Bill. The young Minister may smile in regard to this, but experience ought to teach him, as it has taught me over the long years, that the attitude of the Tory Party has always been against the freedom to strike. We had it in the Baldwin era and in the Churchill era, and under this Government we shall have it if this Bill goes through.
This is one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation that could be introduced against the trade unions of this country, who have been looked upon by other trade union movements throughout the whole world as being the leaders in regard to trade unionism and in regard to the right of negotiation with employers of labour. I believe that the attitude of mind of the Government—and this is one of the reasons why I direct my criticism not so much to the Minister who is responsible for introducing the Bill and carrying it through the various stages in this place—of the Cabinet as a whole and the Government as a whole, is the

733
cause of the legislation they are seeking to introduce to impose upon the organised workers of this country and the manner in which they are seeking to do it.
LORD TEVIOT: With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not think he listened to anything of my noble friend's speech. He said that the registrar is going to make the union's rules. My noble friend went to the greatest length to explain that the union is going to make its own rules under the supervision or guidance of the registrar. The rest of the noble Lord's speech is the same old talk that we have had throughout the Committee stage. The unions are going to be allowed to make their own rules. This is a very democratic Bill, and my noble friend went to great pains to make this point.
LORD SLATER: May I ask the noble Lord this question. He says he has a form of association with the trade unions. What is the matter with the present setup? What is the matter with the present Registrar under the Friendly Societies Act? What has gone wrong? We have got our rules. We have worked under those rules, under that canopy, all this time without trouble, and with the right to strike, and now all that is to go by the new form of introduction by this Government.
LORD TEVIOT: I can answer the noble Lord's question very clearly; the figures of trade disputes, and everything that has happened from 1964 to 1971.
LORD SLATER: Compare it with the U.S.A. and other countries.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I should like to make two brief comments on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He said the Government had set out good standards and asked why should we object to good standards in industrial relations. It sounds plausible, but we can object simply because those standards are imposed from above—and this point was brought out by my noble friend Lord Slater. We do not like these good standards imposed from above.
The other point is this. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, keeps on corn-paring this Bill of the Government with
734
Lord Donovan's Report. But the thing about Donovan is that the Donovan Report wishes to have nothing to do with judges, with lawyers, with courts—none of those things in industrial relations. So that to compare this Bill with the results of Donovan is really absolutely false.
8.30 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: I should like to say why I am personally in favour of these provisions. It is because I believe that they will take power away from irresponsible and, on the whole, silly or mischievous groups of militants on the shop floor who are acting contrary to the advice of the branch secretary and, across industry, contrary to the advice of excellent and responsible trade unions. The country will not stand for that any longer. I cannot understand the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Slater, who seemed to imply that everything in the house was fine; it is not. Our people will not stand for this situation. We have to do something, and I believe that the Bill will give power back to our great trade union leaders, which is where it properly belongs, and that they will set cur country on a very much better road. I believe that one of the keys to this matter is precisely the provisions about registration.
LORD SLATER: As the noble Lord has mentioned my name, may I intervene for a moment? Is it of any help to the noble Lord to say that when I was a member of the executive, the terms and objects of my association were that if a colliery came out on a lightning strike we would not meet the management until such time as the employees returned to work? That was the condition. That was the form of procedure, and that still stands. What is wrong with that?
LORD HANKEY: I am not here complaining about the unions. I am complaining about the lack of power which the unions have shown over their own members. The fact is that our industrial legislation has given immunities to any "tin-pot" group of militants which emerges. A local leader says, "Come out on strike with me, even though we made an agreement only a month ago, and I will get you an extra shilling an hour". The branch secretary says

735
"Don't do anything of the sort", and if he gets them only sixpence he loses face. Neither the trade union leaders nor the branch secretaries have a chance nowadays. In case anybody should think we have not had our troubles in the unions, you have only to look back at the history of the Electrical Trade Union, to remember the tremendous job that Les Cannon had to get that union back under control. I am only sorry he is not here to-day.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: Would the noble Lord define whom he is thinking of when he says "our people"?
LORD HANKEY: I am thinking of the great mass of voters.
LORD SAINSBURY: I support my noble friend. How, in an undemocratic, unelected House can any of us get up and talk as though we represent the people? We are a non-elected Chamber.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: If that is the case, none of us has any right to speak at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I really am surprised that noble Lords do not welcome these provisions. What is proposed is that the responsible trade unions should have a special position. They express fear about their stability, and about the threat to stability from these provisions. These provisions will give them stability, and it will put what they refer to as "splinter unions" or "breakaways", and all the rest, at a disadvantage against them, unless of course those breakaway unions themselves will undertake the same responsibilities.
I really do not understand why noble Lords should take the view that they have. After all, the Donovan Commission was set up simply because everything in the garden was not lovely. Thus, what the Donovan Commission said on these matters is:
"The requirements as to rules of registered trade unions will henceforth be rather more extensive, and will call for more supervision on the part of the Registrar, than in the past."
Then again, on the question of individuals:
"We envisage that all complaints by individuals would be addressed in the first instance to the Registrar, who would have the duty
736
of advising complainants and of promoting the amicable settlement of the matters of which they complain."
This is not exactly the same but, so far as the rules are concerned, it is to the Registrar that the complaints will be made.
Another point that the noble Lord, Lord Slater, seemed to have overlooked is that exactly the same burden, so far as the guiding principles, is laid also upon employers' associations: it is the same for both sides. I really do not understand why noble Lords resist the requirement that everybody should have to comply with the rules that all good unions now comply with. This seems to me absolute common sense, and the only point on which we differ is the point mentioned by the noble Baroness, that she did not like this imposed from above. But in a democracy where do you impose things from? You impose things from Parliament; and this is what we intend to do.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I must press the noble Lord on his contribution on this Amendment, and take up with him again some of the points which I raised when I moved the Amendment but to which he did not feel able to respond. Does the noble Lord agree that, under the proposals which he set forth so persuasively, the Registrar will have far more opportunity, and indeed far more requirement, to intervene in detailed day-to-day affairs of the union than has hitherto been the case? Does he not see substance in my point that this can give rise to a large number of technicalities being raised, to the detriment of the normal functioning of the trade unions?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I answered that point, because the Bill shows exactly what has to be done here. The Registrar will intervene if he receives a complaint that the rules have been contravened or if, in some way or another, he finds out for himself that the rules have been contravened. He will also look at any changes in the rules that may be made, just as he looks at the rules as they are sent to him in the first place. Nobody can call that day-to-day intervention, unless there are going to be complaints every day.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: There are 10 million members of trade unions

737
and a certain number of them will not be averse to putting up some rather flimsy cases, if I may put the point to the noble Lord. Since he has risen to respond, may I put a supplementary question to him? Is it intended that the Registrar shall insist that all the procedures of the union in question shall have been exhausted before he will examine a case?
LORD DRUMALBYN: In general he will look to see that the procedures have been exhausted; that is so.
LORD DELACOUR'T-SMITH: May I then return to my second point, which I put in moving the Amendment? Have the Government not completely ignored the work of the Trades Union Congress in itself initiating a revision of trade union rules? Is it leaving no part at all for the Trades Union Congress to play in this whole question of the rules of individual trade unions?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am not certain if it is right for us to proceed by a sort of catechism. Perhaps I was wrong to answer the first question, but it seemed to me so fundamental, and as I had omitted to answer it, I thought it had better be done.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I thought the noble Lord preferred to proceed in this way. He has quoted repeatedly the Donovan Commission, but since he has relied so heavily on some quotations, will he look at paragraph 658, which comes between the two paragraphs which he read to the Committee? This is the paragraph which deals with a review body and it states:
"We envisage a review body consisting of three members, of whom two would be chosen from a panel of trade unionists appointed by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity after consultation with the T.U.C., and one would be a lawyer who would act as chairman."
The Report went on to set out the important role which was foreseen for that review body. The Government have omitted altogether anything on the lines of that review body, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would indicate why this part of the Donovan Commis-
sion's Report on trade union rules has been omitted.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has asked two further questions, the first of which was about the role of the T.U.C. The T.U.C. can do a great deal, and the Government hope that it will continue to do the good work that it is doing. But it is not envisaged that the T.U.C. can do everything. After all, the rights of others are involved in these matters and the T.U.C. cannot very easily get compensation for those who suffer loss; nor indeed is it always able to stop people doing what they are doing among the unions. So it is necessary to have some superior authority. The noble Lord asked about the review body. This is not given a name here, and perhaps the functions are not all quite the same as the Donovan Commission envisaged. But there are other industrial tribunals which are composed in much the same way as was envisaged in paragraph 658.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I think that that is not really quite correct. I was not aware that the industrial tribunal was to consist of,
"… three members, of whom two would be chosen from a panel of trade unionists appointed…after consultation with the T.U.C, and one would be a lawyer who would act as chairman."
If that is the case, it is indeed news to me. The review body was designed by the Donovan Commission to ensure that there was brought to bear on the issue of union rules, and acting, as it were, between the Registrar and the trade unions, a body which would have expert trade union knowledge. This element has not been provided by the Government. They have not provided for any consultation on a regular basis with the Trades Union Congress, or for the special review body which Donovan envisaged. I really do not think that we can accept the industrial tribunals as fulfilling in any way the function that was envisaged by Donovan.
8.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 74) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 99.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Beswick, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Ardwick, L.

Blyton, L.

Burntwood, L.

Bernstein, L.

Brockway, L.

Champion, L.

Collison, L.

Hughes, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Serota, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gage, V.

Longford, E.

Shinwell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Maelor, L.

Slater, L.

Gardiner, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Stow Hill, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Peddie, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Heycock, L.

Platt, L.

White, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hoy, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Ailwyn, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Allerton, L.

Effingham, E.

Oakshott, L.

Alport, L.

Essex, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Arran, E.

Exeter, M.

Poole, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Radnor, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gisborough, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Reading, M.

Barrington, V.

Gowrie, E.

Redesdale, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Gray, L.

Redmayne, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Belstead, L.

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

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Blackburn, Bp.

Halsbury, E.

St. Helens, L.

Boston, L.

Hankey, L.

St. Just, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harlech, L.

Sandford, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sandys, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hatherton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Henley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Byers, L.

Hood, V.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Caldecote, V.

Ilford, L.

Strang, L.

Clwyd, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strathcarron, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kemsley, V.

Swaythling, L.

Courtown, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Teviot, L.

Cowley, E.

Lothian, M.

Thorneycroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Thurso, V.

Cromartie, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mansfield, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Davidson, V.

Molson, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

De La Warr, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Wolverton, L.

Digby, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Yarborough, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 75 I think I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 76.
8.51 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 8, line 20, leave out from ("unions") to ("in") in line 21 and insert ("or between an employers' association and one or more trade unions, whereby it is agreed").
The noble Lord said: The points in this Amendment were I think covered by my noble friend in relation to the new
740
clause following Clause 16. I formally beg to move.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I think it may be the case that some Members of the Committee were not present at our consideration of the earlier clause, and, without wishing to be difficult, I think that a few words of explanation would be welcome.
LORD BELSTEAD: These Amendments refer back, as I was saying just now, to the new clause which my noble friend moved last week. This particular clause allows that an employers' association rather than a single employer may be included in the provisions of Clause 10. It therefore provides more flexibility and a wider sweep to the provisions.
BARONESS WHITE: Could the noble Lord explain to us at this point—because some of us have been a little puzzled about this—whether, in this particular place, the provision has any effect on Clause 16, to which, of course, we have not yet come? We understood that one of the main reasons for including employers' associations was to cover such industries or occupations as the theatrical profession and the seamen, because particularly for them the employers' associations are of great importance.
LORD BELSTEAD: I think we are going wide. Similar provisions are to be found, I think I am right in saying, in Schedule 1.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: We are asking for an explanation. I am asking—and I think I have got clearly what it means, because I have looked at it about six times now—I had better put it interogatively and humbly. Does it mean, in relation to an employers' association, with a number of unions in its type of industry throughout the whole gamut of that industry, wherever it may be—not just in a factory or a plant but throughout the whole country—that if, say, the brush-makers' union has one little branch in Llanfairpwllgyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwll-llandyssiliogogogoch, and another little branch in Cornwall, the whole gamut of those things will take them in; or is it just only local?
LORD DRUMALBYN: It means exactly what it says. This can be as wide or as narrow as you like. You can have a plant agreement; you can have an agreement by associated employers; you can have an agreement right across the whole board of the whole range of an industry. It is quite open, and it applies to the description or descriptions of workers who are specified in the agreement.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Could the noble Lord help me? Where does it appear in Clause 1? My recollection is that the first time we had this question of associations was last Thursday.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend said Schedule 1, not Clause 1.
8.57 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 8, line 29, leave out from ("unions") to end of line 31
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the next Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friends. This is really an occasion, once again, for expressing our general views of the Bill. I must agree that we have already had a pretty full discussion, and therefore I do not propose to detain your Lordships for any length of time. But with our general attitude towards this Bill we feel we are entitled to indicate, as we go through it, places at which we feel that the Bill is not consonant with our point of view. In this particular instance we do not expect the Government to agree with us. They have accepted one or two of our Amendments, but we should frankly he surprised if they accepted this one, because we recognise fully that we are here expressing a political opinion and giving expression to our general attitude towards the Bill. But I think we are justified in so doing because I would point out, with reference to the remarks made a little earlier, about its being no business of ours to talk about these matters, that not one of these clauses, Nos. 1 to 15, inclusive, was discussed in any way whatsoever in the elected Chamber. Therefore, if Members there did not discuss them—they voted on them without any discussion at all—it seems to us that we are entitled to say one or two words about them.
It is, I think, quite plain to any of your Lordships who have observed this Amendment of ours that, were it carried, it would drive a carriage and pair through the whole agency shop concept as it is held by the Government, because we are suggesting here that we should exclude references to those who did not wish to belong to trade unions and therefore did not wish to pay under the provisions of the earlier clauses of the Bill. In other words, if there are such people we should prefer them to be nonvoting members of the union, to pay their dues and not to play any other part if they had no wish so to do. But it will be appreciated that we take the attitude, as we have said on previous occasions, that the Government are

743
elevating the status of non-unionism in a way which we find thoroughly unsatisfactory and reprehensible. It is what we might call a demonstrative Amendment, simply to bring to the attention of your Lordships once more the fact that we do not care for the concept of the agency shop, with which this clause is concerned. We do not believe it will improve industrial relations or benefit industry, and therefore we take this opportunity of indicating once more our general attitude to this part of the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Taken at its face value, this is rather an extraordinary Amendment, but I appreciate that the noble Lords would obviously not wish to win a vote on this Amendment because it would rather make nonsense of the clause.
BARONESS WHITE: With great respect, we should be delighted to win; we do not think the Government would wish us to win, but it would improve the Bill immensely from our point of view if we were to do so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: With great respect, it would make nonsense of the Bill, and I am sure that this Committee would not wish to allow Bills to leave this Committee in that state.
A NOBLE LORD: The Bill is nonsense anyway.
LORD DRUMALBYN: We have discussed this point very fully. I do not think noble Lords would wish us to go over the ground again. We believe this to be a very reasonable compromise between the two points of view which we have emphasised so greatly: on the one hand, the right to belong or not to belong; and on the other hand, the need for a stable system of collective bargaining. This is a compromise which will ensure that the unions are strong, because it gives the opportunity to those who do not wish to be members of a union to retain their independence but requires them to contribute to the union. That means that the unions will be what they proclaim themselves to be—free, voluntary associations. They will be voluntary in every sense. Those who want to belong may belong, and those who do not wish to belong will pay their share of the expenses of negotiation. We
744
believe that is a sound arrangement which will preserve freedom on the one hand and ensure an improvement in collective bargaining on the other.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I appreciate the point, but I wonder if the noble Lord, before he sits down, would answer this question. So far as I know, there is no type of machinery for collecting these contributions and paying them over to a charity. Is the noble Lord able to say what is in the Government's mind with regard to establishing the machinery to see that these contributions are regularly paid to the appropriate charity?
LORD DRUIVIALBYN: I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the Chamber when my noble friend Lord Windlesham explained this with great clarity. It would be out of order to go over it again.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: There is a point that is worth going over in this clause, and I will quote the phrase that the worker shall
"agree to pay appropriate contributions to that trade union".
The point of that is that the trade union must be a registered trade union or it cannot get agreement. Am I correct in that?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Then why is it not given as "registered" in the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the noble Lord will look at Clause 158, he will find the definition of "trade union".
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: But would it not have made it much clearer in the Bill to make sure? What I am talking about is the looseness of the wording. Judges, courts and young barristers will play about with it. To get it crystal clear I think that qualification should be put in wherever there is the word "union", so that we know what we are talking about—registered unions. The others have no power to organise collective bargaining or anything else.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Is the noble Lord saying that wherever a word which appears in the definition appears in the course of this Bill it should be accompanied by the definition?

745
In that case, the Bill would be twice as long and there would be no need for the definitions.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Not unless the definition of words, as in this case, is important, in which case the answer is in the affirmative.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: It is nonsense.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: It is not nonsense at all. This arrogance of the Liberal Party is astounding.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order ! Order !
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I wonder if I could put a question to the noble Lord, so that he may answer either at this point or at a later stage? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord Chancellor will be able to answer it. Is there anything in the Bill which would preclude an employer from paying himself, in one way or another, the contribution which should be made to the union by nonmembers under an agency shop agreement? I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that since many employers do operate the system of deducting union contributions that might be quite an easy course, and it is clear from what noble Lords opposite have said that it would in many respects frustrate the intentions of the Government. Personally I cannot find anything in the Bill which would preclude that, and it would be useful to know whether there is anything.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has almost a detective mind on these things. I am not certain whether that aspect has already been considered, but I should have thought it was possible that this might be covered under Clause 5—where there is mention of some element of discrimination, inducement or something of that order not to belong to the union if the employer paid the dues. I think it very probable that that would be treated as an inducement, and I am sure that if it happened there would be a complaint.
LORD SLATER: What are the conditions with regard to an agreement arrived at as between employer and employee where the contribution is deducted from the employee's wages, either at
746
weekly or monthly intervals? What then will be the position in regard to the transference to this agency shop?
BARONESS WHITE: If the noble Lord is proposing to answer that question I should be delighted to allow him to do so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should prefer only to answer those questions I can understand. I find that very difficult to understand. There is no question of a transfer to an agency shop.
LORD SLATER: We did this when we were in the Post Office, where we allowed the dues or contributions to be deducted at head office instead of being collected by the branch secretary. It became part of the operation. The money is automatically transferred to the trade unions. What is going to happen in regard to individuals who are not members of a trade union? They make a contribution, but it is not to be collected by the trade union. What is to happen about the transfer of that contribution?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My noble friend Lord Windlesham discussed this, and said it would be a matter for agreement, which would be settled in the way most convenient to the parties concerned.
BARONESS WHITE: I think that we have made our position clear on this but as we shall be discussing further matters in this clause, and will wish to express our general disapproval of it later, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 8, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) (a) Any single description of workers specified in the agreement shall not comprise workers who duties, training, experience and professional or other qualifications are widely dissimilar in nature.
(b) Professionally qualified employees shall be entitled to description in terms of the qualifying body to which they belong."
The noble Earl said: In rising to move the Amendment standing in my name and in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, the noble Lord, Lord Nelson and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I should like to refer briefly to all four Amendments that I have tabled before speaking to

747
the first one as they interlock and as, by coincidence, in the Marshalled List they appear in reverse order to that which is most easily comprehensible. Your Lordships will note that Clause 22(6)(b) refers to any degree, diploma or other academic technical or professional qualification.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether the Liberal Party would agree to their Amendments Nos. 100A, 102A and 100B being discussed at the same time.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: If the Government accept any part of the Amendments being put forward at the moment it is our intention to move a slightly separate Amendment on 100A and 100B. These we have already tabled.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: Clause 22(6)(b) does not define "professional qualification". I have accordingly attempted a definition in the fourth of my Amendments. It is often said that this cannot be done; but I believe that it can. We will debate the point when the Amendment is called.
Having defined "professional qualification" I employ this term in my third Amendment to write into Clause 46(3) "professional or other qualification" instead of "qualification". This is the clause which grants relief to minorities under the sole bargaining provisions. In my second Amendment I copy this clause as amended back into the context of the agency shop provisions so as to provide the same protection to minorities in the context of agency shops as they enjoy in the context of sole bargaining agencies. Finally, in the Amendment to which I am now speaking I introduce a general embargo on classifying together workers whose status is widely dissimilar, and in the second part of the Amendment require that professionally qualified employees should be entitled to be described for the purposes of the Act in terms of the qualifying body of which they are members and which endows them with their professional standing.
I should like to emphasise that in proposing these Amendments I am not seeking to establish a privileged class compared to whom others are second-rate citizens. The professional man is a special person from only one point of view; namely, that he very often wears
748
a special degree of overall responsibility in the discharge of which he is subject to discipline by an ethical committee or whatever variant term is used by the qualifying body of which he is a member. He can therefore come under cross-fire from opposed sources if the action required by union membership is incompatible with that required by his professional conscience. I therefore feel that he should be entitled to a description in terms of his profession rather than in more general terms. Doctors, solicitors, chartered accountants, chartered engineers, professional chemists, physicists, biologists, metallurgists architects, quantity surveyors and so on may wear white collars and work in offices. This is an insufficient reason for classifying them as white-collar workers along with professionally unqualified people who may also wear white collars and work in offices but who are not in danger of coming under crossfire.
I am not opposed—and I hope noble Lords opposite will not misunderstand me to the professional classes being members of trade unions. On the contrary, having regard to the large area of monopoly employment in the public health services, in the nationalised industries and so on, I think it essential that professionally qualified men should exercise their rights and set up unions which represent them—and in many cases they have done so.
Why, then, are the five members of the Council of Scientific and Technological Institutions, the fifteen Chartered Engineering Institutions, the Chartered Surveyors, the British Medical Association and many other professional bodies who have written to me following my speech on Second Reading so disturbed by the agency shop and sole bargaining agency provisions of this Bill? Much of their disquiet stems from a decision of the I.R.C. made last year. For some time Mr. Clive Jenkins' union A.S.T.M.S. have been pressing for the equivalent in this Bill of a sole bargaining agency provision with respect to employees of the Medical Research Council. The status of the M.R.C. in relation to the technicians, laboratory assistants and unqualified persons generally was not in serious dispute. The difficulty arose with the professionally qualified employees.

749
In so far as they were clinical workers—that is doctors—the British Medical Association represented them. But what of their co-workers, equally professional: the professionally qualified chemists, physicists, biologists and so on?—87 per cent. of whom wanted to be represented by the British Medical Association, who were willing to act on their behalf.
The A.S.T.M.S. sought to override this clearly expressed wish by lumping them together with their unqualified assistants, and the matter went to the I.R.C. as then constituted. The whole professional world was flabbergasted by its decision to support the A.S.T.M.S. instead of the British Medical Association in this context. The M.R.C. wavered and I do not know what might have happened, but the publication of this Bill heartened the M.R.C. into rejection of the finding of the I.R.C. And there the matter rests—
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the noble Lord will forgive me, I should like to suggest that perhaps the Committee might understand more clearly still than they are doing what he is saying if he would refer to the Commission on Industrial Relations as C.I.R.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: I accept the correction from the noble Lord. And there the matter rests, leaving scar tissue among many members of the professional community. If the wishes of 87 per cent., including Nobel Prize-winners and Fellows of the Royal Society and other leaders of their professions could be over-riden in this way, what might not happen next and what guarantee does this Bill provide against it?
Another incident which has had widespread repercussions among professional engineers is the fate of N.A.L.G.O. members employed by the city of Hull, who refused to come out on a strike which, if effective, would have flooded large areas of the city. Their professional conscience being completely at variance with N.A.L.G.O. policies, they manned the pumps themselves and were expelled from N.A.L.G.O. in consequence. Mercifully for them, there was no closed shop and so they were able to retain their employment. Clearly N.A.L.G.O. was the wrong union for them to belong to. They ought to have been members of
750
U.K.A.P.E., the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers, a society whose membership is confined to chartered engineers and one which respects their scruples of conscience. Had this Bill been in force, they clearly ought to have had an independent description and balloted by themselves as to whether or not they wanted an agency shop and, if so, whether a sole bargaining agency should be entrusted to the union of their choice. This they could never do if, for purposes of "description", they were lumped in with a very large majority of other workers who did not share their professional scruples.
The discussions I have listened to on the protection of minorities have seemed to me to over-emphasise the problems presented by two kinds of minority, to the neglect of a third. There is the welder who may be in a minority vis-á-vis the boilermakers. That is one kind of problem. There is the individual who does not want to join a trade union at all. He is a second kind of problem. We have tended to concentrate our discussions on these. My concern is with the third problem—that of the man who is in a minority because he has been wrongly classified with a numerically larger group for the purpose of "description". I know that the Law Officers of the Crown, in correspondence with representatives of the professional associations, have argued that these matters should be dealt with in the code of practice. I should like to rebut this argument by quoting the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, from the OFFICIAL REPORT of April 27, in which, in the course of an intervention he said:
"I do not think that one can accept that because something is sound for the code of practice it is necessarily sound for the Bill, because the Bill is laying down rights and duties, whereas the code of practice sets out to establish codes of behaviour which would be difficult to establish in the Bill."—[col 1149.]
Surely, not being placed between cross-fires by the act of a court or commission should be a right in law. It should not be a matter of behaviour written into a code of practice which has not yet been published.
I have tried to deal with this matter briefly because other speakers are to follow and time, as usual, passes in its relentless way. I cannot help but speculate whether Alexander Pope may not

751
have been prophetically inspired by the Committee stage of this Bill when he wrote:
"A needless Alexandrine ends the song, That, like a wounded snake, drags its slow length along."
If so, a few lines later he may have anticipated the brevity and pith with which noble Ladies often set a good example:
"Not so when swift Camilla scours the plain Flies o'er the unbending corn and skims along the main."
"Corn" is a word of more than one meaning. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might interpret it one way and Actors' Equity another. Be that as it may, it is not for me to say in what sense the poet may have used it prophetically with respect to this Committee stage.
I have tried to emulate "swift Camilla" when presenting these arguments to your Lordships. I hope the field of subject matter over which I have flown will not be unbending, and that the Government will pay due heed to what is said, not by me, for the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has been more than kind in listening to my arguments privately, but by those who follow me, who, I hope, will convince the noble Lord that my views are not without a wide measure of support in all Parties and in all sections of the professions.
9.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has spoken eloquently, and there is no need to add anything to what he said; but I should like to support very strongly the point he has made. Professional status—I speak as a chartered engineer—is of paramount importance. Surely we must all agree that the principles of professional conduct must be maintained at all costs. I do not believe that is possible if professional people are lumped together with others who do not have the same sort of outlook and standards. In other words, it is not possible to maintain these important standards if there is a real conflict of loyalties, such as the noble Earl indicated often arises. If the Committee agree that the maintenance of these professional standards really is important, I hope that the Government will give very
752
sympathetic consideration to these Amendments. I do not believe it is sufficient or appropriate that such an important matter should be dealt with in the code of practice, which, as I understand it, will not have the force of law.
I believe it is important that this matter should be covered in the body of the Bill, and if the Government do not feel able to accept the Amendments in exactly the way they have been drafted, I hope that they will, at worst, give an undertaking to look at this matter very carefully, and bring forward a suitable Amendment on report.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: I think that this question of the professional person is another indication of the problems created by the Bill. Those who want something done about professional people are in the dilemma that many of the professions have for their objective, and very properly so, the establishment of high standards of professional conduct. I think I am right in saying that many of the professional bodies where set up by Royal Charter, and one of the conditions of a Royal Charter is that you do not deal with wage relations or payment and so on. This is the dilemma in which the professional bodies find themselves, and I think that their situation ought to be met.
This clause refers to groups of people and sections of people. Because, as we have said, the American pattern has been followed with regard to this kind of legislation I am sure that you will not have an agency agreement which will cover all employees, but an agreement which will cover groups of employees even within the manual field, with groupings as between craft and unskilled and semiskilled people in many instances. All this will be done by the court when a request comes to establish an agency shop. I think, therefore, that the apprehensions which have been expressed on behalf of the professional men are not soundly based. Nevertheless, I accept that, because we are now by legislation trying to provide for industrial relations for everybody, this is going to crystallise a situation which the professional bodies have not previously had to face. They will now have to face the problem of whether they are going to depend on fees

753
and percentages, or whether they are going to depend upon scales which are negotiated; and I appreciate the problem. But I do not think the apprehention is justified, because there is protection in giving recognition for groups, and, by and large there will be no difficulty in identifying professional men.
But, again, the problem arises that as soon as you refer to institutions where professional men are concerned you find that in many instances they are very much involved in a work force. So you have the two kinds of professional men: the men who are really advisory and are acting as a profession, individually in many cases, and the others, in groups which have been referred to. I do not want to deal with the whole situation, but I do not think that that argument was very relevant, because there is an example. If you want to call engineers in municipal employment professional men, I would remind you that there are also engineers in municipalities and in management, and for many years, for good or ill, NALGO have been negotiating for many of them. I do not know the merits of the matter, so I cannot make any judgment on it, but I think there was a case when NALGO—and it is very rare for NALGO to do this—almost got into a strike or "go-slow" situation which those people were not prepared to carry out. But I appreciate the problem, which is a very real one and one which has been brought about by the Bill itself in trying to cover everybody.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I think a service has been rendered by the noble Lords, Lord Byers, Lord Nelson and Lord Platt, in putting down this Amendment, but I do not quite know how it can be dealt with. What I think this really in depth points out is the problem that arises when you try to make a legal framework to deal with these matters. Take the realm of biochemistry, where every day now there are great expansions. At the present moment, for instance, I know that there is a problem of employment with biochemists. Or take the Medical Research Council, which includes the most highly skilled people—people who have devoted their entire life to studying their profession. Where are you putting these people in this Bill? We are trying to reach a point at which everybody is put into a tiny category.
754
I want to repeat something I said about a fortnight ago when discussing this Bill in a general way. It is a pity that we are not allowing for the intelligence and common sense of people, and are not allowing for the typical British system of working by custom. We are trying to put everything down like the Common Market, and like other countries—yes, there are 7,000 or 9,000 bureaucrats who are going to try to define every human activity in the Common Market. We are trying to define here, in the realm of the professional worker, whoever he may be, many a professional worker who is highly qualified in electronics, in pathology, in biochemistry, maybe wearing a blue collar, metaphorically speaking, as opposed to a white collar, because he enjoys creative work with his hands. I do not know how the Government are going to get over it, but I think a service has been rendered by putting down this Amendment, and I hope that attention of some kind will be paid to this problem, which my noble friend, with his vast experience, has also pointed out.
9.29 p.m.
LORD PLATT: I find myself in agreement with some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has just been saying. I think this situation arises from drafting an enormous and extremely complicated Bill the sole purpose of which is to deal with relations in industry. I will not at this moment say whether I think it does it well or not, but that is its sole purpose; and if nobody believes this, have they not listened to the Second Reading debate, which went on for two days—and this is the seventh day of the Committee stage, in which hardly a reference of any kind has been made to professions. The whole talk, with the exception of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who on Second Reading mentioned the professions, has been of employer and employee in industry. The professions, who are often minorities of course, seem to have come in for no consideration at all.
The noble Earl has put the situation so well that there is little more I need to say in calling upon the Government to give this aspect completely new consideration, to see whether some different

755
arrangements should not be made for professions, which have governed their own affairs for years and have developed in recent years among those who are working as employees of the Government, as in the Health Service, and have developed negotiating machinery and review bodies as well as their own governing bodies—in our own case the General Medical Council. I hope the Government will consider whether the Bill is really appropriate for organisations of this kind, and whether there should not be some mechanism by which professions could come before the Commission for Industrial Relations and argue their case that special arrangements should be made for them, particularly where they are asked to fit in with these trade union arrangements which depend on a code of practice about which they know nothing. In the professions we have had codes of practice for many years, in some cases for hundreds of years, and we do not want a new code of practice imposed upon us by bureaucratic methods. Finally, I think this clause will have an ill-effect on the morale of well-established professions, who are proud of their work and proud of their duties to their clients or to their patients, and I would ask the Government to think again.
9.33 p.m.
LORD NELSON OF STAFFORD: May I add my voice in support of the Amendment which the noble Earl. Lord Halsbury, has proposed? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that there has been little talk about professional men inside the House, but I can assure your Lordships that there has been a great deal of talk about it outside. I think your Lordships should give serious consideration to this Amendment. The professional workers think that they are being put in an impossible position by the terms of the industrial agency shop provisions in the Bill. They are not opposed to members of unions, but they see themselves as a small minority in a large shop, represented by a union in which they are a minority, a union which in many instances may be pursuing policies which are in conflict with the professional code of conduct to which they are pledged, as defined by their royal charters. I cannot think that this is inten-
756
ded by the Government, and they ought to take a good look at it.
The individual is faced with divided loyalties, which put him into an extremely difficult position. I do not think that this is in the interests of the trade unions either, because their strength is dependent upon the loyalty and solidarity of their members, and they do not want to have an element in their ranks which is divided in its loyalty.
Your Lordships may have seen another case in addition to that referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, to which I should like to refer. It occurred on the North-East coast, when professional men were forced to join a union against their wish, as a result of an agreement with management entered into in order to avoid a major industrial dispute. This seems to me to be quite obviously unfair practice. The Government may say that it should appear in the code of practice. But I agree with noble Lords who have already spoken on this subject: I do not think that the code of practice is sufficient to deal with the important position of professional men. They are intelligent, and are fulfilling important roles in their undertakings and organisations. I think their position ought to be clearly defined to ensure that there is no misunderstanding. Therefore I would press the Government to give serious consideration to this Amendment, to ensure that no misunderstandings arise with the many professional men who are doing such an excellent job throughout our national activities.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: I hope that the Government will pay great attention to this Amendment and try and meet it because, as the noble Earl and several noble Lords have already pointed out, there is a serious problem here. I have noticed it working inside a university, in charge of a large chemistry department with a number of technical staff of all grades. This is the serious problem with which one is faced: that one has, on the one hand, a person who is an Associate Member of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, a highly qualified person, with a qualification that is regarded as equivalent to a first or second class Honours degree at university. This person has obtained this qualification as a result of doing work in the laboratory. He has

757
never been to a university, but has taken his qualification by working on his own for the whole of this difficult examination. He has become qualified, and has then found a suitable position inside the department. He is a person with high skill (I have had this occur in my own department), and is put in charge of an elaborate and expensive piece of apparatus. I can think of one such man who is in charge of the complete electron microscopy department inside the university. This man has under his charge instruments which have cost the best part of £250,000. Any one of those instruments can be wrecked in a second by a bad mistake. He has under him three or four technical staff and his skill is relied upon by at least a dozen departments in the university. I have known people from the School of Dentistry, the School of Medicine, and from the Departments of Biology and Metallurgy coming along and relying on this man's technical skill and help.
This person is in a very special position, and there are many like him throughout the country. It is by no means unique; you can find in universities and research laboratories all over the country people in this position. They are one category of the persons to whom the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was referring. They are people who cannot be fitted easily and neatly into the machine which is being proposed by this Bill. It is important that a proper place should be found for anyone like this, because if it is not the future development of our scientific work, our medical work and our industrial work will suffer. It is extremely important to realise that these people are the very people who carry the real burden of innovation inside all our scientific and technological work. I beg the noble Lord to give serious consideration to this matter and to realise that if they are to be forced into a system which looks a neat, tidy, ready-made system, it is also the system of death for innovation.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I should like to add one comment. I have been very interested in this Amendment, and the arguments for it sound very plausible; but as they have been developed it has seemed to me, as my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath pointed out, that the Bill itself does not help.
758
I agree with what my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones said about the importance of this particular group of men, but this Bill will act as a divisive force between the professional and the industrial workers; and I am not sure that that is what we want in our society. I do not think we want to make this rift wider than it is already. This matter bodes ill for us in future.
BARONESS WHITE: I was rather wondering whether we should have enlightenment from the Liberal benches.
LORD BYERS: Let the Government reply first.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Lord, Lord Byers', name is down to the Amendment. I should like to make a few comments on this Amendment because, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, this is not the first time during our debates on the Bill that we have mentioned the position of the professional person. Noble Lords may recall that I raised this matter at a very early stage, I think on Clause 1. At that stage I had in mind particularly teachers' organisations and also N.A.L.G.O. who raised with some of us the problem as it appeared to them. As the noble Earl has pointed out, they have in membership persons of different professions who are employees of local government, local council, the hospital services or of the public service industries—gas, electricity and the like—for whom this problem is peculiarly acute.
On the occasion when we on this side raised this difficulty of dual membership and dual loyalty the Government seemed to indicate that they wished to give the matter a good deal further thought. They may have already done so. It is a most difficult problem and it arises partly out of the nature of the Bill. If one is going to wrap up our industrial relations in so much legislative machinery, these problems, which are admittedly already in existence—I do not pretend they are entirely created by the Bill, but they are accentuated by it—are much more formalised than they have been in the past.
The problem I think falls under several heads. My noble friend Lady Gaitskell

759
is quite right when she says that one is concerned that if one can avoid it, one should not have a divisive position with people who in different capacities are serving a common employer. Under the definition in this Bill, which we have discussed already on more than one occasion, they are all workers and I think most of us, certainly we on this side of the Committee and I suppose noble Lords opposite, would not really welcome a division into first and second class citizens, sheep and goats, whatever you like to call them, because in their different ways they are all responsible for the welfare of the establishment by which they are employed. On the other hand, one recognises the position of a professional man who, even though he may be a most loyal member of a trade union, is also a member of a professional association, and has to reconcile the conflicting demands. Even within this situation there are also serious difficulties. The B.M.A. may be a rather special trade union, but it is a trade union which negotiates directly on behalf of its members.
LORD PLATT: It is not a trade union but it does negotiate.
BARONESS WHITE: For certain purposes it is a quasi trade union, whereas we were told with great emphasis by my noble friend Lord Tangley in our earlier debate that the Law Society per contra is not a negotiating body in that sense. I cannot speak for the engineering bodies on which two noble Lords have spoken, or the R.I.B.A.; but there are professional bodies which vary in their relationships with their members or in the kind of representation which they may or may not make on their behalf. We are in a very important and complex area. Mention was made of A.S.T.M.S., which has been moving rapidly into the sphere of organising white collar workers (if you like to so call them) and professional people who for the most part have not hitherto been organised in trade unions in the ordinary sense of that word. So I should suppose it to be an increasing and not diminishing problem. We should be glad to have the considered thoughts now of the Government which were not vouchsafed when we touched on this matter at an earlier stage.
9.47 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, on having made a very clear and quite brief speech in which he has pointed out what he hopes to achieve. I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness on having walked extremely delicately, as she herself said, on a difficult subject. Perhaps I may be allowed to spend a little time on this matter because it shows the kind of problems we are going to face and the way in which the Bill seeks to solve them.
It would be fair to start from the situation as it is now. In that connection I would start with the speech of my noble friend Lord Nelson of Stafford. It is the case now that you can get threats of industrial action in order to bring the kind of person referred to into a negotiating body. Under the Bill, subsection (1) of Clause 10 envisages that agency shops can be set up by agreement. That is being done already: Only on Friday I came across a case in which a closed shop agreement failed to be renegotiated, and it has been replaced with an agency shop. This can be done voluntarily. Secondly, an agency shop can be established on the application of one or more trade unions desiring to enter into an agency shop under the machinery of the Bill. A feature there is that a union must be recognised as having negotiating rights before its application to be an agency shop can be proceeded with.
Noble Lords will be aware that the question of recognition is dealt with in Clause 43 and the following clauses. So there may be the position already where a union covering one or more descriptions of workers makes application for an agency shop or seeks to negotiate an agency shop agreement with an employer. In such circumstances, what is the position of the professional worker? Take first the case of the shop which has already been voluntarily agreed upon; and I think one can join with that the case where an agency shop is negotiated after the commencement of the Bill's implementation. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, indicated quite clearly that one of his fears was that descriptions of workers should be so wide as to embody within them professional workers, and that therefore as a minority they might

761
be drawn into an agency shop by agreement between the sole bargaining agent for the bargaining unit, or whatever one likes to call it, and the employer. In such a case, what should the professional workers within that description of workers do?
Before I answer that question, I think I should say this. The purpose of the Bill is to establish stable collective bargaining. It does not want fragmentation; it wants to have viable units, either within one plant or covering a number of plants. I accept the criticism from the noble Lord, Lord Platt, that we are a little too apt to talk, and possibly to think, in terms of plants. But if that is so, it is largely because we have read the Donovan Commission's Report, and all that, and we tend rather to think in those terms. But, of course, it applies equally well to a NALGO situation or anything of that kind.
LORD PLATT: Until quite recently, I had never heard of an agency shop.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That may be so, but this is only a question of terminology. Since the noble Lord has said that, perhaps I may take the opportunity of simply saying to him, in response to the two speeches he has made, that we are not concerned here with the General Medical Council simply because it does not regulate relations between employers and workers: it enforces standards of medical practitioners.
LORD PLATT: We are concerned with codes of practice, which are going to be part of this Bill—indeed, a very important part.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not want to be distracted too much from my speech, but I would say that a code of practice of that kind is not the kind of code of practice we are speaking about under this Bill, where we are speaking about codes of practice for industrial relations, for collective bargaining and all the rest of it. This is not going to interfere in any way whatsoever in the individual codes of professions, subject of course to the fear that there might be a conflict of interest on professional duty in a specific case. But it is of course true that the British Medical Association performs, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said, some of the functions of a trade union in that
762
it negotiates terms and conditions on behalf of its members in the National Health Service, and to that extent it will be subject as a trade union to the supervision of the Registrar. But the likelihood is that it will be in the Special Register that has been set up for this purpose and will not be in the General Register of Trade Unions—if that is of any consolation to the noble Lord.
The question I put before is: What will be the position of professional men in a situation of this kind? In the first place, under the agency shop provisions they will at least be better off in this respect, that they will have the right not to belong to the union, and therefore they will not come under the discipline of the union within that agency shop. So that if the union goes on strike they will not have to go on strike, and their principles will be intact. The second point is that there is the possibility of referring problems or disputes to the N.R.I.C. or the C.I.R. The N.R.I.C. will pass them on to the C.I.R.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, he said that they will not be forced to belong to the union. Does that mean that they may belong to any other union?
LORD DRUMALBYN: What we are envisaging here is a situation where there is one union, as may happen in an agency shop, that is the sole bargaining agent for that agency shop, and that included in the descriptions of worker covered by the agency shop agreement are some professional workers. This is not necessarily so (and I will come to that in a moment) but I am dealing with that situation which may present certain problems—
LORD BYERS: May I ask the noble Lord whether he actually said that the section of the union which is professional will not come under the discipline of the larger union?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I did not say that. I am at present dealing with the situation where there is one union that is recognised in respect of a description of workers which has within it individual professional members. The individual professional members can decline to be members of that union and so not come under the discipline of that union, and so their allegiance will remain wholly to

763
their professional body. That is the first case. The second case is where a number of unions combine together within the agency shop, each representing a different description of workers. There, one of the descriptions of workers represented may be a professional body, and in such a case it is likely to form part of a joint negotiating panel and to be represented on that joint negotiating panel. Noble Lords may well say that of course they will be in a minority in that case, but nevertheless they will be there, and they will be able to represent their members through whoever is their representative on the joint negotiating panel.
Thirdly, it is possible for the C.I.R. to give its advice on the scope of the bargaining unit, as noble Lords will see when they read the provisions relating to that. In other words, in any case which is referred by a union to the Industrial Court the C.I.R. will be able to recommend either the widening of the scope—or the contracting of the scope—of the descriptions of worker to be included in the agency shop ballot. It is important that noble Lords should bear that in mind, because it is not intended that the bargaining unit should be such that the rights of minorities will be completely over-ridden. Certainly one or more people with professional experience will be included in the C.I.R.
LORD BURNTWOOD: Does that point cover the medical profession, where there is gross disparity of income as between, for instance, consultants and general practitioners, who are usually considered to be the "work horses" of the profession? Would that cover the point of separate representation from the various branches of the profession?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Noble Lords are rather apt suddenly to go off at a tangent. If I may say so, that is an extreme tangent, because in the case the noble Lord is talking about all the workers concerned will be professional men, as I understand it. What we are worried about and what the House as a whole is worried about is the position of a small number of professional men in a wider group.
LORD BYERSs: This is the important point. The noble Lord said that the C.I.R. can give its advice, but am I not
764
right in saying before the C.I.R. gives its advice the application has to be referred to it by the union? What happens if the professional body is such a minority of that union that on a ballot it cannot put its own case forward through the union?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Here we come to another question. The recognition question can be raised by any union; in other words, if a union finds that within the group in which it is included its interests are not being properly represented it can then raise the recognition issue.
LORD BYERS: The noble Lord keeps using the phrase "union". What we are trying to get at, and it is important, is the section of the union which is the professional section. Is that section recognised for the purposes of making application to the C.I.R.?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord is not quite right about this. It will be the union that will raise the question. It will do it, of course, at the instance of those members within the group. The union will raise the question.
LORD BERNSTEIN: May I put this point to the noble Lord? Will the union be compelled to take that matter further if a minority in the union wish to break away?
LORD PLATT: May I put my point, because it follows from what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said? Have we not just been told by the noble Lord that the professional men can keep out of the union if they like? Are we now being told that the union, or their part of the union, will represent them? I am afraid that I am completely at sea.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry if this is a complicated matter and I am not making it clear. Can the noble Lords keep in their minds that in an agency shop the individual has the right to belong to the union or to opt out of it? We were here back on the situation where individual professional men are included in a description of worker whose conditions are negotiated by a particular union. There the individual can opt out of it. We then came on to the joint negotiating panel, and if within that joint negotiating panel the professional section there felt that its interests were not being properly

765
represented it could then raise the recognition issue through its union which would be on the special register. I hope I have made that clear.
10.4 p.m.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: There are several difficulties. In an agency shop, if a professional man opts out of the union, presumably he has to pay the appropriate contribution. We will pass that; but that is a real complication. The other complication is that only registered trade unions can apply for representation. This is the dilemma I tried to bring out, the dilemma of a professional body representing highly trained professional men. A professional body is not a trade union; is not in a position to go for registration as a trade union unless it entirely changes its behaviour. This is the dilemma as I see it; this is the great problem for the professional bodies. The real issue for the professional body is whether it is prepared to adapt itself or, alternatively, whether it is going to make sufficient elasticity for those of its professional members who are in fact working in a group situation to join their appropriate trade union.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If one gives way for an intervention one expects a short one; if one gets a speech in between it makes it very difficult to proceed. I think the answer to the noble Lord is really this—I must try to spell this out so that everybody understands it. On the one hand, you can have the single union, with individual professionals in it, and they, as the noble Lord rightly said, can opt out of membership of the union and pay a contribution instead. The other situation is where there is a joint negotiating panel—you can call it a union or an association, or anything you like; but these professional bodies—in the circumstances of employment (and we are talking only of circumstances of employment, not where there is a client relationship), and where they are behaving like unions. They are functioning as unions, and they will be functioning as unions within that negotiating panel. If their interests are not sufficiently represented, then they can raise a recognition issue.
I should like to try and expand this a little, because I understand very well the professional point of view that those who enter a vocation, in which they undertake a service to their clients or to the
766
community, cannot, and should not have to comply with any rule of any organisation within the community, not being an organisation representing the whole of the community, that they should act in a way that conflicts with their professional duty. I understand that perfectly. Having accepted the discipline of their profession, they cannot withdraw their services at the dictate of any group acting in its own particular interests; nor can they accept obligations, other than under the law, which are at variance with their professional duty. Their allegiance is to the community and their profession, and not to any group of workers.
Let us face this quite squarely, the very idea of sectional solidarity—"my union right or wrong"—is very often anathema, and they simply will not withdraw the services they are pledged to perform. We must all recognise this.
The situation at the present time is that sometimes, through industrial action, they are forced into exactly that position, and they very much resent it. In extreme instances they may quit their profession. But so long as they are in their profession it is a point of personal honour to put their duty to their clients, or to the community, first. We are not talking about the relationship between a professional man and his client. In so far as negotiations or terms of employment are concerned, National Health Service doctors employed by their executive committees have their own negotiating machinery, and are not caught up with other unions. We are talking about the qualified doctors, surveyors, engineers, and all the rest, who are workers within the meaning of the Bill, not as independent consultants but under a contract of employment, and who are, like the centurion in the Bible, set under authority, and who are ordered, as distinct from being instructed, and who in many cases work side by side with workers who have not their professional qualifications yet may be doing the same sort of work. It is people like this that we are talking about.
If a group of professional men so employed consider that they ought not to be included in an agency shop, even though they are already included in a bargaining unit, recognised by an employer, their proper course is to seek

767
to persuade the unions who form the bargaining agent, and the employer, not to make an agency shop agreement which does not specifically recognise and safeguard their professional status, and their prior and overriding duty as members of their profession. If they fail in this, they can then invoke Clause 43 to challenge the recognition arrangements; and the C.I.R. will be bound to take account of the provisions of Clause 46(3). If the C.I.R. upheld their case, then the agency shop agreement, if it had already been made, would be effectively void in so far as the inclusion of that description of workers" was concerned. Where they persuade an employer to resist an application on the part of the workers for an agency shop, then the C.I.R. will be able not to proceed with the application until the recognition issue in dispute has been resolved or, if the Committee accepts Amendments 85, 86 and 87, if, in the opinion of the C.I.R., the setting up of an agency shop would quite probably involve a dispute.
The first Amendment as it stands would not exclude any group of professional workers from a bargaining unit in which it was already comprised. All it would do is to ensure that it was separately mentioned in terms of their professional qualification among the descriptions of workers comprised. This in itself would not have any effect in altering the existing recognition arrangement or in preventing the conclusion of a voluntary agency shop agreement. But the noble Earl seems to want to go further than that, and to exclude professionals from an agency shop agreement which covers non-professionals, even although the union concerned remains their bargaining agent. The broader question is whether people with professional qualifications should, if they wish, have a right to be excluded from voluntary agency shop agreements.
The crux of the matter is this. If the professional man belongs to a union and the rules of the union require all members, without exception, to comply with union instructions to take industrial action, then the professional man will no doubt elect to cease to belong to the union and will pay his contribution instead, as he should do if the union is negotiating his terms and conditions of
768
service. It would be an unfair industrial practice for the employer, whether acting in concert with a union or not, to discriminate unfairly in terms and conditions of service against a professional man because he did not belong to the union. In other words, if there is a bargaining unit covering that man even though he is not a member of the union, they will have to negotiate terms not less favourable than those for others who were in the union. If, on the other hand, there is a joint negotiating panel or group of unions, and any union which represents separately a professional group feels strongly on the strike issue and considers that its interests are not being properly looked after, it can raise the matter as a recognition issue. If it satisfies the C.I.R. that its interests are not being adequately looked after under the existing arrangements, then it is difficult to imagine that the C.I.R. will not accede to its request for separate recognition, or recognition in conjunction with unions representing workers with similar duties, training, experience and qualifications.
I want to say in conclusion that we are very much impressed with the case which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has made, which has been supported all round, and we think it right that it should be brought clearly to the attention of the C.I.R. that they have to bear in mind the special needs—because they are special, because they are different; not because they are superior or anything else—of professional people. For that reason, when we come to Amendment No. 252A which the noble Earl discussed with this Amendment, we shall be very favourably disposed to look at something along those lines.
Subsection (3) of Clause 46, to which the noble Earl's Amendment relates, states:
"… the Commission shall consider the extent to which different descriptions of employees in that group have interests in common, having regard in particular, in relation to each such description of employees, to—

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

(b) their training, experience and qualifications".

To that the noble Earl would add:
"professional or other".
This is simply a question of bringing specifically to the attention of the C.I.R.

769
the special needs of professional men, and while I do not want to commit the Government at the present time to those particular words, we shall certainly have
770
a look at this and make certain that something is put in which will effect what I think the noble Earl really wants to bring about.
10.15 p.m.
LORD BYERS: We were asked by the noble Baroness, Lady White, why we were not intervening. I think, having heard the Government, it might have been much more expeditious if we had heard them at an earlier stage, because I for one am still extremely confused as to what the position is, and I think this is a subject which is of so much concern to so many people, so many bodies of people, that what we should ask the Government to do, if the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, agrees, is really to produce a position paper so that we know that these individuals, who are wondering about their rights on the ballot, their rights to recognition and so on, are going to have their rights properly safeguarded. If we could have a position paper on this subject which we can all study (because I do not think there is any argument of a partisan nature here) I think it would help in improving the Bill. The noble Lord went through a very detailed brief at speed, and we should like to be assured that the details he put to the Committee in a very considerate way are such that we shall be able to give proper safeguards to those bodies which have a real concern in this matter. I personally would suggest to the noble Earl that perhaps we should be satisfied at this stage with what has been said.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: If I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I should be satisfied to withdraw the Amendment at this point on the understanding that we shall hear more of this matter and that it will be in order to study it in the interim and bring it up again, perhaps on Report stage, when we have made a little further progress in understanding it. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by forcing a Division. I am sorry; should I give way to the noble Lord?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Before the noble Earl actually withdraws his Amendment, which I gather is his intention, I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would clarify one passage in the long statement which he made—a passage which I think is peculiarly appropriate to the clause which is actually before us. He was dealing, at the point in which I am interested, with the situation in which professional workers, along with a substantial number
772
of others, are represented by a single organisation in an agency shop agreement. As I understood it, his guidance, as it were, to professional men in that situation was that they should be disposed to exercise their rights to be non-members of the union which was the agency shop agent, and pay the contribution. That immediately raised in my mind the thought that they would then have no representation. But as I understood it, the noble Lord went on to say that, even if a whole group of people withdrew from the union, because they were paying contributions to the union the union would have a duty to them. This seems to me a very strange and confusing concept, because I do not quite understand how a trade union can effectively discharge a duty of representing a group of its members if those members have in fact withdrawn and ceased to be members of the union. I assume that this applies to virtually the whole professional group.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No. I think at this point I could well intervene, because I think the noble Lord has not got this right. I was not talking about the formation of a group at that time: I was merely talking about what an individual could do, and it surely is right that if a sole bargaining agent has negotiating rights in an agency shop on behalf of a number of descriptions of workers, they should negotiate fairly on behalf of all those descriptions of workers even if a certain number of individuals—and it certainly would not be all; it is not the whole group—do not remain members of the union.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am so sorry; but I think it is important that we should have advice. As I understand it, the noble Lord envisages a situation in which the individuals or this group of people may feel there is some threat to their professional standards, or to the observance of their professional standards of conduct.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, the noble Lord is looking at the collective situation; he is not looking at the point of view of the individual. I am talking about the point of view of the individual here: that the individual can opt out of membership. It is possible that a number of individuals may form a group belonging to the same union, and then

773
that group could raise a recognition issue in the same way as I indicated that it could raise the recognition issue if it were already represented separately on a joint negotiating panel.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am sorry; I still do not understand the position put by the noble Lord, and I do not think that I am the only one.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is very complicated.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I appreciate that it is very complicated, but I am addressing myself to one aspect only, that of the agency shop in which it appears that a group of people may feel, because they are professional men, that their professional standards of conduct are likely to be prejudiced by some instruction which the union may give them. I think that is the case put by the noble Lord, is it not?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: If these people as individuals withdraw from the union and become contributors, not members, is the noble Lord saying that the union has a duty towards them?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: How is that duty to be discharged if none of them with those special problems is a member of the union?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps the noble Lord will read Clause 10 which makes it quite clear:
"'agency shop agreement' means an agreement made between one or more employers and one or more trade unions whereby the employer … agrees, in respect of workers of one or more descriptions specified in the agreement"
If the workers are specified in the agreement, then that is the body which has the negotiating rights and the duty to negotiate with the employer.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: Could the noble Lord explain to me—I am a little confused, and I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord because we are dealing with—
LORD BYERS: May I appeal to the noble Lord? The noble Earl, Lord Hals
774
bury, was in the process of withdrawing his Amendment. What we should do is to look at the statement in the light of Hansard. It is a very complicated one, and if we go on trying to dispute it now we shall merely waste time. May I appeal to the noble Earl to withdraw the Amendment?
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: It would not take me more than two minutes.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? The noble Lord gave way, and my noble friend wishes to raise a point. This is a Committee stage, and we are not obtaining great clarification from the Government at the moment, however hard the noble Lord may try. I assume, and believe, that my noble friend has a relevant point to make in relation to the list, Before the noble Earl withdraws the Amendment I hope that my friend will be able to make his point in a very short time.
LORD BYERS: I think this is preposterous. The noble Lord has come in in the middle of this debate, which has been extremely difficult and complicated. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was in the course of withdrawing his Amendment. He has given way to three or four speakers, and I really do think that he should withdraw this Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: I was in at the beginning of the debate and we have a certain obligation to our colleagues in this Committee. I know perfectly well that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, was about to withdraw his Amendment, but there were certain points that had to be made; they were made and they were very interesting. I really find it intolerable that the Leader of the Liberal Party at this moment should dictate how noble Lords should behave. We should get on very much faster if my noble friend were allowed to make his point. He said it is a short one and I am sure that he will make it so.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: I have sat through the whole of this important and intricate debate. Out of courtesy to the noble Earl I did not want to interrupt him and so destroy his train of thought. But what has puzzled and confused me during this discussion has been

775
the matter of definition. If the Government are going to have another look at the matter, can we have defined exactly where professional status and qualifications begin? Will that be the job of the C.I.R.?—because all we have heard this evening has concerned doctors, chartered surveyors, biochemists and university people. But as industry becomes more sophisticated, there are many people who regard themselves as professional people but are not so regarded by others. I should like the Government to consider giving a definition of where professional status and qualifications begin. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that that is the only point I wish to make.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think it obviously best to leave this question to the K.I.R. which has to decide what to recommend in these cases. I have taken note of the proposal made by Lord Byers and I will certainly look to see whether that is possible.
THE EARL or HALSBURY: I think that this Amendment has served a useful purpose, if only to provoke a discussion which will convince the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that there is much more thought to be put into this and that there is real disquiet among the professional ranks—and not only there but on the Back Benches of all Parties in your Lordships' House. It would be wrong to press the Amendment to a Division, but I think that the point needs further study. The reply of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was long and technical, and I shall study it in great detail in HANSARD to-morrow. I think that there were some points made, but that some of them were based on a misunderstanding. The professional bodies are in a state of evolution in these matters. Many of them are bringing in their own trade unions as is shown, for example, by the existence of the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers, a "pukka" trade union affiliated to the T.U.C. but with membership confined to chartered engineers. I think that this matter needs more study, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.28 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 8, line 39, leave out ("Industrial Court") and insert ("Commission on Industrial Relations").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Marshalled List and I think it might be convenient to take with it Amendment No. 83 because, clearly, the two Amendments form part of a whole. This Amendment deals with the situation in which one or more trade unions desire to enter into an agency shop agreement with an employer, or where a joint negotiating panel desires an employer to enter into such an agreement and the employer is unwilling to do so. In that situation the trade union or trade unions, or the joint negotiating panel, or the employer may make an application. As the Bill stands, the application may be to the Industrial Court and the Industrial Court would take certain action if it were satisfied on certain conditions set out in subsection (3). The purpose of the two Amendments is to pass the handling of this situation not to the Industrial Court but to the Commission on Industrial Relations.
The general reason why we make this proposal is that it is our belief that the more one can have a matter of this kind handled by the Commission on Industrial Relations, with its industrial relations expertise and its flexibility of action, rather than by an Industrial Court, operating inevitably on legal rules, with a legal approach and a legal tradition, the better the arrangements will be. I think there is little need for me to amplify the point. As I think will be known, we on this side of the Committee have always preferred the Commission on Industrial Relations approach to the Industrial Court approach; and we are concerned, of course, as we have made clear, that the role which the Government have selected, or have described in this Bill, for the Commission on Industrial Relations is likely to prejudice a great deal of the value of its operations.
We should therefore like to begin by suggesting that in the particular kind of situation with which this part of this clause deals, the Commission would be

777
a much more appropriate body to undertake an examination and make a report in a direct way, rather than that the matter should be passed to the Industrial Court. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: These Amendments, as the noble Lord. Lord Delacourt-Smith, has explained, are designed to eliminate the role of the N.I.R.C. in the consideration of applications for the establishment of agency shops and the approval of closed shop agreements. The Court's functions with regard to agency shop applications are to receive the applications and then refer them to the C.I.R., and it is this process to which these Amendments take exception. The applications are to be passed on to the C.I.R. by the Court after the Court has ensured that consideration is not precluded by any provisions of the Bill itself and that the union specified in the application is recognised by the employer in respect of the workers concerned. After a ballot has been held, as arranged by the Commission, the Court has responsibilities finally to make orders under Clause 12(3); and of course it also has the function of ensuring that an application to challenge an agency shop agreement shall have the support in writing of one-fifth of the workers concerned. The respective provisions to which these Amendments take exception maintain, in the Government's view, the distinction between the judicial functions of the Court and the advisory functions of the C.I.R.; and these Amendments would eliminate this distinction by transferring judicial functions to the C.I.R. which the Government believe is not really constituted to exercise them.
May I clarify two points which are important? First, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent employers and trade unions from agreeing to operate an agency shop quite voluntarily. Indeed, we should expect that the vast majority of agency shops will arise from voluntary agreements, and I think it was on the last Amendment that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn referred to the possibility—maybe the frequent possibility—of existing closed shops becoming agency shop agreements. Secondly, the Court is not empowered, in its part in these agency shop considerations, to reach arbitrary decisions; and this, I feel, is
778
an important answer to the case which has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith.
First, the Court must be satisfied under Clause 10(3) that the case is not precluded because it may be less than two years since the same descriptions of worker; have voted against an agency shop; and the Court must be satisfied that the trade union side is recognised by the employer as having negotiating rights for the workers concerned. If on this point the Court is not satisfied it is the Commission—not the Court—which really gives the final advice whether the trade union side is effectively the sole bargaining agent for the workers, so that the agency shop agreement machinery should continue to proceed. Finally, if a ballot is needed, the N.I.R.C., not by some arbitrary decision but by the result of a democratic ballot, is simply the judicial instrument to make an order following the majority verdict.
The provisions of the Bill which allow the Court, with the advice of the Commission as I have sought to explain, to consider applications for agency shop agreements will operate only when there is a dispute about whether the agency shop should be established. Very often—let us be perfectly frank—it will probably arise when an employer is resisting a union's claim for an agency shop. In those circumstances we feel that in the last resort there is a judicial function which needs to be fulfilled and the Court is the appropriate body to fill that role. The Commission will investigate the matter, and may indeed achieve a voluntary settlement. That is what Parliament hopes will result. At the end of the day there must surely be a procedure for resolving the sort of dispute which seems incapable of solution. The Bill provides such a procedure which we believe, through both the Court and also the Commission, will be reasonable and equitable.
10.38 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: If no other noble Lord wishes to address the Committee, I must make some comment on the statements the noble Lord has made. I did not elaborate the point which is made very clearly in Amendment No. 83, that we envisage not a judicial approach by the Commission but an

779
examination of the application, and the submission of a report, as is clear, an effort to secure a generally agreed solution. I would have thought that the discussion we have just been having, relating to the problem of a particular group of workers who in an agency shop situation, may well find themselves in a minority, underlined the wisdom of our approach.
It is not only in the case of the professional workers that some minority might find itself in difficulty as a result of the proposal for an agency shop agreement. There will be a number of cases where minorities will feel that, in one way or another, the agency shop agreement is not likely to fit their circumstances. In such a case surely it is wise not to rely on a judicial function being performed, but on the examination and the conciliatory functions which the Commission will naturally undertake as part of the work set out in our Amendment. I appreciate the circumstances in which a ballot is valuable, but I do not see very prominently in the clause now before us the point to which the noble Lord made reference; that the Commission would be expected as part of its functions to try to exercise conciliation and to produce a generally agreed solution. It seems to me that once it is satisfied on certain points of fact, as set out in Clause 11(1), its task will be confined to the holding of and supervision of a ballot, and defining the precise way in which the ballot should be undertaken. I do not see this reference to, or emphasis on, conciliation to which the noble Lord referred. Ballots are often admirable things, but I think we ought to bear in mind the observations made by the existing Commission on Industrial Relations on this subject. In paragraph 19 of their first general Report the Commission said:
"So far we have not found it necessary to suggest conducting a ballot as a means of ascertaining opinion. We think that ballots can be useful in suitable circumstances, but only for limited purposes. A ballot cannot be a substitute for policy formation and management decision, nor a mechanism for resolving complex issues which are more appropriately dealt with by negotiation. A ballot does not take place in a vacuum, but against a background of known management policy and attitudes which can strongly affect the outcome. It is best used for settling clear-cut limited issues, though in all cases the likely effective outcome needs to be considered. In situations where views are strongly held and fairly divided
780
the effect of a ballot might be to polarise rather than to resolve conflict."
I am bound to say that, as I listened to the discussion on the Amendment put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, the force of that paragraph came very much into my mind, and I believe that the Government would be wise to look again at the ways in which they believe it best to deal with the situation (if there is to be an agency shop, or the agency shop possibility is to be considered, and some examination is required because there is not agreement between the parties) the carrying out of this examination by the Commission is undertaken with a view to trying to find a generally agreed solution rather than imposing what would in the end be a legal decision based very largely on the pure ascertainment of fact and the holding of a ballot. I hope the Government will be prepared to look at this issue again.
LORD BELSTEAD: I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, has made it appear as though there is a considerable gulf between the two sides of the Committee. I think in this matter I would put it to your Lordships that there is not. The Amendment simply requires the C.I.R. to examine an application under an agency shop and to make a report and recommendations, presumably on the feasibility and the strength of the case—
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: And to meet the employers.
LORD BELSTEAD: And to meet the employers. The Bill deems the case not feasible, on two grounds: if within two years the same description of workers has already decided against this proposal, and on the recognition point. The C.I.R. in this procedure plays a vital role, for consultation, conciliation and agreement, in resolving negotiating rights, and although I entirely admit that the Bill is more specific about the two-year pause which must take place since the last time there has been a decision on an agency shop, I cannot believe that the examination of an application by the C.I.R. which the Amendment calls for would not take into account the known views and the past views of the workers concerned.

781
The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, asked me about my reference to conciliation in the matters which the C.I.R. will have under its control. They can conciliate throughout their investigation in this matter; but I was really referring to Clauses 42 to 51 on negotiating rights, which I know is a matter which has been gone into at length on the previous Amendment, but which comes up again on this Amendment in relation to subsection (3)(b). Those clauses are simply studded with the role of the C.I.R. in its conciliation capacity. I entirely admit to the noble Lord, having said that the two sides of the Committee are reasonably close, that there is the final analysis where the Bill holds that disagreements should be resolved, not by force, not by Government order, not by any abdication of responsibility, but by the democratic wish of the workers concerned, by the ballot box. That is the only answer I can give to the noble Lord when he criticises and draws on the Donovan Commission with respect to ballots. The N.I.R.C. ballot is the means by which the wish of the majority may finally be implemented.
May I point out, before I finish, that under Clause 12, if an employer resists a ballot decision, the trade unions may complain to the N.I.R.C. under Clause 98, and the employer may be ordered to fulfil his duty; and on the other side of the coin, if a striking union breaks an agency shop agreement the N.I.R.C. can order the union to refrain under Clause 97. I should have thought that this seems self-evidently just. But the question which surely the Committee and the whole country must ask is: at the end of the day is the Opposition saying that what they wish to do is to give the Commission compulsory powers? May I take the beginning of the agency shop process? The first Amendment, No. 82, refers to the statutory consideration which the N.I.R.C. must give to the application for an agency shop before the Commission can do their examination. This is no more than a sifting, and in no way removes the investigating role of the Commission. On this side we think it is hardly right that the same body should vet these cases and subsequently go on to examine them, which is what would happen if we gave both these powers to the Commission.
782
I have tried to make it clear that in finally making an order under the agency shop procedure the Court should be a means of last and not of first resort, after the Commission and the conciliation services of the Secretary of State have been exhausted. And when such an order is made it will reflect, not an arbitrary decision, but the majority wish of those concerned. The Government believe that that majority decision will be of benefit to both sides of industry.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am sorry to press the noble Lord on this, but these points are extremely important, and if we do not get them right we are going to have great difficulties in industrial relations. The noble Lord says that under the arrangements set out in these clauses the Commission on Industrial Relations will have a conciliatory function; it will be up to them to do what they can to promote an agreement. He also said that the conciliation services of the D.E.P. will be available. With respect, I think that he should clarify this. Does he not mean that the conciliations services of both the N.I.R.C. and the D.E.P. would be available at an earlier stage. Typically, this is dealt with in a liter part of the Bill, which makes it so confusing. But this question would arise when floor bargaining arrangements were being discussed.
So we come to what is a critical point—and just how critical it is was brought out in the discussion we had on the last Amendment moved by the noble Earl—for many groups of workers covered by agency shop agreements—not solely professional groups; they will not be the only minorities anxious to ensure that their special problems are safeguarded. Is it not precisely here—where, in the Government's view, we are making this significant move from the floor bargaining agency to the agency shop agreement—that we need conciliation—need an experienced team of people to go in and try to sort out something that is going to be acceptable to everybody? The noble Lord says that there is this arrangement, and if the ballot goes one way somebody will be able to appeal to the N.I.R.C., and if it goes the other way somebody else will be able to appeal. Really, employers and trade unions do not primarily want opportunities for

783
making debating points at the expense of the other side before some legal tribunal. They want a satisfactory, commonsense, genuine solution of a thorny problem. I do not see that we are going to get that from what is set out.
There is no getting away from the fact that the Commission have scope to do only two things. They ascertain certain facts (that is Clause 11(1)), and having ascertained the facts they can determine the coverage and direct the organisation of a ballot or ballots. Having done that, they report the result of the ballot to the N.I.R.C. There is no scope for, conciliation here; there is no scope for the sort of constructive examination and attempts to find an agreed solution, which is what I believe is the value of any outside body coming into a tricky situation such as that envisaged in this clause is likely to be. I really wish the Government would accept the seriousness of this, and at least look at the problem again.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I share the noble Lord's belief in the importance of the conciliation role of the C.I.R. The noble Lord seems to agree that probably the C.I.R. would have come in at an
earlier stage with their conciliatory efforts. I should have thought that, once the C.I.R. had come into a difficulty like this, throughout the rest of the story, as it were, they would probably continue in a conciliation role, and would not be specified at every stage. I should have thought that the background of a problem like this would be that the C.I.R. would be continuing their conciliation efforts until the problem was satisfactorily settled, although not expressly instructed to do so in the Bill.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: On this complex Bill one cannot avoid constantly popping up as points are made. As I read it, there is no reason to think that the C.I.R. will have been in at an earlier stage on the majority of negotiations for an agency shop. They may have been. If they have been involved at all, they will have been involved at an earlier stage. It would not be at this stage, but at the earlier stage.
10.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 82) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 94.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Diamond, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Serota, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Brown, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hoy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Champion, L.

Hughes, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Collison, L.

Janner, L.

White, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Milners of Leeds, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Popplewell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Chelmer, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Abinger, L.

Chesham, L.

Essex, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Conesford, L.

Exeter, M.

Allerton, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ferrers, E.

Alport, L.

Cowley, E.

Fortescue, E.

Amory, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Gisborough, L.

Barrington, V.

Cromartie, E.

Goschen, V.

Beauchamp, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gowrie, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Daventry, V.

Gray, L.

Belstead, L.

Davidson, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Denham, L.

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

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Digby, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Halsbury, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Dudley, E.

Hankey, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Dundee, E.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Byers, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Henley, L.

Caldecote, V.

Eccles, V.

Hood, V.

Carrington, L.

Effingham, E.

Ilford, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Poole, L.

Sandys, L.

Kemsley, V.

Radnor, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Lansdowne, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Reading, M.

Strange, L.

Lothian, M.

Reay, L.

Strathcarron, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Strateden and Campbell, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Redmayne, L.

Terrington, L.

Mansfield, E.

Reigate, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Rothermere, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Moyne, L.

St. Helens, L.

Vivian, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

St. Just, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

St. Oswold, L.

Windlesham, L.

Pender, L.

Sandford, L.

Yarborough, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Amend No. 83 is a paving Amendment to the subsequent Amendment. I would wish at this stage, to move it formally, and perhaps the Committee might defer a decision until the subsequent Amendment and the one which follows it.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ALPORT): Amendment No. 83?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Yes.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: That is the one that was discussed previously.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am sorry. No. 83 is not moved.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Not moved. Amendment No. 83A: Lord Delacourt-Smith.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It would be convenient, I think, if we took 83A, 84A and 88D together.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Perhaps Lord Archibald will take them.
11.3 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: I hope I may have permission of the Committee to move the Amendment standing in the name of Lord Willis. I believe it would be for the convenience of the Committee, and would be acceptable to my noble friends who have their names down to it, if we took with it Amendment No. 84A. I am in a little difficulty because I have been called as though I had my name down, and I am not quite sure whether I am in Order. I have asked the leave of the Committee to move the Amendment on behalf of Lord Willis. I should say that my noble friend—
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Perhaps I could just say that I understood that the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, was actually moving Amendment No. 83A; and it was proposed that 83A, 84 and 84A should be taken together. No. 83A is, I understand, a paving Amendment; 84 is the one on the substance of which Lord Archibald intended to speak, and therefore We are in fact on 83A, although Lord Archibald will not be moving but will he talking on the substance of 84.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It may help the noble Lord if I say that it seems to me as if the substance of 84A is very similar to 84.
LORD ARCHIBALD: That is why I was asked by my noble friends who had put their names to 84A if I would speak to 84 and 84A together. I should perhaps say by way of introduction that my noble friend Lord Willis has asked me to apologise to the Committee for his absence to-night. It is perhaps appropriate chat he should have asked me to speak to the Amendment on his behalf, because when he was the leader of the Screen Writers' Guild and I was the Chairman of the Federation of British Film Makers we agreed the very first agreement between film producers and screen writers. We felt, perhaps self-importantly, that it was a very important, almost an historic occasion, that there had never before in the history of the film production industry been an agreement between producers and writers, so we celebrated the signing of this agreement with a Press conference and a cocktail party.
The purpose of these two Amendments, 84 and 84A—I know 83 is purely a paving Amendment—is to remove an ambiguity in Clause 10(3)(b). I do not think there is in this any political or

787
partisan element. I hope the Amendments will find support from all sides of the Committee. The purpose of both Amendments is to safeguard the rights of freelance workers. It may well be—and I look to the Government Benches at this moment—that the Government are prepared to accept one or other of these Amendments, or the basic principle which is embodied in them, in which case the Committee will be spared the speech which otherwise I will have to inflict on it. Apparently not ! Then I must go on. My noble friend Lord Willis would have been much more eloquent on this subject, and much more intimate with it than I am, as right until the present time he has been acting on behalf of the writers. So being somewhat out of touch with it I cannot be as detailed as he would be, but I will do my best to explain the basic purpose of the Amendment.
Let us look at how Clause 10 would operate. Suppose a trade union wants an agency shop, and the employer refuses. Under Clause 10(2) the trade union may apply to the Industrial Court. Then if the Industrial Court is satisfied on the two matters covered by Clause 10(3) it will request the Industrial Relations Commission to conduct a secret ballot of the workers who would be affected by such an agency shop. This is supposed to be an advantage given to the trade unions in this Bill. But let us see how it would apply to a trade union in which the majority of members are freelance workers. There are such unions. The Writers' Guild is one, and then there are the Musicians Union, the A.C.T.T. and the National Union of Journalists, who all have freelance sections.
May I take a theoretical case which I think illustrates the situation. Suppose the Writers' Guild or one of the other unions in a similar position wants an agency shop—let us take a very neutral case—say with the B.B.C., and the B.B.C. refuses. The union then applies to the Court under Clause 10(2), and the Court must be satisfied that there had not been a ballot on this in the preceding two years. I do not think this presents any difficulty. But the Court must be satisfied that the applicant trade union is recognised by the employer—in my theoretical case the B.B.C.—and I quote:
788
"as having negotiating rights in respect of workers of the description or descriptions so specified".
But here comes the nub of the problem. Negotiating rights are defined in Clause 42(b) and are in respect of employees; and as I understand it the definition of "employee" in Clause 158(1) means a person who works under a contract of employment. But a freelance worker—a freelance writer, for example—does not work under a contract of employment; he works under a contract for services. He may make a contract with a film producer or a television producer to write a script for a certain fee and to deliver it at a certain date. It is a contract for services and not, strictly speaking, such a contract as to make him an employee. So if we put all those definitions together, it would appear to me—though I am no lawyer—that the term "negotiating rights", when used in the Bill, means rights held by the trade union only on behalf of its members who are employees. In this context a trade union of freelance workers could be held not to hold negotiating rights for its members. It would appear then that the Court could hold, on an application from the union on behalf of its freelance members, that the Court was not satisfied that the union did in fact hold negotiating rights.
I am quite sure that this is not what the Government intended, and that is why at an earlier stage I invited them to say that they would accept the principles embodied in these two Amendments. The ambiguity lies in the fact that the term "workers" is defined in Clause 158(1) to include workers who are employees or freelances. It could be argued that by using the term "workers" in respect of employees the Government intended that negotiating rights could be held by a union whose members are all, or virtually all, freelance workers. I am sure that is the intention of the Government in the Bill, but if my construction of the Bill is correct then this intention is not technically possible. I therefore beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord; I think he has explained this Amendment to the satisfaction of the Committee, and the Government are prepared to accept it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Which one?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The one that has been moved, Amendment No. 83A. There is a little confusion here. We were talking to these Amendments together. The effect of them is very much the same. We have accepted Amendment No. 83A, which is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 84A. The Government could not accept No. 84, which is defective in several respects. The noble Lord explained, quite correctly, rights corresponding to negotiating rights for workers who are not employees. This matter is covered by the definitions concerned; it covers the kind of person he has in mind, and this is what the Government are prepared to accept.
LORD ARCHIBALD: If Amendment No. 84 is not moved, the Government accept Amendment No. 84A?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Correct.
LORD ARCHBALD: Then Amendment No. 84 is not moved.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I beg to move Amendment No. 84A.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 14, at end insert—
("(4) In this Part of this Act "rights corresponding to negotiating rights" means rights to participate, on behalf of one or more descriptions of workers who are not employees, in negotiations relating to those workers, with a view to the conclusion or modification of one or more collective agreements.")—(Lord Delacourt-Smith.)
11.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: This, of course, is the clause to which a number of noble Lords have been looking forward because it has finally set out the proposals for an agency shop. I think we have, on the earlier clauses, when we have had to look forward to this clause and make reference to it in the course of discussion, made our objections to it very clear. As we have said, it is an unsatisfactory compromise which arises from the Government wishing, on the one hand, to maintain the quite abstract principles which they insisted in embodying in a part of Clause 5 and, on the other hand, facing, at any rate to some degree, the facts of industrial life.
790
For reasons we have already indicated in earlier discussions, it is not a happy compromise. As I have said on more than one occasion, it is no good my noble friends and I pretending that we like it. The point to which I would particularly refer is that it is a concept which separates the paying of union contributions from the other characteristics of union membership. It is based on the view, or seems to be, that all that the trade union is concerned about in respect of a non-member is the fact that he does not make his financial contribution to the union's funds. This is only a part of the trade union's objection to the non-member. We want to see the non-member playing his part fully in the work of the union, participating in the formation of its policy, accepting the discipline of its decisions, playing a part in exercising his rights, and accepting his obligations, as a union member.
I hope that when the noble Lord attempts to justify the inclusion of this clause he will tell us where the idea of the agency shop originated. It gets very scant mention, if indeed any mention at all, even in In Place of Strife. It has no part in the Donovan Report. I know of no countries on the Continent of Europe which have this concept embodied in their industrial relations legislation, although the noble Lord may be able to quote some examples. It is an innovation in our industrial practice. As I say, it is a compromise which the Government have found themselves forced to put forward because of their own desire to insist upon the appearance in the Bill of the statutory right not to be a trade unionist. I can only hope that if it does not finally disappear from the Bill before we complete all its stages, it will at any rate disappear fairly soon thereafter from the industrial relations scene.
11.20 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: This is an important clause, and it embraces something entirely new to our way of thinking. The idea of the closed shop has been accepted and is growing. But the practice by which a worker must be a member of a union before he enters employment will become an unfair practice under this Bill, and any union which attempts to enforce the closed shop will be liable to legal action An employer will have the right to employ anyone he thinks has the

791
necessary skills, and that is contrary to the practice which has been built up, because the unions have a say in safeguarding the skills of their members. Abolishing the closed shop will end the unions' rights in that respect.
The establishment of the agency shop, under which everyone has to pay for benefits, is something which is entirely new. My noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith wondered where the idea had come from. I have no doubt that he, like myself, feels that it is another American custom which is being introduced here. Money is of least importance to the British trade unionist. The objective of the unions is to follow the principles and ideals of the unity of the people engaged in an industry, and to improve standards of life. There are about 3 million workers in Britain who are working in 100 per cent. trade union shops. We have asked the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, why these changes are being brought about. It is surely reasonable that we should ask that, but nothing has been clearly defined. All we have had are "airy-fairy" statements about unofficial strikes, which the trade unions deplore as much as anyone, and we argue that the frustration caused by this Bill will lead to an increase in the number of unofficial strikes. Last Thursday, I asked a number of questions which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, failed to answer. I asked:
"… what is the reason for this new clause? Is it that the Government are not satisfied with the present voluntary basis on which trade unions operate? If so, what is wrong with it? Where are the weaknesses? Why are we not told before we are asked to approve such radical changes? Is it that the trade unions are too powerful? … If they are too powerful, and if they exercise their power in an unreasonable way, we should be told."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6/5/71; cols. 502-3.]
Under this clause the closed shop agreements would no longer be possible, as a worker would have the right not to belong to a trade union, and, therefore, at once we find a loophole in that system of strict control and discipline that is necessary to get harmonious working between both sides in honouring of agreements. That system could be challenged at any time, and only a registered trade union would be entitled to secure an agency shop agreement. This leaves open a very wide field indeed and I suggest no trade union wants this. As a whole, trade unionists
792
take pride in their jobs, and want to get the best and to get discipline within the union membership so that they can speak as one voice, as it were.
As I see it, there are a number of provisos before even an agency shop can operate. Let me name one or two. Point one: only a registered trade union can obtain or continue to operate an agency shop. Point two: to obtain or continue to operate an agency shop, 20 per cent. of the workers must ask the N.I.R.C. for a secret ballot to be arranged by the C.I.R. (so there are two points there: 20 per cent. of the workers must ask the N.I.R.C. for a secret ballot, and then the C.I.R. must conduct it). Point three: it would be an unfair practice if any industrial action was taken on the issue while the C.I.R. was organising the ballot. Point four: only if the majority of those eligible to vote favoured an agency shop could it be introduced. It cuts away from our democratic system; even for the election of a Member of Parliament a simple majority is sufficient. Point five: once an application is made, or refused, it cannot be renewed for a further two years.
These are indeed five important points before even an agency shop can operate. It is even worse. It is not necessary for a majority of shareholders to attend any company meeting or to vote for the board; but, in this instance, before an agency shop can be obtained and set up, 50 per cent. of the people actually entitled to vote must record their votes. There must be a majority decision—and we know how difficult it is to get these ballots and votes from time to time. Therefore, I have no hesitation in supporting the rejection of this particular clause.
11.30 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: I should like to support the proposal that this clause be rejected. It is impossible to talk about this proposed innovation in industry called the "agency shop" without saying something about the closed shop. The closed shop in industry, as I understand it, takes two forms, pre-entry and post-entry. That is a detailed subject that I do not propose to go into at this hour of the night. However, so far as the closed shop is concerned, there are industries, in both the public and the private sectors, where

793
closed shop agreements have been negotiated without doubt to the benefit of industry; and it can be fairly stated, without fear of contradiction, that many employers, like the unions, have come to regard the closed shop as useful at the negotiating table when seeking to make agreements. A union, speaking on behalf of all employees, has to my personal knowledge proved to be an advantage. One could mention industries like coal-mining, electricity supply, the railways, seamen and actors, to mention but a few. In fact there are millions of workers today in industries in which closed shops exist. I saw some figures recently showing that it was estimated that, of the total membership of the Trades Union Congress, two-fifths of 10 million workers in industry were working under closed shop agreements.
This question of the closed shop, as distinct from the agency shop proposed in this clause, is a relatively new growth in trade union organisation and industrial relations. May I take only one example, very briefly—that of coal mining? Up to 25 years ago, recruiting to the Miners' Union was exclusively on a voluntary basis. There was no agreement at all between the trade union and the late coal owners so far as the closed shop was concerned. Up to 1921 and 1926 a very small percentage of mineworkers were not members of the Miners' Union, but that small percentage was at that time a real source of irritation. Time, effort and expense were involved in pointing out to that very small percentage the advantage that there was in negotiations if the union could speak on behalf of the men in the industry. I recall those days before a closed shop in the mining industry was instituted. Frequently we used to have what we called a "show card" day. Those who were in the union were provided with medals by the organisation to wear on the lapels of their coats to indicate that they were members of the union. At that time, when steps were taken by the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers to establish a closed shop, I confess that I wondered if it was the right way to go. But over the past 25 years I have witnessed so many of its advantages in the coalmining industry that I am now sure it was a good thing a closed shop was instituted. Without unified negotiations
794
on all the matters arising, with the changes that have taken place and the new techniques that have characterised the mining industry during that time—along with its contraction, which is a very important matter—I doubt whether the process would have gone as smoothly as it has.
The Donovan Commission gave a great deal of time and attention to this particular problem in their Report. In paragraph 602 they said—and I agree with them:
"prohibition of the closed shop must be rejected".
In my opinion, Clause 10 substitutes for the existing closed shop, which operates in many of our industrial concerns at the moment, the agency shop which, as I understand it, is merely a watered-down type of closed shop. While no-one can foresee the future accurately, I think the conditions as laid down in the agency shop proposals are likely to lead to trouble. These conditions could lead to the formation of breakaway unions or to inviting in another union; moreover, unions will be vulnerable to attacks from employers' associations.
I should like to put to the Minister who is to reply one very pertinent question. Why is it that the clause in the Consultative Document which proposed that it should be an unfair industrial practice for an employer to seek to dominate a union has been dropped? Why does it not appear in this Bill? The Secretary of State, both in another place and on the public platform, has said many times since the publication of this Bill tint he wants to make the trade union movement stronger. In my opinion this legislation of the agency shop will do the opposite, and it will lead to trouble.
The only other thing I want to say is that this particular clause with Clauses 11, 12 and 13, together with Clause 43, are (apart from the proposal of an agency shop) machinery clauses. There will no doubt be some employers unwilling to enter into an agency shop agreement, but on the other hand there will be a number of employers who will agree to the proposals of an agency shop because it will be the nearest thing to what they are operating at the moment in the form of a closed shop. Let us look at the machinery that is to be provided in the event of an employer being unwilling to enter into an

795
agency shop agreement with the trade union. The trade union will go to the N.I.R.C.—and perhaps the employer will, too—and the N.I.R.C. will refer the matter to the C.I.R. The matter then goes back again to the N.I.R.C., and a ballot will have to be taken. So, in my humble judgment, the creation of this elaborate machinery upon the planning of all types of closed shop will cause trouble and dissatisfaction so far as the members of the trade unions are concerned.
LORD BROWN: I should just like to say to my noble friends that there seems to be something strangely illogical about this proposal to delete Clause 10. Having passed Clause 6, which makes void pre-entry closed shop agreements, I wonder how many trade unions in this country would not rather have what my noble friend has just referred to as "a watered-down version of the closed shop" than nothing at all. I would take a lot of bets that if unions were able to speak with great sincerity in public they would say, "If we cannot have the pre-entry closed shop we had better have the agency shop agreement rather than nothing"—unless they all hope to get exemption under Clause 16, giving special provision for the approval of agency shop agreements. But I think most of them know that the likelihood of an ordinary union's getting such exemption is very remote indeed. So I do not understand the logic of seeking to omit Clause 10. It would appear to be in the interests of the unions to keep it there.
11.43 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Brown, seems to have almost a monopoly of common sense on that side of the Committee at the moment. Certainly, the Committee having already passed Clause 6, it is perfectly logical that we should seek for some solution other than the closed shop; and this is exactly what has been done in the agency shop agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, talked about the individual worker playing a part. I hope that the argument about professional people will not cause us to be distracted from what I think is the universal desire that the individual should play his part in a trade organisation. Emphasis is placed on this aspect by the subsection in Clause 5 which permits the employer to encour-
796
age the worker to join a trade union. He is allowed to do that, to encourage a worker to join a trade union; and it is our intention that the individual worker should play his part. But is he more likely to play his part if he joins a trade union of his own free will, or if this matter as to who is to negotiate for him is settled over his head entirely, without any chance of his objecting?
So far as the agency shop is concerned, what happens is that the employer and the unions may negotiate together, and if the employer is pretty sure that the majority of the workers support the idea of an agency shop, then no doubt he will enter into an agreement. If he is not certain of that, what he should then do is to refer the matter to the Industrial Relations Court. The ballot will take place and the employer and everyone will be able to find out whether the workers support the idea of the agency shop. Alternatively, if the employer is resisting and the union believes it has the full support of the workers, it will go to the Industrial Relations Court and ask for a ballot to see whether a majority supports the idea. So either way the will of the majority will prevail. Is not this a very democratic and British way of doing things? I do not know whether anywhere else things are done exactly like this. It is not exactly comparable with the United States. There are differences. particularly in the right of the individual not to belong to a union if he chooses.
I commend this clause to your Lordships. The Government envisage that this is a solution which will grow and spread. It will certainly facilitate orderly bargaining. It is based on the recognition of a union or unions representing specified descriptions of workers. It will clarify the situation. It will avoid leapfrogging. Where you have a single agency shop negotiating on behalf of the whole plant everyone will be involved and the interests of everyone will be regarded at the same time and in the same light. This will not always be the situation; in some cases it will be more desirable to have several agency shops within the same plant. There may be other cases where an agency shop may spread across the whole industry. The choices open are almost infinite; this is the way it should be. But once this question has been settled it is right that there should be

797
stability and that this situation should last for two years, or for as long as it is not challenged. I think this is a very good solution, and l hope that your Lordships will support it.
I have been asked what is the real reason for the clause. It is quite simply, that we want, as Clause 1 has set out, to encourage stability in collective bargaining. This is the way we commend to the Committee to achieve it. It is based on the will of the majority. I say to your Lordships that this is the only way you may be sure that unions are representing those they purport to represent. If they have the support of the majority, this kind of solution will last and there will be orderly bargaining between the two sides. It will he possible to reinforce discipline right throughout on an agreed basis; and we shall have far fewer unconstitutional strikes because there will be good procedure agreements and a much better observance of them. Responsibility will be laid where it belongs: the overall responsibility for industrial relations on management; the responsibility for seeing that when the trade union pledges its word, that word is kept and that unconstitutional strikes are reduced to a minimum.
LORD SHACKLETON: The awful thing about listening to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is that one thinks he believes what he is saying. What he has been saying is totally unintelligible, not only to noble Lords on this side of the Committee but also to those on the other side. He has been—I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor wishes to say something; perhaps he does not, so perhaps he will keep quiet. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has been talking rather like someone selling a panacea at a fair. It is going to cure unofficial strikes. It is going to produce democracy. This is part of the noble Lord's eloquence, and I only intervene on two grounds. One is because I know the Government want to get a long way to-night, and we are, I am afraid, going to take some time, however much we hurry this up, and I shall talk very briefly. I would only say that many people who have experience in industrial relations, irrespective of Party, do not believe that this is one of the better parts of what anyway is a fairly bad Bill.
798
I would say to my noble friend, Lord Brown, that if he thinks the passing of a clause in an earlier part of the Bill commits one to perpetrating a major nonsense in a later part of the Bill, which we do not believe will work satisfactorily, I can only say that by the time he has heard the end of this stage he will find that tins type of simple and very attractive logic from my very experienced noble friend is not relevant to the business of discussing how in fact you probe a Government's intentions and the meaningfulness of what they propose to do. I must say I am very depressed by what the noble Lord has said, because we were hoping that when we put forward arguments—and admittedly this is that the clause stand part, we do not want to go over it all again—we did hope that in certain practical considerations they would meet us. We have been given one concession. I am bound to say that this is an interference with the arrangements which experienced trade unionists are trying to make, and they will find it very discouraging when they read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on what they think this clause is going to achieve.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him does he not appreciate that what this clause does is to provide a means of peaceful settlement of a dispute, where there is a difference of opinion between the two parties whether or not there should be an agency shop, which could not otherwise be settled without industrial trouble.
11.53 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: This is one of the most—I am sorry; I cannot help the groans, grizzles or anything else, and quite f rankly if I am taunted I shall speak for air hour. Never mind the Front Bench saying to me, "Keep it short", either. I am not being told by my Front Bench whether to keep it short or long on an issue like this. It is an absolutely vital issue to the history of the trade union movement, and I will spike it down as I go along in the way I want to do it. The first thing is that since 1871—[Interruption.]—The Liberal Party, with its usual arrogance and inability and lack of potency, is uttering these remarks, which are useless, as usual. Since 1871 the trade union movement, after a hundred years or more of struggle, by trial and error, and

799
by sometimes supporting the Conservative Party, sometimes supporting the great Party of the gentlemen below me on my right hand side here, won the right to be left free to form and administer their own trade unions. Now we are told by the noble Lord opposite, living in Cloud Cuckoo-land, that we have now discovered a panacea, we have written within a legal framework a policy for the trade union movement. It is a highly intelligent trade union movement, with masses of better opportunity for education than we ever had in the early days.
That trade union movement has been one of the most responsible in the history of the world. It gave its sacrifices in the war the same as anybody else, it gave £1,819,000 of its money interest free as war loan to this country when it was in a jam. It cut out many of its restrictions to help with that war. But there is one warning. Even at the height of that war, in the pits at Betteshanger, when there was illegal treatment of the miners, despite the penalties of a war, and despite the catcalling and the name calling, no legal restraint, or Order 1305, was able to put those men in gaol and keep them there in their thousands.
For Heaven's sake, let us be a realistic nation. The Conservative Party, which won the last Election on a lie and on propaganda that was useless, is throwing away one of the finest things in the strength of the people—the element of give-and-take. I remember the General Strike of 1926. In Wales, we did not want the troops in, and we played rugby with the police. That was all part of the effort to gain decent standards of living. To-day, all this is going to be thrown away. Up to now the law has had no say as to which union a worker will join. Now the law comes into it. If noble Lords opposite do not understand it, I have no time to explain it to them; if I did, I should be here until to-morrow morning. At one time all matters affecting the union were left in the hands of its members. Do noble Lords opposite realise that the paid agitators we used to see in the United States—I have been in Detroit and seen how strikes happen there—could enter the trade union movement here more easily than ever before? Let us spike it down.
800
I cannot understand the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor grinning and laughing about this matter, with his learned background and wisdom. I do not see what there is to laugh about. These inane remarks of the noble and learned Lord are not worthy of the dignity of his office. There were times in the history of the Tolpuddle Martyrs and of the T.U.C., when people who did not have his opportunity of education, who could hardly speak grammatical English, stood up to the law. They knew that the law was always against them. They were deported. So please, in this part of the 20th century, do not let the noble and learned Lord be frivolous and jocular about one of the most important things in the trade union movement—that is, losing the liberty of the 1871 Act.
If that is not understood by noble Lords opposite, let me explain it. If 20 per cent. of the workers vote, they can get a decision and break the agency shop agreement; then there can be a two years' delay. Nobody seems to have talked about this. Then they can have another vote. But if 50 per cent. of the people in the shop do not vote, there is complete chaos so far as the agency shop agreement is concerned.
In another place, my right honourable friend Mrs. Barbara Castle showed how some people anticipated how the agency shop system would be used. Speaking of the Post Office strike, if any group of workers were treated scandalously, it was the Post Office workers. They were treated like some red-nosed comic on a fifth-rate theatre stage, with cheap jokes about the whiskers of their leader—this when men's bread and butter was at stake. Why were they treated so? It was because theirs was the only group where this Government felt they could completely control what wages the men should have. Mrs. Barbara Castle (I am taking my time, and I am not going to be put off even by the Front Bench) said—I am referring to the Commons Hansard of January 28, column 979—that it has been reported that some staff have been threatened that if they do not strike they will he expelled from the union—
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: Would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt for one moment? Is he quoting verbatim from Mrs. Castle's speech?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: No; I am paraphrasing. You do not think you are going to catch me on that ! Then she adds that under the Government's Industrial Relations Bill, now in the Committee stage, according to this notice, the closed shops would be illegal. Then comes the 64,000 dollar phrase, that shops would be allowed and staff would have the legal right not to join a union provided they pay the equivalent of the subscription to the union's services. That was spiked on a notice board, not because of any great feeling and swelling of the heart for the trade union movement: it was a threat. With deep sincerity—and not only with sincerity, but with truth—I say to noble Lords opposite that this Bill will not work. I see the sheepish laughter and grins opposite, but my God ! what I am saying will prove to be right. This Bill cannot stand the test of practical living in the trade union movement and in the industrial field. Many large industrialists know this to be true. Able men on that side of the Committee know it to be true. The agency shop—that is where every worker has to pay for union services—is an import from the United States of America. But to the unions in Britain money and collective bargaining are not only the main things.
I remember struggling for the right to get cadmium poison recognised as an industrial disease. The medicos and others know what cadmium poisoning is. I have seen too many people die of it after having worked in brass factories. Its recognition as an industrial disease was the work of the trade union movement, with the doctors and the lawyers whom they employed, and whom they paid well. Let me pay tribute to the medical men and the legal men who for over 100 years, to the best of their ability, have served the trade union movement. Those working in foundries got cadmium poisoning, asbestosis and other kinds of disease, and in the rubber industry the disease of cancer of the bladder, now accepted as an industrial disease. What does the agency shop and all this do about industrial diseases? It does nothing. If I am provoked, I will fetch a list of about 300 Government organisations with which the trade union movement co-operated in wartime and in peace to help when this country has been in difficulty. They ranged from allotment holders and little organisations like that, to their
802
breaking all their regulations to produce munitions by reason of working in a factory for 24 hours a day. None of that co-operation is taken into account in this stupid agency shop business.
Now we come to the next bit—and I am taking my time.
A NOBLE LORD: Our time.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Yes. I am taking the Lord Chancellor's time. He has taken ours many a time in the other place and here. If he goes on like that, the sooner he sits on that Woolsack with a bell, the better. I am absolutely disgusted at the way the Lord Chancellor enters into the politics of this matter. I am entitled to say this. I did not think he was here for that purpose: I thought he was supposed to advise us on the law.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord's speech, but should I have the sympathy of the committee if I gave a brief history of the Liberal Party? It would not take more than six hours. The future of the Liberal Party would take a little longer. I will gladly give it, though I should have to paraphrase. But I will not give it without your Lordship's permission.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: This exposes completely the irrelevance of the Liberal Party today. The noble Viscount thinks it is relevant to talk of the history of the Labour Party while we are dealing practically with a practical clause that the noble Lord opposite thinks is a wonderful discovery. This was talked about 50 years ago in American trade unionism. It is not even new; it was introduced for a purpose in America, and we are introducing it here. This is something which is going to be on the Statute Book a few months from now, if we are unlucky.
I will go back to my point. These agreements would no longer be possible as a worker would have the right not to belong to a union, and strict controls would be imposed before even an agency shop agreement could be concluded; and the agreement can be challenged. You have a secret ballot which would have to be held by order if more than 20 per cent. of the employers requested it? What does that mean? They do not even know. Does it mean by order made by this House; or that we have to have a debate in the other place, or here? The more you go into this in depth the less you

803
find it has been discussed legally. Some body like the Bow Group or a Monday Club group of lawyers have drawn up 90 per cent. of this Bill. This is not the work of able draftsmen, and it is not the work of men who have spent their years in great legal work, or of judges, who are some of the fairest men in the world. It is a tinpot mish-mash of verbiage, mixing ethics and jurisprudence.
The Committee will be delighted that I am coming to my last sentence.
A NOBLE LORD: Hear, hear !
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Thank you for the applause. It is no good appealing; there is a brash, abrasive Conservative Government in power—the worst that we have had since 1931. There are great men opposite (I apologise a little for the asperity of my speech); there are able men of different political views who have come from great British families. They have made their contribution to the great
old British oligarchy; to the Church; to the Bar; to industry. They know that this Bill is not a typical British approach to this movement. It is no good begging because we shall get no change. I regret that I have lived to see in power a Conservative Government that has destroyed nearly 150 years' of effort of the trade union movement. Because of the stupid propaganda of the British Press, and groups of the Monday Club, and ultra-Right Wing Tory M.P.s, the impression has been swept through this country that we are being ruined by strikes. Our days lost are the least in the technological world, yet we have fallen on our people with this propaganda. I regret that some people on the other side resented the fact that we were moving that this clause should not stand part.
12.10 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Pender, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Effingham, E.

Poole, L.

Allerton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Radnor, E.

Amherst, E.

Essex, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Amory, V.

Exeter, M.

Reading, M.

Barrington, V.

Ferrers, E.

Reay, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Fortescue, E.

Redesdale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gisborough, L.

Redmayne, L.

Belstead, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Gowrie, E.

Rothermere, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bridgeman, V.

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

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Halsbury, E.

St. Oswald, L.

Byers, L.

Hankey, L.

Sandford, L.

Caldecote, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh L.

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Chelmer, L.

Ilford, L.

Selsdon, L.

Chesham, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sempill, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Strange, L.

Cowley, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lothian, M.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Cromartie, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Terrington, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mansfield, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Daventry, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Davidson, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie. Bs.

Denham, L.

Vivian, L.

Digby, L.

Moyne, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Dudley, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Yarborough, E.

Dundee, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Burntwood, L.

Diamond, L.

Balogh, L.

Champion, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Bernstein, L.

Collison, L.

Gardiner, L.

Blyton L

Davies of Leek, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Hoy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller]

Serota, Bs.

White, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Popplewell, L.

Shepherd, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 10, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Clause 11 [Ballot as to agency shop agreement]:
12.19 a.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: With the permission of the Committee I should like to move Amendment No. 85 and at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 86 and 87. I do not think I need go into any detail on these Amendments. I have already referred to them and their purpose is quite simple. The present wording requires the C.I.R. not to proceed with an application only if there actually is a dispute over recognition, whereas the Amendment will enable the C.I.R not to proceed if a dispute over recognition appears likely to arise. I am sure the Committee will wish to accept this. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 18, after ("application") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I have no desire to take longer over these matters than is necessary, but every one of them is extremely important, and this is a situation in which proceedings on an agency shop could be frustrated. We are here dealing with a situation in which there is a desire for an agency shop in the part of the union, and this introduces some further qualifications, or some further considerations, on the basis of which the Commission would not be in a position in which they could if they wished shelve the project, but, as I understand the effect of the Amendment, would be obliged to shelve the project if they reached the judgment that the conditions set out in these Amendments were met.
I do not think these commend themselves so easily to the Committee as the noble Lord seemed to think. It is, I would have thought, a fine matter of judgment whether a question, although not yet in dispute, is likely to become the subject of a dispute if an agency shop agreement is made, and would in that event, until settled, be likely to make that agreement ineffective. A very considerable amount of judgment is involved
806
in this matter, and I am bound to confess that I do not see the advantage of inserting this in the clause. It seems to me that one is importing another set of considerations which can frustrate the apparent desire of unions to proceed in the matter with which these two clauses deal. I am doubtful whether this is something we should wish to press to a Division in the circumstances, but I must tell the noble Lord that we do not find his arguments as convincing, and certainly not as self-evident, as he suggested to us.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Quite frankly, I did not put forward any arguments, because I did not think they were necessary. I am perfectly willing to put forward the arguments. I really thought this was something that would commend itself to noble Lords. However, I shall try to convince them. The provisions of this clause, as at present drafted, require the C.I.R. not to proceed on an application for an agency shop ballot if it appears to the Commission that there is a question in dispute in respect of the workers concerned related to the recognition and bargaining rights. The noble Lord says he is not inclined to accede to this Amendment, which I suggested was an improvement, where the Commission could exercise its judgment on where a recognition dispute was likely to arise.
The circumstances here would be those, perhaps, similar to what we were discussing on the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, where a dispute of this kind might arise: that is to say, there might be a union within a group which was likely to feel that its interests were not sufficiently covered; or there might be another union which was not yet recognised but which was seeking recognition at the same time; there might be more than one. If there is a situation of this kind, this is just the sort of situation that the C.I.R. normally investigates. Why does the noble Lord say that in that case, and that case alone, they will not trust the C.I.R.'s judgment, when they are saying all the time in other cases that they want to trust the C.I.R.'s judgment and abide by it, and get the

807
C.I.R. to persuade the two sides to accept it.
What is going to happen in this case? The noble Lord must face this, that if the C.I.R. thinks there is such a prospect of a dispute on the right to negotiate, they will then investigate in the ordinary way under Clause 43. Is not this the right thing to do? This is what ought to be done, and if the noble Lord doubts it perhaps he would have a look at Clause 117 and see that this is so. The C.I.R. can, in any case, where the C.I.R. is involved in an investigation of some sort or another, pursue any other investigation in order to make recommendations about the matters involved. This is the right course to pursue if the C.I.R. thinks that there is a prospect of dispute. Otherwise, they may well find that in a very short time there will be a dispute about recognition.
What the noble Lords are really saying here is that they are determined in all cases to ignore the wishes of the minorities. If a minority is likely to raise a dispute in a case like this, they will ignore it. They say, "Let us have a ballot right away", even though a dispute is likely to arise. I really suggest to noble Lords that they are making very heavy weather of this. I thought this was an overwhelming case and did not need explanation. I hope I have at least put into the noble Lords' minds the idea that the C.I.R. may be trusted in a matter of this kind.
12.27 a.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord has said, and the enthusiasm with which it has been greeted. If I understood him aright, he was saying that if this Amendment were inserted the C.I.R. would be able to perform its function of investigation?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Correct.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am very interested to hear him say that. I do not really understand how he reads that into the subsection as it would be if amended. There is nothing about making an investigation. The material words in Amendment No. 86 are inserted after the word "ineffective" in line 22.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the noble Lord will read Clause 117 he will see that these words appear:
"Provision may be made by regulations made by the Secretary of State for enabling the Commission, where it appears to them to be expedient to do so in the course of examining any question which the Commission are required or authorised to examine under section 11 or under sections 35 to 38 of this Act, to undertake the examination of any question which—

(a) appears to the Commission to arise in connection with it, and

(b) could be referred to the Commission by the Industrial Court on an application under section 43 of this Act."

That is the answer to the noble Lord.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I quite appreciate it is, provided that the Secretary of State makes such an order, but we happen to be dealing with the Amendment which is actually before us, and not with Clause 43 or with this later clause. There is no doubt that the effect of this insertion in Clause 11 will be to produce a situation in which the Commission shall make a report, and shall not proceed further in relation to that request. As I understand it, in the light of the further clarification, at that stage the Secretary of State could make an order. Is it correct that he could make a specific order in a specific case, or is it to be a general order which gives them a general roving commission? As I understand it, it is a specific case. Am I right in that?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I must confess that I am not absolutely clear on that. I had read it to mean that he would make regulations giving general powers to do so, but I will ascertain that and will let the noble Lord know.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: In those circumstances, it would be better to withdraw the Amendment until the noble Lord has clarified the point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I do not think we should wish to proceed to a Division on this point, notwithstanding the fact that this has not been a very satisfactory reply and has left a good deal of doubt over what would happen in the general case. But I must emphasise that all that has been said on this Amendment must surely underline the desirability of making the general change which we

809
advocated, and which the noble Lord is now advancing as the main argument for the C.I.R.'s intervention in a situation like this; that it should investigate a case and try to find a solution which is generally acceptable to all parties.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 86, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 22, after ("ineffective") insert ("or
(b) such a question, although not yet in dispute, is likely to become the subject of a dispute if an agency shop agreement is made in pursuance of the application, and would in that event be likely, until settled, to make that agreement ineffective").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 87.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 23, after ("Court") insert ("and to the trade union, trade unions, joint negotiating panel or employer who made the application").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
12.32 a.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 88.
Page 9, line 25, after ("subsection") insert ("and the requirement that in no case shall part-time workers (that is, persons who are employed for less than twenty-one hours per week) he aggregated with whole-time workers")
The noble Baroness said: This is an Amendment to which we attach considerable importance, and we look forward to the comments of the Government. It is a perfectly straightforward Amendment, which seeks to make certain that when a ballot is conducted there shall be provision to separate part-time workers from full-time workers. Our definition of a "part-time worker" is one who works for less than 21 hours per week, and there may be a number of workers who work considerably less than that. Anyone with any knowledge of industrial organisation will appreciate the point that we are trying to make. If a ballot is taken there has to be an absolute majority, and unless, as we very much hope, an Amendment which comes later accepted, it will be an absolute
810
majority of those eligible to vote. If that were to include a number of part-time workers, then one could very easily find oneself in a situation where the majority of the full-time workers, and the employer, would wish to have an agency shop, but where the part-time workers—not necessarily because of any hostility, but more likely because of indifference and apathy—would not vote or would not be very much concerned about the outcome.
I am sorry to say that a great many of the part-time workers who are likely to be apathetic are women, because in certain branches of industry, such as Courtaulds in what used to be my constituency, there is a floating population of married women. When there was a rush of work they would come in because they liked to make a bit of extra money, and when the orders slackened off it was understood that they would be laid off until the next period of pressure came. We all know how difficult it is for a trade union to organise part-time workers adequately, and to bring them fully into the organisation, with a real understanding of the issues involved—such as whether or not an agency shop would be desirable. Less frequently one has part-time workers consisting mostly of older people, of pensioners, who can earn a certain amount without affecting their pensions and who are engaged for certain sorts of work, again often seasonally or if there happens to be a spate of orders at a particular time.
I am sure noble Lords will appreciate and if someone is semi-retired, and has lived his effective industrial life, and is coming in to work just to make a little extra to supplement his pension or to have a little company, a little social life outside the home, he is not going to be passionately interested in a ballot for or against an agency shop. Therefore, we feel there is an extremely important point here. We do not love this particular concept of the agency shop, but if it is to be implemented then we are anxious that it should be done in a responsible and realistic way. I hope very much that the Government will feel able to accept this Amendment for the reasons I have given, which I am certain anyone with experience in industry will accept as valid. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: I think the apprehensions which have been voiced by (the noble Lady, Baroness White, stem from not drawing a distinction between the agency shop in which part-time workers may be among the descriptions of workers included in the agency shop and the agency shop where part-time workers are not included. In general terms, the agency shop provisions draw no distinction between full-time and part-time workers as the Bill is drafted; both have equal rights to participate in agency ballots, and their votes will be of equal value. For under an agency shop agreement the obligation either to join the agency union or to pay an appropriate contribution in lieu of membership is the same whether you are a full-time or a part-time worker. Indeed, the obligation may be the more onerous on the part-time worker, because his or her earnings will generally be the lower, and the part-time worker therefore has the right, I think, to expect to be able to voice his or her opinion on a matter which concerns him or her just as much as the full-time colleague.
But in general the question whether part-time workers should be included in an agency shop agreement, and thus of course in any ballot to challenge it, will be one for the parties to decide. If the parties to an agreement decide to exclude part-time workers, such workers could not apply for a ballot to rescind the agreement or to vote in any such ballot. Where a union makes a unilateral application for an agency shop with part-time workers excluded, I would suggest to the Committee that it would seem unlikely that the C.I.R. would extend the application to cover the part-time workers against the wishes of the unilateral applicant. Of course, it would be open to the Commission to take the wider view. But where part-time workers are to be included in an agency shop then it is surely entirely right that they should have an equal right to vote on the matter—and this is the nub of the argument against the Amendment. If this did not happen you might get a small minority of full-time workers who might establish an agency shop agreement against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of other workers who were covered by it, and I would not have thought that this was a process which responsible trade
812
unionism—or democratic processes—would wish to see occur.
LORD BROWN: I hope the Government will accept this Amendment. Really, what the Minister has said shows a woeful lack of appreciation of the real situation in industry. Part-time workers are sometimes very serious employees who have a long-term eye on the future of their own employment and of the company that employs them, but that is not generally true. Generally they range from people who are picking up some pin-money to people who have taken jobs for a rather short period of employment. They are not identified with the interests of their full-time colleagues in the industry, they are, with honourable exceptions, people who are emotionally in a very different category of worker from the rest of those employed in the company. It is grossly unfair that these people, whose investment in their careers in a company or industry, is not nearly so great should be given the same rights of voting as people who are very much more seriously concerned. I listened to the noble Lord about the possible ways of accepting them, the trades unions keeping them out, and so on. However, I think nothing that has been said is a good argument against accepting this Amendment. It is a simple Amendment, and I suggest that it is one of a kind that the Government should be able to accept readily.
LORD BELSTEAD: Does not the noble Lord feel that in the circumstances he outlined it would be very unlikely that the proposal for the agency agreement would include such workers? But if it were to do so, then in my view they should have equal rights.
LORD BROWN: It is somewhat involved if the unions have to consider these matters in detail, and I do not see why they should not be given an arrangement in which every two part-time workers would have the same vote as one full-time worker. That is the sort of rational basis there should be, as they have only half the involvement in the firm. The noble Lord drew attention to the fact that there might be some firms where there was a minority of full-time workers and a majority of part-time workers. That would be a very exceptional situation. It could conceivably occur, but if one is going to legislate for

813
these extreme exceptions then it is not really reasoned legislation.
I think it is a sound Amendment. It will reassure people that they are not going to have a ballot swung by the odd five per cent. of part-time workers. Imagine what would happen if a ballot were taken and the part-time workers swung the vote against or for an agency agreement. What would the rest of the workers feel? What would members of this Committee feel in that situation, where people who were not fully identified with their career swung the ballot one way or the other against the wishes of those who were far more identified? I suggest the Government should consider this matter very seriously indeed.
LORD BELSTEAD: It depends entirely what the workers, whether they be part-time or full-time, are paying. If they are paying the same amount in union contributions I know perfectly well what many noble Lords on both sides of the Committee would think: they would think justice had been done if it had been decided by the parties to that agreement. May I thank my noble friend, Viscount Amory, for making crystal clear to the Committee the point imperfectly made by me, that the C.I.R. is written into the clause and into the Bill so that it will be possible to make use of its expertise. That is precisely what the C.I.R. is there for, to decide whether it is right that part-time workers should be included in an agency shop agreement; and if it is decided either by the parties or by the C.I.R. that such part-time workers should be part of the agency shop agreements, then I return to the Government's conclusion that that is the moment when it is self-evidently right and just that such people should be allowed to have a voice in the ballot. That is the whole point of the argument against the Amendment.
LORD BROWN: We should decide this matter here, and the point I wish to take up with the noble Lord is that he is attaching the vote to the fact that they pay the same amount to the trade union. That has nothing to do with it. It is a very slim and shallow argument. What really should determine whether they should have the same vote is the workers' degree of identification with the occupation of the company. That is what matters. The noble Lord knows that full
814
well, if he has any experience of the matter. The question of attaching it to the fact of giving them a full vote because they pay the same dues (which the noble Lord knows is a trifling matter in terms of cash), is a nonsensical argument.
LORD PLATT: I am afraid that I was absent from the Committee when the debate on this Amendment started and it may be that the point I am going to raise is either irrelevant or has already been covered. But knowing that against my personal views the medical profession is involved in agency shop agreements, I should like to point out that some of the most eminent members of my profession do about four sessions a week for the National Health Service in, perhaps, one of the London teaching hospitals and that private practice takes up the remainder of their lime. I may say that these eminent men carry out their duties for the Health Service in a splendid way and often do far more work than is covered by four sessions. Nevertheless they do four sessions, each of notionally 3½hours, which is considerably less than 21 hours. I do not I now whether these people are covered by this particular clause; but if they are, they are very important people.
BARONESS WHITE: I would not wish to dispute the peculiar position of the consultants who do only four sessions a week; but to take the normal industrial position, I think that the noble Lord seemed to give a travesty of the normal position. He was talking about the small minority of full-time and the vast majority of part-time workers. That is what he said. They do not have an equal status. This is the reality of the situation: they are not equal. They do not necessarily, if they are part-time workers working under 21 hours a week, pay a full union subscription.
We feel that there is a very genuine distinction between the full-and the part-time workers. The noble Lord and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory suggested, "Leave them out. They will not be included in the application." But even that is not necessarily entirely satisfactory, for some of them might be trade union members. We feel that there is a genuine difference in the normal industrial situation between those who have a real stake in the company, a real involvement in the enterprise, and those who do not.

815
We feel that it is unsatisfactory, having great respect for them, that the C.I.R. should be left in each individual case to go into this business of part-time and full-time workers when, as my noble friend Lord Brown said with great authority, this is something that we ought to sort out for them. There is a limit to what one ought to put on to the C.I.R. in having to investigate every application for an agency shop—and they are given no guidance from us as to whether or
12.57 a.m.
LORD DEL ACOURT-SMITH: Amendment No. 88D is consequential upon an Amendment which the Government have already accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 38, at end insert ("or rights corresponding to negotiating rights").—(Lord Delacourt-Smith.)
not they should equate full and part-time workers. The experience of most of us with industrial experience is that part-time and the full-time workers are not to be equated. This is the burden of the Amendment and we still hope that the Government will accept it.
12.49 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 88) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 84.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Diamond, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Sainsbury, L.

Brockway, L.

Gardiner, L.

Serota, Bs.

Brown, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Shepherd, L.

Collison, L.

Hughes, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

White, Bs.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Effingham, E.

Platt, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Poole, L.

Allerton, L.

Essex, E.

Radnor, E.

Amherst, E.

Exeter, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Amory, V.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Reading, M.

Beauchamp, E.

Gisborough, L.

Redesdale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Redmayne, L.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Bridgeman, V.

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

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brooke of Ystradefllte, Bs.

Halsbury, E.

Sandford, L.

Byers, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sandys, L.

Caledcote, V.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Chelmer, L.

Ilford, L.

Selsdon, L.

Chesham L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sempill, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Strange, L.

Cowley, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lothian, M.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Terrington, L.

Daventry, V.

Mansfield, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Davidson, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Denham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Digby, L.

Moyne, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Dudley, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Windlesham, L.

Dundee, E.

Pender, L.

Yarborough, E.

Eccles, V.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Moved Amendment No. 89.
Page 9, line 43, leave out from ("determine") in line 43 to ("what") in line 2 on page 10.
The noble Lord said: I hope this will not be a contentious Amendment, but I had hoped that Amendment No. 88 would not be. The case for this Amendment can be put very simply. It is intended to give the Commission a free hand in respect of a matter in which we think it quite appropriate to give a free

817
hand, that of securing a properly conducted ballot. The wording included in the Bill as it stands appears to us to be a little more diffuse than is necessary, and we should appreciate some explanation of it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Such are the mysteries of drafting, I am advised, that the words which the noble Lord proposes to leave out are those which give the Commission a power which it would not otherwise have to do certain things. The point is, that unless the Commission is given powers to have the ballot taken under its supervision by some other body it appears that it would have to conduct the ballot itself. It seems strange, but apparently that is so, and on the whole I think it would be better to leave the words as they are.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: That is such an extremely good and convincing explanation, compared with so many we have had, that I should like to express my appreciation and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.0 a.m.
LORD THORNEYCROFT LORD THORNEYCROFT moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 10, line 4, at end insert ("and for these purposes may invite the employer to make such arrangement's as to premises or otherwise as may appear convenient.")
The noble Lord said: I think it will be common ground on both sides of the House that if there is a ballot all necessary facilities should be made available, so that it may be conducted with reasonably good order. This merely gives the Commission power to invite the employer to make such arrangements, as to premises or any other matters, as may appear convenient for the purpose.
BARONESS WHITE: We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, for making this suggestion, but I cannot pretend that we find the Amendment entirely satisfactory. I would assume that it does not require statutory authority for the Commission merely to invite the employer to make arrangements as to premises or any other matter. They could do that, surely, within their own authority, without our having to give them statutory authority for it. If, on the other hand, what the noble Lord
818
really has in mind is that the Commission should be in a position of somewhat greater authority, and should be able, where they thought it proper, to order the employer, or to have some real authority in the matter, then that would, I think, be a suitable matter for an Amendment to the Bill. If the noble Lord really has that in mind, so that this Amendment would have some genuine practical effect, then we would be very much disposed to go along with him.
But I would ask him to clarify this a little. There might well be circumstances in which the Commission, having looked at the possibility of making proper arrangements for a ballot, have come to the conclusion that this is something which should be done by the employer, and they might find that the employer was a bit reluctant. Are we to assume that they then just shrug their shoulders and say, "We cannot conduct this ballot in a sensible way, we shall have to use the church hall or something like that"? I wonder if we could know what is in the noble Lord's mind?
LORD THORNEYCROFT: I rather share the noble Baroness's view, and would prefer to put a clear obligation on the employer. The trouble with legislation is that if you put in obligations of that sort you have to make elaborate precautions for the one employer out of 500 who might refuse, and this becomes rather a ponderous operation. In the circumstances it is probably better to make it absolutely plain that the Commission can invite, and 999 employers out of 1,000 will undoubtedly fulfil the invitation.. But unless it were made plain I think might well be a little doubtful whether it really was within the competence of the Commission to invite employers, or anybody else, to undertake things which might involve them in some difficulty.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I think it is quite clear. I take it that the noble Lord is quite as sincere about this as any of us on this side of the Committee. He wants the maximum opportunity and convenience for that ballot. He knows as well as I do that there are certain snags about the arithmetic of this, and one would like to see as many as possible having the maximum opportunity of voting. I suppose at least 90 per cent.

819
of the employers who would be willing to co-operate would take it as the wish of Parliament, and would help to make a success of whatever this Bill in the ultimate produces. I sincerely hope the Government will give us an explanation on this, and I think it is worth while an explanation being made.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lady has expressed the view that she would welcome the provision if it said "requires" rather than "invite". The way in which the Opposition changes sides in these things never fails to puzzle me. At one time everything must be done by voluntary action, and then suddenly they require the employer to do something. My noble friend is perfectly right in the reason he has given for suggesting that this should be to "invite" and not "require", because it would involve a lot of other provisions defining what would happen if the employer refused to comply with a requirement. I think this would be a valuable addition to the Bill, because it would give an opportunity to the workers to go to the usual place to hold the ballot, in circumstances where it is clear that this is done at the instigation of the Commission and not as a sort of job on the part of the employer. I think there is value in this, and the Government are prepared to accept my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD HOY: I was not going to say anything on this Amendment but I am intrigued by the reply just made by the noble Lord. I have listened to many arguments from him in committees in another place on whether "will" meant "shall", or "shall" meant "will". I can think of many occasions when he held up a committee for long periods to find out exactly what a specific word meant. On those occasions his argument always depended on which side of the committee he was: on one side, "will" meant "shall", and on the other, "shall" meant "will". I was surprised to find him doing exactly the same thing in your Lordships' House. There is a great distinction between the two words, and I should have thought that from the Government's point of view he would have wanted to make it clear what "shall" meant before putting it into an Act of Parliament.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is perfectly clear. If one says "shall" to an employer, it means that on every occasion the ballot shall be held in the employer's premises. I am sure this is not my noble friend's intention. He merely wants to give the opportunity to the employer, if the C.I.R. think it appropriate. "May" is definitely correct, whatever I may have said in the past.
BARONESS WHITE: Can I make certain that we are not inadvertently narrowing the operations of the Commission by this Amendment? If we look at subsection (3), it says:
"The Commission shall also determine … in either case what arrangements would best secure that the ballot will be properly conducted, …."
If we put this Amendment in, would that not be taking away some of the powers which the Commission already have? If they can determine what arrangements would best secure that the ballot will be properly conducted, does not that give them a greater authority than the Amendment, which just says that they may invite an employer to make such arrangements. It seems to me that the first part has greater authority than the proposed Amendment.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I would like to answer the charge of inconsistency, at least so far as I am concerned. There are legal clauses for employees, but exhortations for employers.
LORD SHACKLETON: Is the noble Lord not going to answer my noble friend? This really is a point. We are sympathetic to what the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, is proposing, but it sometimes happens that when you have a desirable suggestion and put it in you restrict the powers already there. Subsection (4) says that
"The Commission shall thereupon arrange for the ballot to be taken …".
Yet earlier all they can do is to invite somebody to do something. I wonder whether the noble Lord has considered this. It may well be that if it does inadvertently restrict it might be as well to have another look at it on Report.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor whispers to me that this clause does not

821
do that at all. I have also had the advantage of asking the draftsman whether it has such effect, and he is quite satisfied with the drafting. I hope therefore that the Committee will accept the Amendment. I am certain that if this in any way restricted the powers of the Commission I should have been told. If it is of any assistance to the noble Lord, of course I will put forward the point made by he and the noble Baroness to make quite certain. On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1.11 a.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 10, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) The arrangements to be determined by the Commission as provided in the previous subsection shall include arrangements which will ensure that it is adequately brought to the notice of workers who are to take part in the ballot that a ballot is to take place not less than one month before the date fixed in accordance with the arrangements for the taking place of the ballot, and the ballot shall not take place before at least one month has expired since notice is so given in accordance with such arrangements.")
The noble Baroness said: The object of this Amendment, as I think is clear from its wording, is to make quite certain that in this important matter of the ballot there should be no possibility of a snap vote and a snap decision and the ballot being taken in so short a period that it will not be possible for the whole matter to be fully discussed with all the groups of workers who may be involved, and for all the pros and cons to be put before them.
We have already discovered in earlier discussions, for example on the professional workers, that some of these matters are by no means simple. Again, in our discussion on part-time workers we found that there are various groups who may have different interests in these matters. It may need quite a considerable period of discussion and explanation on the part of those who are advocating that there should be an agency shop agreement. Therefore we think it is sensible to put some sort of provision in the Bill to make quite sure that a reasonable period is allowed. We think that what we are suggesting, at least one month, is a reasonable period. It will not delay matters unduly, but it will allow the trade unions and others to have a proper time
822
to make their arrangements, and to make absolutely certain that everybody who is to take part in the ballot is fully aware of the issues involved, the pros and cons, the obligations which would ensue if the vote was in the affirmative and so on. After all, the legislation concerned with the agency shop agreement, as we found in the many hours that we have spent in discussing it, is not entirely straightforward. Therefore, we think it not unreasonable to suggest that the proposal made in this Amendment should be accepted. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The last thing I want to do is to appear to be obstructive about an Amendment which so obviously has the most laudable intention. I think we should all want to make sure that every worker eligible to vote in an agency shop matter should have at any rate notice of the ballot and adequate time to consider the issues involved. I hope that I can persuade noble Lords to agree that in practice it would place considerable restriction upon the C.I.R., and remove a good deal of useful flexibility. it would not guarantee that the purpose would be achieved in every case. It has to be borne in mind that the ballots will be conducted in constituencies varying from perhaps a few men in a work place to thousands of workers scattered in work places throughout the country. The C.I.R. may require a free hand to deal with each situation as they think fit, otherwise there will he inevitable delays in some cases and needless expense will be incurred.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be prepared to leave the C.I.R. to exercise their discretion in this matter. I am sure that we can agree that they will do so responsibly. The Bill requires the C.I.R. to ensure that the ballot is properly conducted, and the provisions regarding arrangements for the conduct of ballots are wide enough and flexible enough to permit the Commission to make the arrangements which are in the best interests of all concerned.
In most cases there can be little doubt that all will be well. The matter will be quite straightforward; for example, in single establishments all workers will be acquainted with the issues involved, and will have a reasonable opportunity to vote. In such cases compulsory notice of

823
a month will only delay matters. In the less straightforward cases the requirement imposed by this Amendment will place an almost impossible burden on the C.I.R. One has only to think of the case of the seamen, who may be scattered all over the world. In the case of actors or musicians, how would the C.I.R. be able to comply with the proposed requirement?
BARONESS WHITE: I am sure that the noble Lord has appreciated that we are not proposing a fixed period of one month. This is a safeguarding clause; it is not meant to be a rigid clause. It says that least one month shall have expired since notice is given that the ballot shall take place. We are putting forward what we believe is a basic minimum. I do not think in any circumstances that one month is an undue delay. If it is not sufficient then greater time can be taken.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Are you objecting to the whole clause, or the period of time? Are you prepared to bargain on the period of time? Would you make it three weeks, or two and a half weeks.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am afraid it is difficult to conduct negotiations across the Floor of the Committee in such a way. The point is quite clear, that a minimum period is set and I thought that where a minimum period of this kind was set it could also be treated as the maximum in many cases; it would be a standard period. The point I was making was that the minimum period is quite a long time when you have an issue in one place. For a General Election you require three weeks or so. If the issue is concentrated in one place are you going to require one month's notice? I doubt whether this is really worth pressing. I hope that it can be left to the discretion of the C.I.R. to see that the ballot is properly conducted.
BARONESS WHITE: At this early hour of the morning I do not think we will delay your Lordships by having a Division on this Amendment. I cannot pretend that we are entirely happy with the answer given by the noble Lord, but we will not press the Amendment at this point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.20 a.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 10, line 7, after ("and") insert ("having ensured that all workers eligible to take part in the ballot have had adequate opportunity to do so").
The noble Baroness said: Once again this is really intended to be a safeguarding Amendment. It may seem to be unnecessary or otiose, but we are anxious that it shall at least be drawn to the attention of the Commission that there are circumstances in which it may not be easy to ensure that all workers eligible to take part in a ballot have had an opportunity to do so. This can arise for various reasons. For example, in certain occupations one has a very elaborate shift system with, sometimes, quite a long break at certain points on a complicated rota system. We must be quite sure that the ballot is not held, for example, on a particular day on which it would not normally be possible for quite a large proportion of workers to vote. We want to be quite sure that situations of that kind are taken fully into account.
Then of course there are the other situations in which workers are not static, they are not in one plant or establishment, but may be moving around the country. Again, one has to be quite sure about this. In Parliamentary Elections, for example, we have postal votes for people whose work takes them away from their main base. I do not know whether it would be desirable conceivably in certain circumstances to have even a postal ballot for particular people provided for in this Bill. This is something that might at least be considered, however, because there are some people who go away for quite considerable periods and who would not be able to take part if they had to place their ballot in a box in the works.
So we believe there are circumstances which are not straightforward, and we are putting down this Amendment just to draw your Lordships' attention in the first place, and, through your Lordships, the attention of the Commission and others concerned, to those circumstances, to make quite certain that the intention of Parliament is clear that, no matter what the circumstances of the employment of the particular worker, if he or she is eligible to vote then arrangements must be made so that he or she can vote,

825
even if, as I say, it may in certain circumstances possibly involve a postal vote.
LORD BELSTEAD: The warnings of the noble Baroness, Lady White, on the perils of the shift system and inconvenient dates, possibly, and mobile workers are certainly very understandable in connection with the holding of ballots in this respect. But the noble Baroness has asked that these factors and others should be fully taken into account. I believe that under the Bill they are. The C.I.R. is required to ensure, first, that every ballot, whether conducted by the Commission itself or by another body under the Commission's supervision, should be properly conducted, and secondly, that the voting should be kept secret. Proper conduct of a ballot would include providing adequate opportunity for all workers eligible to vote to do so; and I would echo my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn on the previous Amendment in holding that, surely the C.I.R., with its expertise, will be expected to act responsibly in carrying out its obligations.
However, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Baroness in turn, as it were, some questions. How could the C.I.R. ensure (which is the wording of the Amendment) that all workers eligible to vote had adequate opportunity to do so? Would it be required to check that no worker was ill or confined to bed at the time of the ballot, or that every worker concerned had transport reasonably available to him to attend the balloting centre? The Amendment would introduce a contentious element where I am suggesting there need be none. Such an element would provide an opportunity, certainly for the dissident worker who is displeased with the result of the ballot, to pursue the Commission through the court on the matter of ensuring reasonable opportunity; and such actions would hardly be conducive to stable industrial relations.
There are certainly two further objections that I can see. The first is that the Amendment would place a distinct additional duty upon the Commission: and I recall that the last time I faced the noble Baroness, Lady White, across this table, about a quarter of an hour ago, she was, quite rightly, very keen that no extra burden should be placed upon the Commission. So I know she will agree
826
with that objection. The Commission would have to take active steps to satisfy itself, and while it was so doing some period of time, possibly several weeks might elapse. The second point is that the requirement would add an additional matter on which the report of the C.I.R. might be challenged, and to do so it would suffice, on the wording of the Amendment, to show that only one individual worker had not been offered adequate opportunity to take part in the ballot. Lastly, may I draw attention to the word "adequate", which is not defined. At this hour in the early morning I can define "inadequate", but "adequate" is notoriously difficult to define. For these reasons, although I know that this Amendment is conceived in a helpful manner to try to improve the Bill, I must say that it is impracticable.
1.27 a.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: What the noble Lord has failed to do is to convince us that what we seek to achieve in this Amendment is already provided for in the Bill. It is no use reading out to us that the arrangements must secure that the ballot will be properly conducted and that it will be kept secret. That has no bearing on the purpose of this Amendment. I do not find the noble Lord's answer goes far enough to meet us in this matter. After all, there is provision. Will the Commission make provision for postal votes for people who are sick or are on holiday? Nowhere in this clause is the type of obligation which we seek, whether in this form of words or some other form, laid upon the Commission. All that is laid upon them—and I put this point quite seriously to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—is that they must see that the ballot is properly conducted. It could be argued that this subsumes what we seek to put into the Bill, but I do not think it does.
If the wording of the Amendment is in some way inadequate, and it does impose some impossible legal obligation (although I am not convinced by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead) there may be some other form of words. We are seeking to make it absolutely explicit that every worker should, within human capability, be given an opportunity to vote. This is not a requirement at the

827
moment that I can find in the Bill, unless it comes in a later clause, and I should have hoped that the Government would consider this further.
This is not a point on which I think there is necessarily disagreement as to what we want. I am assuming that the Government want every worker in fact to have the right to vote, and we think that this ought to be included in the Bill. Could the Government not be a little more forthcoming and consider this, and not just dismiss it by quoting paragraphs which do not meet the particular point?
LORD BROWN: May I add a rather horrifying example to demonstrate the validity of a little thought about this matter? Under the next clause this is what could happen. There are 100 workers in a firm; a ballot comes up, and 50 vote in favour of an agency shop. None vote against it, and yet the agency shop will not come into existence. Supposing one man had been sent, we will say, to Rumania to, assemble some machines and no arrangement had been made for him to vote, that would have been the cause of losing the ballot. Once the principle of the majority of those eligible to vote is introduced it highlights the importance of voting in an extraordinary manner. Have the Government really thought out just how important this change in principle underlying the ballot, which is new to me, makes the arrangements for the ballot?
LORD BERNSTEIN: The question put to the noble Baroness, Lady White, by the noble Lord really causes me to raise my eyebrows, even at this time of the morning. The Bill has been loaded with the most complicated legal clauses. Why suggest that there should not be a legal clause to protect the worker against the employer? When the Second Reading of the Bill was introduced, the Companies Act was brought into the discussion. I could never understand what relation it had to this Bill. The Companies Act is to protect shareholders. Why cannot the Government include a clause like this to protect the workers? It is a simple clause; it is not complicated. What can be the reason? You talk of the Commission being overworked, and you have given them more work than we suggest is necessary.
1.30 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I say a word in answer to the last speech, and to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition? To begin with, this Amendment does not necessarily protect those whom the noble Lord refers to as workers. If the result of the ballot were favourable to the agency shop, which is the most favourable version to the workers, it could be invalidated, if this Amendment were carried, by a purely technical objection taken by an unsuccessful minority. If anybody wants to create unnecessary legal points which can dispute the validity of the vote, this, at any rate in my genuine opinion, is the way to do it. Of course the Commission ought to take every step open to it to see that every person qualified to vote has the opportunity to do so; and clearly that must include the capacity in suitable cases to provide for postal votes; and it is within their power to do so under subsection (3). But if you add the words on the Marshalled List,
"having ensured that all workers eligible to take part in the ballot have had adequate opportunity to do so",
you give every dissentient minority, even if it is only one person, the opportunity to challenge the validity of what has taken place. This is the way to set about doing the very thing the Opposition are constantly complaining the Bill does.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I do not think the Government are taking these Amendments seriously enough. It may be because they are going to give way on Amendment No. 93, but if that is so perhaps they will let us know straight away. What demands some kind of amendment here is this extraordinary new method of voting, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said. If we are to have this extraordinary new method of voting, there is every need that a subsection should be written into the Bill to see that everyone has the maximum chance to vote. I agree that it is stated in general terms in the Bill, but I think the Opposition are absolutely right to say that there should be more specific safeguards written in, if only for the psychological benefit. I accept, as the noble and learned Lord and Lord Belstead said, that possibly these Amendments do not do it, and I am

829
sure that the Opposition Front Bench, who are, at any rate at this time of night, extremely reasonable, would take these Amendments away if the Government would say that they accept the force of the argument and will consider whether they can come back at a later stage with some more explicit safeguards than exist at the moment.
BARONESS WHITE: I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, has plainly seen the true purpose of this Amendment. I think I am correct in saying that the undertaking by the Government that postal voting will be instituted where necessary has been mentioned tonight for the first time.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: What I said was that it was necessary for the C.I.R. to see that every qualified voter had a chance to vote, and this would include the power, which I was sure they would exercise in a suitable case, to make arrangements for postal votes. Of course not in every case would one expect it to be necessary, but they would have full authority to do so.
BARONESS WHITE: I think to have had the undertaking on behalf of the Government that this is included within the powers of the Commission is in itself valuable, and justifies our having put down this Amendment. I do not think this undertaking has been given anywhere else, and it is an important one. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, was entirely right in saying that it would be somewhat less important if Amendment No. 93 is accented, as we very much hope it will be. We have had no assurances on that, as yet. Even if that Amendment were accepted it would still be most desirable that, in the circumstances where it became necessary, the Commission should be able to take some rather extraordinary measures such as postal votes, and postal votes of people who were sick, and away from work and so on.
I do not think at this hour that we wish to pursue this further—we should like to, but I do not think we shall. In asking leave to withdraw this particular Amendment, I do so on the clear understanding that we shall be looking at it again and that we reserve our right to put down any further Amendment on Report if, on further reflection, we think
830
that more specific safeguards are needed. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
1.38 a.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SM1TH: I am afraid that here again we have a not very satisfactory clause before us. We can hardly say that we feel that the Government have met us on a number of the points we have raised. The reaction of the Government on Amendment No. 91 is in the minds of all of us. In this latter part of the discussion we have been concerned to try to ensure that, if a ballot is to be taken under the auspices of the Commission, it should be as satisfactory and as comprehensive a ballot as it can possibly be. In the earlier part of the clause we were looking at matters in a rather different way. While it is important that, if ballots are to be conducted, they should be satisfactorily conducted, and there should be no feeling afterwards that anybody's opportunity to vote had been neglected, in the earlier part of the clause we were concerned with the Amendments which again underline the inadequacy of this approach, which makes the whole thing turn so largely upon a ballot.
We had the long discussion earlier about the position of professional people, which brought out the way in which minorities can feel themselves overlooked if a ballot of the generality of the workers takes place. We had then the discussion on Amendment No. 88, which drew attention to the fact that there are part-time workers alongside full-time workers, and there was inevitably controversy about the degree of influence which part-time workers and full-time workers are respectively entitled to exercise when a decision is being made.
These are all examples of the inadequacy of the distinctly rigid approach which is enshrined in these machinery clauses. They underline our belief that the spirit in which this job should be done, if it is to be done at all, should be a different one, and that the effort should be to put the emphasis not upon the Industrial Court and on stated procedures, which tend to become inflexible, but upon the Commission on Industrial

831
Relations, with the maximum flexibility in its operations, and with the clear objective of trying to find, by examination and by contact with the parties, arrangements which are going to be satisfactory to all, or which are going to be as reasonably satisfactory to all as can be secured in a very imperfect world.
So often there are cases in trade union affairs where it may look democratic to take a ballot, but where it is not the wisest course, or the course which is going to produce the maximum agreement and satisfaction in the long run, to pose an issue in such a simple way. As the C.I.R. suggested, in the quotation from their first general Report which I read earlier, there is the effect in some circumstances of polarising differences of opinion rather than securing a general consensus of agreement.
In the circumstances, we are somewhat tempted to divide the Committee on this clause, but having considered the matter we feel that at this time of night it would not be appropriate to do so. But the fact that we are not dividing will not, I am sure, be misinterpreted. I do not think that noble Lords opposite will believe that this indicates a sudden change in our convictions. It merely indicates that we think it would be more fruitful to return to some of these points after we have considered—and, we hope, after the Government have considered—what has been said, so that we may select some points for further consideration at a later stage.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Effect of ballot under s. 11]:
1.42 a.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 10, line 12, leave out from ("beginning") to ("is") in line 13 and insert ("if the result of a ballot as reported by the Commission").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should correct a slight misprint here. The Amendment should read, to
"leave out from the beginning of the line to `'is' in line 13"
and so on. In moving this Amendment, I am returning to the theme which I was developing on the Question, whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?
We are here deleting the reference to the Industrial Court and inserting a reference to the Commission. As I said, noble Lords opposite will not believe that we have had a change of heart because of our decision not to vote on Clause 11, and I am not sanguine enough to believe that at this stage the Government are going to have a change of heart and accept the proposition which is so clearly implicit in this Amendment. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to put the Amendment before the Committee and I accordingly beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Quite honestly, I had assumed that the noble Lord would not move this Amendment as it appeared to go with the other Amendments. It is very difficult to see that it does very much standing by itself. It merely states what is to happen, and subsection (1) would read:
"If the result of a ballot as reported by the Commission to the Industrial Court under section 11 of this Act"
and so on. The Bill at present states who the ballot is to be reported to, and the noble Lord wants to insert who it is reported by. I do not see how this can make any difference to the sense. I entirely take his point that he disagrees with the way this is being done; but I do not think he intends us to accept this Amendment, if only because it would make no real difference. We should prefer to have the Bill as it is.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I do not think this is an issue which we should want to press at this time of night. Accordingly I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: Before my noble friend Lord Beswick left because he was unwell he led me to understand that there had been some agreement that the Committee stage would be adjourned either when we reached Clause 14 or at 2 a.m. I see we are now fifteen minutes to the hour, and I think it would be generally agreed that the next Amendment, which is down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is one of crucial importance to the Bill. I therefore wonder whether the Government Front Bench would agree that this might be an appropriate moment to adjourn, so that we could

833
return fresh tomorrow to take this very important Amendment.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL ELLICOE): I would not wish to appear unreasonable to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but in so far as there was any understanding I think the understanding was that we should attempt to get to, and in fact get through, Clause 14 of this Bill, which I do not think was an unreasonable understanding at that time. I do not wish to come between the Committee and the noble Lord moving the next Amendment, by my own feeling is that there is no reason at all why we should not go on. We seem to be making reasonable progress, and we all seem to be reasonably fresh.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 10, line 14, leave out ("eligible to vote") and insert ("voting").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the names of my noble friends and myself, and also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith. This Amendment deals with the method of voting—this peculiar arrangement whereby a majority of those eligible to vote is needed for the putting up of an agency shop. Perhaps it would be to the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, No. 93, we considered Amendments Nos. 96, 101 and 102; and also, with the permission of the Committee, I am going to touch on Amendments Nos. 101A and 102A starred. I do not propose to detain the Committee long at this time of the morning with the arguments against this particular form of voting. Suffice it to say, I think, that it is, so far as I know, unprecedented in British public life. The basis that we have always worked on in the past is that, although we want to encourage as many people as possible to vote, the abstainers should beware—caveat abstainer is probably the maxim by which we have proceeded—and to suddenly change it at this particular moment seems peculiar. It also seems to be a way of loading the election, of loading the ballot, against the agency shop.
We have therefore put down this series of Amendments; but there is something more extraordinary about this point
834
which you only come to if you really investigate the rather cunning draftsmanship; namely, that it is really doubly loaded against the agency shop. You have to have a majority of those eligible to vote in order to get an agency shop, and you have to have a majority of those eligible to vote in order to keep an agency shop—not in order to get rid of it, but in order to keep it. This is really having the best of both worlds, if that is the way the Government feel; or, as I think most of us would probably feel, the worst of both worlds. The whole thing is doubly loaded against the agency shop; and here my noble friends and myself are, as once or twice before in this Committee stage, wishing to try to find the point of logic on which the Government stand. We have therefore tabled two sets of Amendments.
We sincerely hope the Government will accept this first set of Amendments, which will merely amend the method of voting to the normal method of voting in any other election or ballot in which most of us have ever taken part—that of the simple majority. But if for some reason the Government are wedded to the principle of the majority of those eligible to vote and do not accept these Amendments, then we have alternative Amendments down which are, as I say, Amendments Nos. 101A and 102A starred. These will be Amendments to the way in which the ballots are conducted on whether one should go on having an agency shop, so that even if one has to have a majority of those eligible to vote in order to maintain an agency shop one would have to have a majority of those eligible to vote in order to get rid of it. It seems to me that the Government cannot have it both ways; they must accept either the first of the Amendments or the second. I think the first is preferable by far.
LORD DRUMALBYN: We feel that while this is perhaps a somewhat unusual provision, it is not so unusual, in view of two factors. We are dealing with a case where the electorate is being asked to decide whether or not it is to give up one of what we regard as its very important rights. Therefore, this is somewhat in the nature of a plebiscite. When there is a plebiscite with a change in the Constitution involved, generally a much higher level of support is required for a

835
change to be made than in other circumstances. I am told, for example, that in Switzerland, where they have a constitutional plebiscite, not only is 50 per cent. of the population entitled to vote required to vote in favour of the change in order that it may become effective, but also 50 per cent. of all the cantons. I mention that simply because this is an importance change. Of course, the question of cantons is a question for the Federal Government. I am merely pointing out that this is an additional obligation, and that where there is a constitutional change of that kind it is not altogether exceptional.
The second point is that in this case a special obligation is laid on the electorate. It is putting an obligation upon itself and it is right that in supporting the agency shop agreement the union that applies for it—or it may be the employer who arranges for the ballot—should have the backing of 50 per cent. of those entitled to vote. I think the same applies for the continuance. Unless a union in these circumstances can command a majority of those entitled to vote, it is very difficult to see that it should really have the special rights that are conferred by the agency shop. I agree that there are circumstances in which the electorate may be scattered and it may be difficult to obtain the full 50 per cent. of votes. The Government are prepared to look at that point. I am not willing to accept the Amendment, and I do not advise noble Lords to accept it. I think it would be going much too far in the special circumstances. But it is possible that a compromise might be worked out in which the fact would still be recognised that to have an agency shop agreement imposed there should be a higher standard of voting than there is in the normal case.
This is not the same as a normal kind of local government election. This is something where people in the union are committing themselves to a very high obligation. Although, admittedly, in the United States the obligation to which they commit themselves is still higher—it is a closed shop—the turn-out there has proved to be extremely high, something of the order of 80 per cent. or more voting. So this is not an exceptional requirement and I do not think
836
it is unreasonable in the circumstances. I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment at this time. If he does not, then we will consider whether a compromise can be introduced at the next stage.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I am not sure whether the Government have in mind any special arrangements to enable the people of this country to declare their views if the issue of entering the Common Market should become a very live one, but I have not heard that they are contemplating that it will be necessary to get a popular vote of at least 50 per cent. of the entire population in favour of that or of any other course they may be proposing. I must confess that I felt that the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, were completely convincing on this matter. It is so widely our practice in this country to rely upon a majority vote of those participating that we think it is fully justified in the circumstances with which we are dealing.
I must confess that I cannot see the matter in quite the highly dramatic light that the noble Lord on the Government Benches tended to cast on it. I will therefore content myself with expressing the hope that the Government after consideration will meet the spirit and letter of the Amendment which noble Lords from the Liberal Party and my noble friends are putting forward; because there can be no doubt that if this is not done, the danger could arise of a desire of people for a particular course being frustrated by the fact that a certain number did not trouble to cast a vote at all. Any situation which held that possibility, any arrangements which held a possibility of such a situation, would be bound to create the impression that the Government's desire was to place obstacles in the way of these arrangements being made and that one of the obstacles was a quite exceptional and unusual requirement for an absolute majority vote.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: There was one argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, which I did not entirely understand. I thought that one of the reasons for this provision in the Bill was the fear that in very lowturnouts, a very small minority of workers might make a decision against the wishes of the majority. If the noble Lord is

837
saying that he looks forward to large turn-outs and that that is the experience in America, the case for his provision is much weakened. But far be it from me to look a gift horse in the mouth ! We are pleased that the noble Lord has agreed to look at this point again. I confess that I thought that if he was going to meet us, he might have spelt out a little more the lines on which he was thinking ! This Amendment has been down for a long time. The Government have had a long time to think about it. The noble Lord did not give us much idea what he was prepared to do. Still, one crumb is better than no bread. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
2.0 a.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 10, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to spend very long on this Amendment, which refers to certain action being an unfair industrial practice. I must confess that this subsection creates in the minds of my noble friends the feeling that there is a disposition to load, and indeed to overload, this Bill with references to unfair industrial practices, whether or not the existence of such a practice at any particular juncture is likely. I move this Amendment really for the purpose of asking the noble Lord whether he can describe to us the kind of circumstances in which he envisages that this kind of action might be undertaken, after the action foreseen in subsection (1) of this clause has been taken.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has asked in what kind of circumstances we would envisage this unfair practice being committed. The agency shop provisions aim at ensuring stability and at the same time providing acceptable and recognised methods for change, but surely it would not be right to permit a union to take industrial action to induce an employer to ignore the results of the ballot. That would simply frustrate the declared wishes of the workers and cause unstable industrial relations. It is very difficult to conjure up particular circumstances, but supposing that there had been
838
a situation where there was a dissident, but much smaller, union, and the electorate had declared itself in favour of a larger and perhaps registered trade union: it would be an unfair industrial practice then for that smaller union to call a strike or to procure or finance a strike, or even to threaten a strike. Equally, it would be an unfair industrial practice for an employer to threaten a lock-out or anything of the same kind.
Under subsection (2) we are dealing with
"any person (including any trade union or other organisation of workers or any official of a trade union or of such an organisation)".
Surely in these circumstances it would not be right to bring pressure on an employer to enter into an agency shop agreement with somebody else, or to fail to enter into art agency shop agreement with the particular union which had won the ballot. It seems to me that this would be an absurdity. The whole point of having a ballot in the first place, and going through this procedure of reference to the and a ballot conducted by the C.I.R. is simply to avoid industrial strife. If, at the end of it, the wishes of the majority are to be ignored, and there is to be industrial strife, it seems an absurdity. I hope that the noble Lord will agree.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Am I right in assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was talking about Clause 12(2) on page 10 of the Bill? Because I read that entirely differently. It says:
"It stall be an unfair industrial practice for any person—"
and for "person" we could say "worker", could we not?—
"(including any trade union or other organisation of workers or any official of a trade union or of such an organisation)"—
and then it goes on about
"calling organising, procuring or financing a strike, or threatening to do so, or … any irregular industrial action short of a strike …"
I cannot see anything here about what the employers have to do.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord will look at subsection (2) he will see that the last words of the subsection—which he did not read—make it

839
an unfair industrial practice to take specified industrial action
"to induce or attempt to induce an employer not to perform a duty imposed on the employer by the preceding subsection."
In other words, the purpose of subsection (2)—the nature of the Amendment being to omit it—is to see that the employer does create an agency shop where the ballot is in favour of it, and that nobody is allowed to interfere with him or to prevent him from doing it.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but I still do not think that the reply—which we shall probably read tomorrow—deals with the unfair industrial practice of an employer. The question put to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was whether he would explain how it would work. I did not gather from what he said how it would work, and I should like to know.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I think that my noble friend is quite right. I do not think that the reply satisfies us at all on the points we were raising. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, imported into his explanation a number of things which I cannot see in the clause at all. For example, he told us that it would be very wrong for an employer to organise a lock-out to frustrate action under Clause 12(1). Indeed it would be, I am sure. It is conceivable, because agency shop agreements may be made by a large number of employers and one of them, for some reason or other, may decide that he wants to frustrate the decision in respect of his own plant or factory. But there is nothing whatsoever, at any rate in subsection (2)—there may be in some other part of the Bill as one so frequently finds—which forbids an employer to organise a lock-out.
I had a hasty look at the definition of "strike" to see whether by any odd chance it embraced "lock-out" in this Bill, but it does not. Nor indeed does "irregular industrial action". As I understand it, there is no bar to an employer organising a lock-out to frustrate action under Clause 12(1). Moreover, the noble Lord did not really give us any explanation of the kind of circumstances in which what is in subsection (2) could in any reasonable sense arise. It cannot arise, surely, from a
840
union which has just established the agency agreement, and I take it that the noble Lord is not suggesting there would be a situation in which there was a minority union which would be so aggrieved at the result that it sought to induce this kind of action. I gather from the gestures of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the words of assent from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that that is precisely the sort of situation that they do envisage. That again is very odd, because it underlines even more clearly than all the other situations which have been mentioned the desirability of not trying to dispose of a complex matter like this in the rigid manner set out in the machinery clauses of the Bill, and by the device of a ballot, the inadequacy of which for this sort of purpose we have been emphasising. The superiority for this sort of purpose of an organisation like the Commission on Industrial Relations we have also been emphasising. I am bound to say that I am afraid the noble Lord has not convinced my noble friends and myself.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: There seems to be some hesitation, but we should have some answer here, I believe, about the definition of an unfair industrial practice which becomes illegal, which is punishable by law, and in which the extent of the punishments can almost reach the point where a man could ultimately be sold up. Now is it an unfair industrial practice, as was hinted at, for me, as an employer, because I do not like what is going on, to employ an agent provocateur, as was done in American trade unionism? There is nothing at all in this Bill to deal with that point. All the time the onus and the burden are put upon the employee, but surely there ought to be some protection for the employee against the employer, who can in some cases employ an agent provocateur. I think we ought to have something more definite than this. The hesitation on the other side at this early hour in some of the answers sometimes make me think that the hastiness with which these briefs have been prepared has been a bit unfair to the noble Lords who have worked so gallantly and so hard on the other side. A lot more time should be taken. Why rush the Bill like this? Have a little more time, and give us fresh answers.
LORD BROWN: My noble friends are puzzling me again. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, has suggested that the employer might employ an agent provocateur. He is a worker, and if he incites his fellows to strike against the results of a ballot, then he will be dealt with under Clause 2. My noble friend, Lord Delacourt-Smith, suggested that it was inconceivable that a union which had taken part in a ballot which was favourable to an agency shop agreement could possibly turn round and organise a strike. Of course they would not. But there might be a minority, Maoist or something like that, members of the union, who were quite capable of doing this. We saw what happened recently at one of the Ford works: a ballot was taken and then certain people organised some action against the ballot. We must he fair about this, these things do happen, and
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD HENLEY): Before I call Amendment No. 95, I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that if Amendment No. 95 is agreed to I
this clause is necessary. I do not know if it is because it is so late that we are casting away our own knowledge of what happens in industry and behaving as though these things do not happen. They can happen, and this clause is a reasonable one in the circumstances.
LORD SHACKLETON: With all this talk about agents provocateurs, I have been wondering who is fulfilling the role. Certainly not the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who looks very peaceful. But we are very dissatisfied by the answer and I think there is no alternative but for us to divide on it.
2.14 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 94) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 73.

CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Diamond, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brown, L.

Gardiner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Collison, L.

Hoy, L.

White, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hughes, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Essex, E.

Radnor, E.

Amory, V.

Exeter, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Barrington, V.

Ferrers, E.

Reading, M.

Beauchamp, E.

Gisborough, L.

Redesdale, L.

Belstead, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Redmayne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

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

St. Just, L.

Caldecote, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Chesham, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sandford, L.

Conesford, L.

Henley, L.

Sandys, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Ilford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cowley, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sempill, Ly.

Cromartie, E.

Kemsley, V.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Strange, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Davidson, V.

Lothian, M.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Digby, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Dudley, E.

Moyne, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Eccles, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Windlesham, L.

Effingham, E.

Pender, L.

Yarborough, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Poole, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

cannot (all Amendments Nos. 96, 97 and 98.
2.22 a.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 10, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee

843
if I say that it would not in any case be my intention to move Amendments Nos. 97 and 98, having regard to the time. The purpose of subsection (3) is, I think, clear, which cannot be said for all the subsections in the Bill. We are concerned at the arrangement which is implicit that in the event of a rejection by the ballot of the agency shop agreement there must elapse a period of two years before the issue can be revived. This appears to us to be an unnecessarily long period, and in particular it seems to us to create the danger of an unscrupulous employer—and I fear there are such people—who wishes to frustrate the creation of an agency shop seeking the operation of the machinery in this clause, as of course he can (that is clear from Clause 10(2)), knowing that it was a premature ballot and that a failure would give him two years' respite. This, I think, is an undesirable provision, and by moving this Amendment we want to draw attention to it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Again the noble Lord has had some contorted fears in this matter. I do not think that what he said is at all likely to happen; namely, that the employer would call a ballot with a view to having the ballot before opinion had formed. I suppose that it is just possible, but it seems extremely unlikely that this would happen. If one has an election one can only have it at a given point of time and fix the majority of opinion at that time. If the majority showed that it was not yet ready for an agency shop then, as the Bill now stands, it will be necessary to wait for another two years before the next one. This might not be an improper time. I do not see how one can make a proper case for the instance that the noble Lord has mentioned. In all other cases two years would be a reasonable time if you were going to secure stability for the arrangements. To say that merely because the agency shop was not approved therefore there should only be a six month period in that case, or for that matter in all cases, would not seem to be a reasonable provision. One has to make a provision which is reasonable taking all the cases together. This is a reasonable provision and in line with other provisions in other parts of the Bill.
LORD GARDINER: I wonder whether the Committee has dispersed at this hour, but that is a matter for the Government. This is one of the peculiar clauses and perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could help me about it. When we have elections we allow for the fact that returning officers may make a mistake; we all know that anybody may make a mistake. The Commission may make a mistake. I wonder how many judges are going to be prepared to sit on the Industrial Court. What, under this subsection, is the function of the Industrial Court? It is a rubber stamp. It is very unusual to have a court of judges who have nothing to decide. They are not capable of making a decision; they are told what to do. If the Commission makes a report it may be inaccurate; there may be evidence before the Court that the Commissioners made a mistake in reporting the result of the election. There is nothing the judges can do. If the Commission reports, however inaccurate the report may be, the Court shall make an order. Knowing the judges, I wonder how many are going to he content to sit in a court which under the Act is a mere rubber stamp and cannot take any decision at all. There is no option in the matter. The report of the result of the election, just like the returning officer's report (although we have provision for appeal in that case) could be wrong. But whatever evidence there is that there is a mistake, the Court is compelled to make an order even though it knows the order is wrong.
2.30 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I deal with the two separate points which have been made? In reply to the first speech, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, had realised that before an employer can operate the machinery under Clause 10(2), there has to be a situation where one or more trade unions desire to enter into an agency shop agreement. That is the first condition. Therefore, he cannot operate it against their will. As regards the second point, I am bound to say that I am rather surprised by the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. The point is that the court has to be satisfied of two conditions under

845
Clause 10(3) before it makes a request to the Industrial Court. The conduct and the result of the ballot which takes place as the result of the request by the Industrial Court then is within the competence of the C.I.R.; and the C.I.R., having performed its function, reports back to the Court, which then is under an obligation to make an order. I cannot imagine why tile noble Lord thinks that a court, being under no obligation to make an order, is necessarily put in an invidious position.
This is happening, of course, in a wide range of jurisdictions. There are the rules of court which enable a number of automatic decisions to be taken, either in Chambers or on paper. That will depend upon the rules of court when they are made. But there is nothing invidious in a court's making an order for an agency shop when it has satisfied itself that the conditions of the machinery sections have been duly complied with, any more than there is in a companies court ordering compulsory winding up when the facts are established without opposition in a case of that sort. The fact is that courts are there for the purpose of seeing that the machinery is duly performed and duly carried out. The court is in charge throughout. It has to be satisfied of the conditions under subsection (10), and it has to receive the report of the Commission that it has discharged its function in a particular way under the preceding subsection. I cannot see exactly why there should be any objection to their then carrying out the
846
duty which is laid upon them by the following subsection.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 99:
"Page 11, line 7, leave out subsection (4)".
The noble Lord said: In view of the hour, I do not propose to move this Amendment, but we may wish to return to this matter at a later stage.
Clause 12 agreed to.
House resumed.

SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
INTEREST ON DAMAGES (SCOTLAND) BILL

  UNSOLICITED GOODS AND SERVICES BILL
  Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before three o'clock.