Sitting of 17 May 1971

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

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Laurance Reedasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations for Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on recent negotiations towards seeking entry to the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations to join the Common Market.
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon):I hope
    852
    to make a statement on last week's negotiating meetings in Brussels later today.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress has been made in the European Economic Community negotiations towards the protection of British inshore fishing interests.
    Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in clarifying the position of fisheries in negotiations for entry into the Common Market.
    Mr. Rippon: Exploratory contacts, without prejudice to our position generally on the common fisheries policy of the Community, have continued with the Commission of the European Economic Community. Pending completion of the examination of the implications of this policy, Her Majesty's Government continue to reserve their position.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the House is getting tired of these rather vague answers? Can he give now a specific assurance that the Government will not sign on the dotted line before we get adequate safeguards for our inshore fishing fleet?
    Mr. Rippon: We shall certainly raise this matter at the appropriate time in the negotiations. One difficulty is that certain details of the policy have not yet even been settled by the Community itself. There is a need for clarification on quite a number of matters. The hon. Gentleman can be quite satisfied that this is not a matter which will go by default.
    Sir F. Bennett: Is not the position exactly the same as indicated in the answers given by the Minister to several recent Questions from both sides of the House; namely, that in regard to any agreements reached before our possible entry to the Common Market Her Majesty's Government reserve their position absolutely both in regard to conservation and otherwise?
    Mr. Rippon: Sometimes people say that these negotiations are going too quickly and urge us to be careful. We have to get the right solutions and to

    853
    negotiate in a fair and reasonable way. Regarding the fisheries regulations, I assure the House that we have made it perfectly clear that, as far as we can now judge, they would be detrimental to our interests, and these matters must be taken up before we enter the Community.
    Mr. Healey: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last remark mean that he agrees with the vast majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the common fisheries policy, as at present defined, would be quite unacceptable to the British people and Her Majesty's Government? Further, does he expect to reach a solution on this problem before the Summer Recess, or is it likely to take until rather later in the year?
    Mr. Rippon: I should not like to give any guarantee about the timing of it. Certainly it has to be done. I have never gone beyond saying that we would break the back of the negotiations by the end of the summer. There will be some matters still to be cleared up. This is one of them. I have represented very strongly to the Community, as have the other applicants, that a fisheries policy which may have been quite appropriate for the Community of Six is not appropriate for a Community of Ten in which the new applicants would represent 60 per cent. of the fishing interests.
    Mr. Evelyn King: I fully understand the impossibility of my right hon. and learned Friend answering the sort of questions which he has just been asked, but would he bear in mind that in Dorset, and probably in all the coastal regions of England, there is alarm and apprehension about this aspect of the policy, possibly exceeding that about any other question in the negotiations?
    Mr. Rippon: The point is that on many of these matters of negotiation a lot of people are affected, and we deal with matters, first with one and then with another, to try to obtain a fair and reasonable settlement. I have no doubt of the strength of feelings on this matter.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common-
    854
    wealth Affairs when he now expects to have completed the main body of negotiations for Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: There is an evident desire on the part of the Community to carry the negotiations forward rapidly. There will be a further ministerial negotiating meeting on 7th June. In the present climate I remain confident that we shall complete the main body of the negotiations by the summer.
    Mr. Gummer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the great satisfaction felt by many of us at the progress of the talks? Would he not agree that the major issue now outstanding on which progress has not been made is that of New Zealand, and will he make every effort to provide for New Zealand the same kind of help as he has promised to provide? Will he ensure that those who believe that we would leave New Zealand in the lurch will be proved wrong?
    Mr. Rippon: I think that we can say, "So far, so good." But there remain a number of important issues still to be settled. I have always resisted trying to have a list of priorities among all the matters to be raised. In the House, in the country or in the Community I think that no one doubts how strongly we feel about the need to provide adequate protection for New Zealand dairy products.
    Mr. Healey: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is the unanimous view on this side of the House, shared, I believe, by many hon. Members of the Conservative Party, that there should be adequate time for consideration of the terms when they are finally revealed, and that it would be quite improper for the Government to seek a decision of the House until several months have elapsed after the publication of the terms?
    Mr. Rippon: I do not think that there has ever been any dispute about that. I hope that fairly shortly we shall be able to assess the main body of the terms, and, therefore, we shall be able to assess the situation as it then is. It will be some time before the question of actually signing a document of accession can arise. It would not be before the end of the year.
    Mr. Healey: It is a question not of signing a document, which is a matter for Her Majesty's Government in the last resort, but of when the House is asked to pronounce on the package as a whole. My point—and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can satisfy us on this matter—is that there should be a period of many weeks, even of some months, between the final publication of the terms and the Government requiring the House to take a decision on whether they should be accepted.
    Mr. Rippon: Certainly there will have to be adequate time after the publication of the terms before the House is asked to pass a judgment. That is only fair and reasonable.
    Mr. Marten: My right hon. and learned Friend has twice referred to the "main body" of the negotiations. Does he include horticulture and fishing as items in the main body?
    Mr. Rippon: As my hon. Friend will see, we have made some progress regarding horticulture in the last round of ministerial meetings. I have said that we shall have to bring up the fisheries question at the appropriate time. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to judge in a few weeks how far we have got.
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Mr. Strangasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Norwegian Government with a view to establishing a common British and Norwegian negotiating position towards the common fisheries policy of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: We have had contacts with the Norwegian Government on matters of mutual interest arising out of the European Economic Community common fisheries policy generally.
    Mr. Strang: Do the proposals put forward by the Norwegian Government for the modification of the common fisheries policy have the support of the British Government? Does the speech made by the Foreign Secretary at Aberdeen on Friday mean that the Government will not seek to take Britain into
    856
    the Common Market without first securing a modification of the common fisheries policy?
    Mr. Rippon: We are in contact with the Norwegian Government about their proposals. I do not think that their proposals would be in every respect the same as ours. I am going to Norway next week, and I am sure that this is one of the matters which we shall discuss. As I think I have made perfectly clear, we regard the fisheries regulation as raising very great difficulties for us as it now stands. We have reserved our position, and we shall certainly be dealing with this matter before the question of entering arises.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is it not absolutely clear from my right hon. and learned Friend's replies to this and previous Questions that the position of Her Majesty's Government is that they will use all their powers of persuasion, diplomacy, and so on, to protect the position of Britain's fishing interests?
    Mr. Rippon: We shall use those powers, and I am sure that we shall use them to the necessary effect.
    Mr. James Johnson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Norway not only is the largest fishing nation in Western Europe but was the only nation not to sign the 1964 Fisheries Convention? She now states that she will not sign the Fisheries Convention of the Common Market. Do we intend to go with her in this matter?
    Mr. Rippon: We are in contact with the Norwegian Government, which are responsible for their own policy and their own application. We keep very closely in touch.
    Mr. Turtonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the future of the Sterling Area in the event of a successful conclusion of Her Majesty's Government's negotiations to enter the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: I have nothing to add at present to what I said in the debate on 21st January and in answer to Questions on 22nd March and 26th April.—[Vol.

    857
    809, c. 1405–6; Vol. 814, c. 6–8; Vol. 816, c. 9 and 13.]
    Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a categorical assurance that in the course of the negotiations he will not agree to any restriction on our freedom to invest in Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth countries?
    Mr. Rippon: We have said that we are prepared to have discussions about the whole range of these matters and then we can see what will emerge. I do not think that I can deal in detail with many of the points raised by my right hon. Friend, which are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall not go beyond what I said on 21st January, and I certainly cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told the House on a number of occasions.
    Mr. Shore: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that it is plainly incompatible to have a free movement of capital within the sterling area and also a free movement of capital within an enlarged European Economic Community. If he cannot go beyond his brief, will he at least make it clear that he rejects the French proposal that we should start repaying the sterling balances at the rate of 5 per cent. a year?
    Mr. Rippon: I think that the French proposals in negotiations which are confidential have received many interpretations. Discussions are proceeding at what we consider to be the appropriate place and in the appropriate way. I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said about them. We have said all along that we have no objection to having fairly wide ranging discussions about the future rôle of sterling, what might happen to its reserve role, and what might happen to the sterling balances. All those are matters for discussion. Before any arrangements were made, the House would have to be informed. We are at a very preliminary stage. As to the negotiations, we are dealing with the harmonisation of capital, and we have proposals as to how that can be dealt with in the transitional period, but we have not yet reached agreement about it.
    Mr. Sutcliffeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state in£million sterling total European Economic Community expenditure on the agricultural fund in 1966–67 compared with 1970–71, the annual rate of increase in this expenditure and the percentage proportions spent on the guarantee and guidance sections respectively for the five-year period; and what increase in guidance section expenditure has been authorised under the Mansholt Plan.
    Mr. Rippon: I am arranging for the statistics called for in answer to the first part of the Question to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    With regard to the last part of the Question, the price increases and structural changes approved by the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community do not amount to approval of what is know as the Mansholt Plan. No decision has been taken to increase expenditure under the guidance section of the European Economic Community agricultural guarantee and guidance fund above the limit of£119 million which has obtained since 1969.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I suspect that the figures will reveal a five-fold increase in open-ended expenditure, which is surely preposterously expensive in relation to the achievements of the common agricultural policy in disrupting world food markets and ossifying European agriculture in its present pattern. If the Mansholt Plan leads to larger farm units and greater efficiency, will it not also lead to an increase in surpluses? So why has my right hon. and learned Friend agreed to this policy, and to destroying the present balance of British agriculture between livestock and cropping, without making progressive dismantlement of this policy as at present conceived at least as live an issue as the future of sterling?
    Mr. Rippon: My hon. Friend has asked me for some statistics, with which I have provided him. When he sees the statistics, he will see that he is right in saying that the expenditure has increased, for a number of reasons—because the Community has extended the coverage of the C.A.P. gradually and because it is spending more to reduce the surpluses of which my hon. Friend complains.
    Following are the statistics:
    Definitive expenditure figures from the Agricultural Fund are not available after 1965–66. The figures below relate to the budget years 1967 to 1971.

    BUDGETS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUND 1967–71

    £ million

    Budget Year

    1967

    1968

    1969

    1970†

    1971

    Expenditure relating to.

    1966–67

    1967–68

    1968–69

    July-December, 1969

    1970

    1971

    Guarantee Section

    123·3*

    547·1

    831·6

    647·7

    984·6

    977·7

    Guidance Section

    44·1*

    118·8

    118·8

    59·4

    118·8

    188·8

    Expenditure relating to.

    1967

    1968

    1969

    1970

    1971

    Special Sections

    —

    86·8

    58·5

    —

    28·9

    —

    Total Expenditure

    176·4*

    752·7

    1,008·9

    707·1

    1,132·3

    1,069·5

    * Converted from units of accounts at the rate of£=2·80 U.A. All other conversions at£=2·40 U.A.

    † In order to change the budget to a calendar year basis 1970 includes expenditure for 18 months for the Guarantee and Guidance Sections.

    The increase in annual expenditure from the Agricultural Fund from 1967 to 1971 is +265·7 per cent., +34·0 per cent., +12·2 per cent. (this relates to the increase in only 12 months' expenditure attributable to 1970) and -3·2 per cent. respectively. These percentages have been calculated from the original figures in units of account.
    The proportions of expenditure from the various sections of the Agricultural Fund are shown below.

    Per cent.

    1967

    1968

    1969

    1970

    1971

    Guarantee Section

    …

    …

    75·0

    72·7

    82·4

    88·7

    89·2

    Guidance Section

    …

    …

    25·0

    15·8

    11·8

    9·7

    10·8

    Special Sections

    …

    …

    —

    11·5

    5·8

    16

    —

    The foregoing percentages must be regarded as approximate as they are based on comparisons of expenditure from different sections of the fund for periods which are not identical.

    Sir R. Russellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he made, when formulating his proposal to the Six for the phasing-out of Australia from the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement during the transitional period, of the effect his proposal would have on the export quotas of other countries, in particular developing countries, in view of Article 34 of the International Sugar Agreement.
    Miss Joan Hallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions and conclusions have taken place concerning the importation into the United Kingdom of Australian sugar during the European Economic Community talks.
    Mr. Rippon: The Community has agreed that we may continue to meet our obligations under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to Commonwealth countries, including Australia, until the expiration of the Agreement at the end of 1974. Thereafter we have asked that the Australian sugar quota to our market
    860
    should be phased out gradually over the remainder of the transitional period.
    Sir R. Russell: My right hon. and learned Friend has not answered my Question. Will he make an answer as to the effect on the International Sugar Agreement of phasing out Australia? If Article 34 has to be implemented, will it not cut down the quotas of the developing countries under the International Sugar Agreement and also reduce the supply of cane sugar to our refineries?
    Mr. Rippon: As I have already explained, we have completely safeguarded the position until the end of 1974. The International Sugar Agreement comes to an end in 1973. Therefore, the application of Article 34 does not arise.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain why Queensland sugar should be phased out at all?
    Mr. Rippon: Our purpose is basically to safeguard the interests of the developing countries of the Commonwealth for

    861
    the longer term within the framework which we are now negotiating.
    Mr. J. T. Price: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has so far failed to give any clear answers to the many Questions tabled on this matter, will he make a genuine attempt when he is next at the Dispatch Box to give some indication that he is prepared to defend vital British interests in these negotiations and not act like a weak limpet and give away all our vital interests to our trading competitors in Europe?
    Hon. Members: Answer!
    Sir J. Gilmour: Would my right hon. and learned Friend say whether, in phasing out Australian sugar, it is intended that this should be replaced by sugar grown in Great Britain or elsewhere in Europe?
    Mr. Rippon: I shall be having something to say in my statement later which will be relevant to this. Certainly I would assume that there will be room for expansion of our sugar beet production.
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost to date of distributing through the Post Office fact sheets on the Common Market.
    Mr. Rippon: The Post Office does not make a charge for distributing the leaflets within its own organisation or for issuing them to the public. Its facilities for doing so are, of course, limited.
    Mr. Bell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it right to use the Post Office for this sort of tendentious pamphleteering, and, if he does, will he make funds available for a series of pamphlets, equally impartial, from the other standpoint, which I shall be happy to draft for him?
    Mr. Rippon: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his offer of help. What we are doing is to put in a convenient form the facts for which the public is asking.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: As the Post Office is now supposed to be working on a profit-making basis, is it not the case that every person who contributes to the operation of the Post Office is paying for
    862
    this distribution whether he likes it or not? Why should the Post Office charge people—when the overwhelming majority are against going into the Common Market—for twisted propaganda in favour of entry?
    Mr. Rippon: I do not accept the last assertion. The rest of the question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: When my right hon. and learned Friend uses the expression "in a convenient form" to whom is it convenient and for what purpose?
    Mr. Rippon: It is convenient for those who read it.
    Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he now has to meet his opposite numbers in the Six other than informal meetings with the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Rippon: I am not in a position to announce any plans between now and the next ministerial negotiating meeting on 7th June. But I shall certainly be meeting representatives of Governments of the Six.
    Sir A. Meyer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whereas it would be a mistake to import into the negotiations matters which are not directly relevant to them, since the object of the negotiations is to achieve an end which goes beyond the negotiations, there would be every advantage in seeking to maintain or, indeed, to extend the discussions with his opposite numbers on military, political and financial matters?
    Mr. Rippon: The discussions can be fairly wide-ranging about the future. What I am concerned to do is to get on with the matters which are within my province at the negotiating table in Brussels.
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his proposals for the United Kingdom percentage contribution to the European Economic Community Budget were based on the assumption of a 10-nation European Economic Community; and what alteration would be needed in

    863
    his proposals in the event of Denmark and Norway not joining the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes", and to the second part "None".
    Mr. Deakins: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm, therefore, that in the event of Britain entering a Community of seven, eight, nine or ten nations, no alteration would be needed in the proposals he has put before the Community as a compromise on this issue?
    Mr. Rippon: That is correct.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a highly pessimistic interpretation of the present state of the negotiations to say that there is no real likelihood of the Scandinavian countries, Norway and Denmark, joining if we join?
    Mr. Rippon: I think that that is probably a correct assessment of the situation.
    Mr. Marten: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend realise that both Norway and Denmark, and indeed Ireland, are to have a referendum? If the people in those countries turn down the Common Market, those countries will not go in. Why are they less democratic than we are?
    Mr. Rippon: They are not less democratic. They have their own constitutional procedures, we have ours, and we shall hold to ours.
    Mr. Hayhoeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the European Economic Community negotiations to agree on satisfactory arrangements to safeguard the interests of the Commonwealth Caribbean sugar producers.
    Mr. Rippon: I shall be covering fully the progress in the negotiations on Commonwealth sugar in my statement later this afternoon.
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the question of
    864
    New Zealand's exports of agricultural exports was discussed at the most recent meeting in Brussels on Great Britain's proposed entry to the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: There was no statement from the Community at the meeting on 11th and 12th May, but I raised this matter and reminded the Community of the nature of New Zealand's special problems and of the need to find a suitable solution to them.
    Mr. McCrindle: Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that even among those of us who most welcome the progress of the last week there is an intense desire to make sure that we do everything possible for our New Zealand friends?
    Mr. Rippon: I quite agree.
    Mr. Peart: In view of the recent reply of the French President to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that there can be no sell-out on this issue? New Zealand has supplied the British market for many years and her economy is geared to this country. That is, I think, recognised on both sides of the House. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remain firm on this issue when he negotiates.
    Mr. Rippon: There can be no sell-out on this or anything else.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Following my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to me after he made his previous statement, can he confirm that it is his intention to negotiate for permanent entry of New Zealand dairy produce prior to, and as a precondition of, British entry?
    Mr. Rippon: We have never promised anybody a permanent solution for anything. We have said that there must be continuous arrangements subject to an appropriate review.
    Mr. Paget: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that as New Zealand stood by us from the other side of the world in two world wars, no advantage to us personally or as a country would be worth letting her down and letting down the economy which she has constructed to fit in with our requirements?
    Mr. Rippon: I have not lost a single opportunity to make clear to the Community how strongly we feel about this matter and how essential it is that there should be adequate safeguards for New Zealand and that, in saying this, we are seeking to defend not British interests but the interests of New Zealing.
    Mr. Michael Stewart: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman noticed the recent debate in the Council of Europe at Strasbourg on this matter in which representatives of both major parties in Britain expressed the view that merely transitional arrangements would not be sufficient and delegates from the continental countries expressed their good will towards and understanding of New Zealand's position?
    Mr. Rippon: I am glad that both delegations have made the position clear. That is also the British Government's position. I am also quite clear that there is growing understanding in the Community of what this means and how necessary it is to find the right solution.
    Mr. Donald Stewartasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the different trading patterns of Scotland and England in the European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Rippon: The negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community take fully into account the interests of all regions of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.
    Mr. Stewart: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Scottish exports to the E.E.C. are less than one-half of England's and that the opposite situation exists with regard to exports to E.F.T.A.? Would he not, therefore, regard it as irrational as well as unjust that he should negotiate on behalf of the two countries, and would he arrange for separate Scottish representation under the terms of our Treaty?
    Mr. Rippon: I do not think there will be any need for such separate Scottish representation.
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
    866
    Affairs under what circumstances overseas workers will be accepted as community workers within the European Economic Community in the event of Great Britain joining.
    Mr. Rippon: I would refer the hon. Lady to the Answer given to her on 14th May.—[Vol. 817, c. 177.]
    Miss Lestor: Bearing in mind the length of time in which some of us have tried to get this position clarified, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm whether or not Commonwealth immigrant workers in this country will have to become citizens of Britain before they are acceptable as community workers within E.E.C. in the event of Britain joining?
    Mr. Rippon: As I said, all these matters are being clarified in discussion in the Community. I recognise that there are a great many anxieties about this, which we shall have to clear up. The negotiations are lengthy, and they are complicated; I am afraid that we can take only one matter at a time.
    Mr. Heffer: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman for once this afternoon give a definite answer to one issue which is being raised? I, personally, am not against going into the Common Market, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman continues along this line it is quite clear that the Government are going to get us at all costs into the Community without explaining the position to the country.
    Mr. Rippon: The hon. Member need feel no such anxiety. There are discussions going on with the Community in order to ensure that the various difficulties which are mentioned from time to time do not arise.

    Pakistan
    Mr. Shoreasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what relief supplies from the United Kingdom are now reaching the people of East Bengal; and whether the relief organisations there are able to supervise their distribution.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement I made in the House on 11th May and to the

    867
    speech of my right hon. Friend in the debate on 14th May.—[Vol. 817, c. 206–213; Vol. 817, c. 761–767.]
    Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he submitted to U Thant that he should make further representations to the Pakistan Government about getting in an international team to assess the needs there. Has U Thant had any response from the Pakistan Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the exchange of letters, published on the 13th, indicates a deplorable lack of a sense of urgency on the part of the Pakistan Government?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have stressed the urgency of this many times. The United Nations and the World Bank are now in touch with the Government of Pakistan. I cannot report anything fresh today, except to say that they are in touch and are, I think, seized of the urgency of the matter.
    Mr. Healey: Can the Secretary of State confirm or deny—I appreciate the difficulty of commenting on Press reports—reports that have appeared in the Press about the Pakistan Government having rejected U Thant's request that the United Nations should distribute aid in East Bengal? Have Her Majesty's Government made any representations on this matter, assuming that these reports are true?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There are two distinct matters. There is the aid that might now be distributed, and in that respect the refugee camps in India are perhaps the first priority. There is then, later, the aid that may be needed if there is severe famine in Pakistan. For the present, the Pakistan Government say that the only distribution of food that may be needed in East Pakistan must be distributed by the army. As for a United Nations team or United Nations distribution, this is still being discussed between U Thant and representatives of the Pakistan Government.
    Mr. Healey: It is universally agreed—the Minister for Overseas Development accepted this on Friday—that there are 4 million people at this time in East Bengal suffering from the disasters caused by the floods last year and liable to die of famine unless stores which are already available in Chittagong are rapidly dis-
    868
    tributed. Is any progress being made in this matter?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: A United Nations representative is now in India considering this matter, at the request of the Indian Government, and I hope that we shall get a recommendation from him quite soon. If necessary, we could, of course, always take further action over the transport of supplies, but this should really be under an international umbrella now, and the right one is the United Nations.
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the safety of British subjects in East Pakistan.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There have been no confirmed reports of injury to any United Kingdom nations in East Pakistan. There was one report of a United Kingdom national said to have been injured whilst crossing the frontier into India but despite investigations there is no confirmation of this.
    Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many thousands of people in this country with relatives in East Pakistan who are unable to find out whether those relatives are alive or dead? Will he set up some system whereby people who are living here, whether British subjects or not, can ascertain whether their families are alive and in good health?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is one reason for the existence of the Pakistan High Commission in London. Relatives should go to the Pakistan High Commissioner and ask him for advice and advice and information.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that in present circumstances it is quite impossible for people from East Bengal to go to the Pakistan High Commission and make inquiries about their relatives? Will he confirm that the services of British diplomatic missions are available to United Kingdom citizens for this purpose and that they will be available to residents in this country who are not United Kingdom citizens?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There should be no difficulty whatever about people

    869
    from East Pakistan going to the High Commission to inquire whether it has any information about their relatives. I should have thought that it was obvious to hon. Members that the High Commission is much more likely to have it than we are. If people have any difficulty and we can supply information, we shall do so. But the High Commission is the obvious place to go to for this purpose.
    Sir F. Bennett: Are not the remarks of hon. Members opposite an unwarranted implied slur on the Pakistan High Commissioner? Is it not a fact that the Deputy High Commissioner is a Bengali from East Pakistan?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. I should have thought that the High Commissioner and his staff would do everything they possibly could to try to help Pakistani citizens with information about their relatives. At present, information is extremely difficult to get, by anyone.
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has submitted to the Pakistan Aid Consortium for a reassessment of the aid programme to Pakistan following the outbreak of civil war in East Pakistan.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I am not yet in a position to make proposals. Our decisions must await the outcome of consultations now taking place within the framework of the consortium.
    Mr. Judd: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he would be prepared to take the initiative in calling for a review by the consortium to ensure that the international aid programmes to Pakistan are not underwriting the suppression of the people of East Pakistan?
    Mr. Wood: I am very anxious that the consortium should reach an agreed view about this, and that is why I am very carefully considering the position we should take before the next meeting of the consortium.
    Mr. Tilney: Would not my right hon. Friend bear in mind the urgent need which has lasted for many years now to build up funds against flood and storm?
    Mr. Wood: I am taking note of that.
    Mrs. Hart: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the pledging meeting of the aid consortium is scheduled for June? In the debate we had in the House last Friday many views were expressed on this question. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to keep the House fully informed about the progress of negotiations, not only about our offer but the general negotiations of the consortium?
    Mr. Wood: I think I can give the right hon. Lady entire satisfaction on both points.

    Haiti
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Comonwealth Affairs what message was sent by him to the Government of Haiti following the death of the late President Duvalier.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Frogein and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Boyle): None, Sir. In accordance with normal protocol, Her Majesty's Ambassador to Haiti conveyed a message of condolence from Her Majesty The Queen. He also conveyed a message from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Davis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware how insensitive it was for the Government to tender such advice, enabling telegrams of condolence to be sent in these circumstances? Are the Government unaware that this man was responsible for the death and imprisonment of thousands of people, most of them innocent? How could the Government have sent a telegram of condolence?
    Mr. Royle: I am aware of the allegations to which the hon. Gentleman refers in the latter part of his supplementary question, but it is for the Haiti Government to answer any accusations. The answer to the first part is that we do not generally indicate our approval or disapproval of foreign regimes by the maintenance or severence of diplomatic relations with them. As far as possible, we seek to remain in diplomatic relations with all countries to enable us to look after the interests of the United Kingdom and its subjects.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: We did that with Hitler.

    Joint Passports (Wives)
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate new discussions in the United Nations to change the terms of the agreement which prevents wives from using joint passports when travelling alone, in view of the recent trend towards greater independence of married women.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: No, Sir. Such a passport is issued to the husband, and, although the wife's particulars are included as a matter of convenience for family travel, she is not the joint holder. A married woman has always been able to have her own passport to which her children under 16 can be added.
    Mrs. Butler: Does the Minister understand how much resentment is caused by this fuddy-duddy discrimination in these liberated days? Could not he look at this matter again to see whether more equal rights can be granted to holders of joint passports? What is the position of a married woman travelling on a joint passport if her husband dies while both are abroad together? What protection does she have?
    Mr. Boyle: I should like notice of the second part of the hon. Lady's question. I will let her know the answer. On the first part of the question, we are tied by our international agreements on this matter. What we do is entirely in accordance with the agreement reached at the 1926 passport conference, and that agreement was reviewed at the 1963 United Nations conference and was not altered.
    Dame Irene Ward: All these soft-soapy answers are no good to the women of this country, who feel very strongly on the matter. If the international agreements tie us to all sorts of things that we do not want to be tied to, could we not take a different line and get them altered?
    Mr. Royle: I always love giving my hon. Friend soft answers; I hope that I am not giving her soapy answers. My hon. Friend must realise that we are tied by international agreements. But no doubt her words will have been read, and I am grateful to her for letting her views be known to the House.

    Vatican (Diplomatic Representation)
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise the British diplomatic representation at the Holy See from the rank of legation to that of embassy.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: I am not aware that the status of our representative has any adverse effect upon our good relations with the Holy See, which we value. However, we are keeping the matter under regular consideration.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Minister realise that that was substantially the same reply as one I received five years ago when I raised this question? Does he realise further that the only other two countries, if that be the right word, represented at the Vatican by a Minister are San Marino and Monaco? Is it not unsuitable that a country of the importance of Great Britain, in a post where precedence and protocol are so important, should not be represented by an ambassador?
    Mr. Royle: Yes; I realise that my reply was somewhat similar to the reply that my hon. Friend received five years ago. There were on 1st January, 1971, 74 diplomatic representatives or posts awaiting new representatives accredited to the Holy See. Of this total, 52 have resident representatives and 22 are non-resident. Australia and New Zealand are among other Commonwealth countries that have no representation to the Holy See. Her Majesty's Minister to the Holy See is in no way hindered in his activities by his present status.

    European Free Trade Association (Meeting)
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his discussions at the meeting of the European Free Trade Association held in Reykjavik on 13th and 14th May 1971.
    Mr. Wellbelovedasked the Seretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Free Trade Association

    873
    Ministerial meeting in Reykjavik on 13th and 14th May.
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent European Free Trade Association Ministerial Council meeting.
    Mr. Rippon: I am arranging for the Communiqué issued at the end of this meeting to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I hope to make a statement later today.
    Following is the Communiqué:
    E.F.T.A. MELTING 13TH AND 14TH MAY, COMMUNIQUÉ
    On the invitation of the Government of Iceland, the E.F.T.A. Council and the Joint Council of E.F.T.A. and Finland met at ministerial level on 13th and 14th May, 1971, at Reykjavik, the hospitable capital of the newest member of E.F.T.A.
    Mr. E. Brugger, Swiss Federal Councillor, Head of the Federal Department of Public Economy, was in the chair.
    In the E.F.T.A. Council, with the Finnish Minister present in his personal capacity, Ministers held a full discussion of the prospects for wider European integration which had always been the main objective of E.F.T.A. They welcomed the progress made since their last meeting in November, 1970, in the negotiations and exploratory talks between the E.F.T.A. countries and the European Communities.
    On the negotiations of the candidates for Community membership, Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom, Ministers noted that a great deal had been accomplished and agreement reached on a large number of matters. They were especially glad to note the significant progress made in the meeting just concluded in Brussels between the United Kingdom and the Communities. Ministers furthermore considered that the exploratory talks of recent months between the E.F.T.A. countries not seeking membership and the Communities should provide a suitable basis for their forthcoming negotiations. They expressed confidence that a basis had now been laid for the solution of the outstanding problems in respect of all E.F.T.A. countries.
    Ministers reaffirmed their strong interest in safeguarding, as an important part of an enlarged European Community, the free trade already established between E.F.T.A. countries. They reiterated their desire, which is in line with that expressed by the Communities, that all the accession treaties and special relations agreements should come into force at the same time: all these arrangements should be in conformity with the G.A.T.T.
    The Association is engaged in finding workable solutions to the practical problems involved in the maintainance of the free trade already achieved in E.F.T.A. All Ministers
    874
    expressed appreciation for the work already done and instructed the Councils at official level, assisted by the Secretariat, to pursue it vigorously.
    Ministers held a general discussion of the world trade situation during which reference was made to recent events in the monetary field. Emphasis was laid on the importance of current work in G.A.T.T. on non-tariff barriers and on the preparation of future negotiations for the further liberalisation of world trade. Ministers were pleased to note the support for this work recently expressed by the World Business Community through the International Chamber of Commerce. They emphasised that developments in Western Europe should not prejudice efforts to promote trade with other important areas, including trade between East and West. Ministers noted with satisfaction that the Generalised Preference Scheme for the benefit of the developing countries would soon be brought into effect, according to the principles laid down both in the O.E.C.D. and U.N.C.T.A.D.
    Ministers noted with satisfaction the continued increase in trade in the E.F.T.A. countries and particularly in their trade with each other, which in 1970 had shown a larger increase than in any year since the Association was founded. This once again illustrated the advantages which the E.F.T.A. countries had obtained from the abolition of barriers to trade between them. Ministers also noted that June, 1971, would mark the 10th anniversary of Finland's association with E.F.T.A. Over that period the co-operation under equal rights and obligations between Finland and the E.F.T.A. member states had developed to the fullest satisfaction of all members of the Association Agreement.
    Noting that the necessity for national inspection, for health and safety purposes, of the production of certain goods could result in considerable non-tariff barriers to trade, Ministers welcomed the new agreements which had been concluded for the mutual recognition of inspections of a number of important articles of trade: pharmaceuticals, pressure vessels and ships' safety equipment. These agreements were open to the membership of other countries with comparable inspection systems and Ministers would welcome interest on the part of such countries. They also hoped that these agreements would be followed by others concerning different products.
    Ministers agreed that the next regular Ministerial meeting of the Councils will take place in Geneva on 4th and 5th November, 1971.

    Ceylon (Arms Supplies)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Ceylon about further supplies of arms.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have, naturally, been in consultation with the Ceylon Government. My information is

    875
    that their immediate needs have now been met.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority in this House will support the Government in any action taken, and over the sending of any supplies to support democratic institutions in this Commonwealth country?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We took the view, which I am glad to see has my hon. Friend's approval, that when law and order was threatened we had an obligation to a Commonwealth Government.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do immediate needs include further supplies of arms?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have said that there has been no request for further supplies of arms. If there was we would consider it on its merits.

    East-West Security Conference
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he is taking towards the holding of an East-West Security Conference; and if, in the light of the current situation as regards Berlin, he will not insist on prior settlement of that issue as a pre-condition.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This question will be discussed at the forthcoming Ministerial Meeting of N.A.T.O. in Lisbon. Hitherto the view of our Allies, fully shared by Her Majesty's Government, has been that questions of European security cannot be dissociated from the Berlin problem.
    Mr. Allaun: While we all want to see some progress over Berlin, is it not wrong to make the settlement of the Berlin problem a pre-condition? Is this not being put forward as yet another obstacle to holding the conference when all sides seem to want such a conference? Why cannot we get on with it?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The answer to that question is that if we cannot make progress on what ought to be a comparatively simple matter—that is, arranging civilised conditions of entry to the city of Berlin with the Soviet Union—there is not much point in setting up new machinery for wider consultations. We
    876
    are trying very hard to get a Berlin settlement. The sooner that is done the sooner we can get on to further measures of conciliation.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that because Berlin is a potential powder keg it is essential that these two things should go hand in hand?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. We must not be rigid in this matter. I am certain that agreement on Berlin would open the door to other negotiating positions with the Soviet Union. The sooner we get on with the Berlin settlement the better.
    Mr. Healey: While the whole House will share the Foreign Secretary's view that there should be a settlement on Berlin as soon as possible, may I ask him whether he would not accept that when N.A.T.O. first made its proposals in 1968 for mutual and balanced force reductions negotiated with the Warsaw Pact it did not settle on Berlin as a condition but this condition was set, in my view quite rightly, when the much wider question of a European Security Conference was raised by the Soviet Union? Is it not the case that in the last few days both Mr. Brehznev in the Soviet Union and Mr. Rogers in the United States have indicated a desire to hold an early conference on mutual and balanced force reductions without any pre-conditions regarding the holding of a European conference? Is he aware that Mr. Brehznev has recently stopped talking about a European Security Conference and talks simply about a European conference? Would the Foreign Secretary undertake on behalf of the Government to support any move inside the Western Alliance to move rapidly to negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions quite separately, if necessary, from a general conference on Berlin as well?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, but reductions must be mutual and balanced. I cannot see any reason, as there is a Disarmament Committee permanently sitting in Geneva, in active session—although it does not move much—why this question cannot be taken there.
    Mr. Healey rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member will be brief, I hope.
    Mr. Healey: I will be brief. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman's Government has until now taken the view that the question of mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe should be discussed between the two alliances and not at the Geneva meeting. Is he not aware that Mr. Rogers yesterday made a statement indicating that the American Government were prepared to proceed immediately to discussions on mutual and balanced force reductions provided that the Soviet Union said that it was sincerely interested in doing so?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We will at any time be willing to do that but I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this question of disarmament can be discussed at Geneva, along with wider questions. If any special machinery is necessary we are certainly willing to consider it.

    South Africa (Arms Supplies)
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has now received requests for the issue of licences to supply arms to South Africa.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No requests for licences relating to any new arms deal with South Africa have been received. However, as I told the House on 22nd February, we are continuing the practice of the previous Administration in licensing the export of certain spare parts.—[Vol. 812, c. 34–42.]
    Mr. Lyon: Does that mean that no applications for licences for the Westland helicopters have yet been received? Is it right that because of the doubt which still exists over the Government's future policy, in Zambia, for instance, Marconi has lost a valuable contract? Does this also apply to Nigeria? Have we lost important contracts there?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No request for licences for the helicopters has yet been received. I am not aware that we have lost important contracts because of any doubt about our South African arms policy. These questions should be treated on their merits, irrespective of what future policy might be.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: From the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, can it be taken that no discussions are taking place
    878
    with a view to any extension of arms sales to South Africa? Can we read that into the answer?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman can put his own interpretation on my answer. What would happen if the South African Government wanted to place orders for arms would be that it would make a request for licences. No such request has been received.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: If there is any blackmail from any Government, as the hon. Member has suggested—and I do not know whether that is the case—may all aid be stopped at once?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am not anxious to link our aid programme with political issues. We must try to avoid that if possible.

    Portugal
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the purpose of his forthcoming official visit to Portugal.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Portuguese Government invited me to pay a short official visit to Lisbon on 1st and 2nd June, since I shall be attending the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Lisbon on 3rd and 4th June. I welcomed this opportunity to exchange views with the Portuguese Foreign Minister.
    Mr. Judd: The House will appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman condones neither the suppression of human rights within Portugal nor the repression of people in her overseas territories, but will he take up with the Portuguese Government the degree of feeling in this country on both these scores and discuss with them the concern in this country about the possible abuse of Portugal's membership of N.A.T.O. in the conduct of her overseas wars?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have no evidence whatever of any abuse by Portugal of her obligations to N.A.T.O. as a result of her overseas policies in Africa. The substance of the discussions with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Portugal must be confidential.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of

    879
    pressing upon the Portuguese Government the feelings, not only in this country, but in the rest of the world, about Portugal's continued occupation of her colonies and, in so doing, give the kind of lead that Mr. Harold Macmillan gave in South Africa in the "wind of change" speech.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Our colonial policy and the colonial policy of the Portuguese Government have differed and are different. This is a matter for the Portuguese Government in which I would not interfere. I shall, of course, discuss these matters with the Minister.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Do we not have something to learn from Portugal in the matter of good race relations?

    Developing Countries (Central Institute of Research)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations through the appropriate channels responsible for the organisation of aid to developing countries to secure the establishment of a central institute of research on co-operative systems on a multi-lateral basis.
    Mr. Wood: Many international governmental and non-governmental agencies are already working in the field of cooperative research and development. I think it is more important to improve the co-ordination of these activities through the channels already available than to create another new body.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is perhaps most important in the area of agrarian and subsistence economies that co-operative economic and social systems of self-help are built up? In the last 10 years, as he rightly said, a multitude of research projects have been announced. Is it not vitally important that we should have one central research institute to avoid duplication, and also to assess the results of the research which has been going on?
    Mr. Wood: Because it is an important area and because co-ordinating institutions do exist it is important to increase the efficiency of those co-ordinating institutions rather than create a new one.

    India
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Indian Foreign Minister with a view to increasing the amount of economic aid; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wood: None, Sir, but we regularly consult the Government of India about aid matters.
    Mr. Dempsey: Has the recent television programme about Mr. Muggeridge in Calcutta been drawn to the Minister's attention? It showed an elderly man lying dying at the roadside and being half eaten by rats, and also showed a boy of five being thrown on the street because his people could no longer keep him. Is that not a blight on the British Commonwealth? Cannot something be done to alleviate this terrible hardship?
    Mr. Wood: I am afraid I missed the television programme, but I am well aware that there is a great problem in India, and that is one of the reasons why one-fifth of our whole aid programme goes to India.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Minister aware that India has the additional problem of looking after 2 million Pakistani refugees, plus 70,000 a day coming in? If Pakistan is raising objections to aid and supervision, cannot the British Government provide additional aid to India to look after the Pakistanis?
    Mr. Wood: There was a good deal of discussion about refugees from Pakistan in the debate last Friday, when, I think, the hon. Member was unable to be here, and when I made it quite clear that the United Nations was examining this matter and that we would be willing to join in and make a contribution if the United Nations effort were maintained.

    Union of Arab Emirates
    Mr. Matherasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress towards a Union of Arab Emirates between the Trucial States and Bahrain and Qatar.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Recent efforts by the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti

    881
    Governments have not yet brought about agreement on a constitution between the member States of the Union of Arab Emirates. The situation is now being considered by the Governments concerned, and Sir William Luce is now visiting the area again at my request to make an up-to-date assessment.
    Mr. Mather: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him, in view of the increasing instability in the area and the territorial threats from various sources, whether he can give an assurance that there will be no hasty decision about withdrawal of British troops from the area?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think my hon. Friend knows the position about the withdrawal. We are taking infinite care to create the right political structure in which we can make treaty arrangements.
    Mr. Healey: Could the Foreign Secretary tell us what the Government's view is of recent statements from the Iranian Government concerning the Tumbs and Abu Musa? Does he not recognise that there is a risk of a rather squalid and ludicrous military confrontation on these tiny islands unless there is rapid progress in making a settlement, and can he tell us how far he has gone?
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The need to settle this question is obvious, but I would rather not go into details now, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could put down a Question later.

    Commonwealth African States (British Assets)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total value of British assets expropriated in Commonwealth African States since January, 1966; and to what extent compensation has been obtained.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: It is not practicable to give the figure sought by my hon. Friend. Negotiations have been completed or are in train between the Governments concerned and some companies affected.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that, despite sanctions and bans of various kinds, there has been no expropriation in Southern Africa? Should not
    882
    this be borne in mind when assessing our economic interests north and south of the Zambesi respectively?
    Mr. Royle: I have noted my hon. Friend's remark, which is in substance correct. My hon. Friend was sent detailed information on 27th August last, and I can, if he wishes, send him further information, as it is available, about expropriations and settlements since that date.

    West Germany (Offset Agreement)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been paid by the West German Government for currency compensation to Great Britain for keeping her Armed Forces in West Germany since 1961; and whether the new agreement will involve a further increase in the payment by the Bonn Government.
    Mr. Anthony Royle: The value of the offset provisions since 1961 is£581 million. Under the new agreement, we shall be receiving cash payments totalling about£62·5 million over the next five years in addition to civil and military purchases to be made by the Federal Government on the lines of earlier agreements.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the increase in the payments made by the German Government will match the increasing cost of living and the increasing cost of money?
    Mr. Royle: It is true that we have never since the occupation régime ended in 1955 asked the Federal Government to pay us the entire budgetary costs of maintaining our troops in Germany. That would be a manifestly unfair and unrealistic demand.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the meetings I attended in Brussels and Reykjavik last week. I am sure the

883
House will forgive me if I go into some detail.
At the meeting with the Community in Brussels in the early part of the week we reached agreement on a number of important points. For convenience, I will deal with the matters in the order in which they arose.
First, there was a satisfactory measure of agreement on Euratom. When this subject was first broached, the Community asked the candidate countries for compensation for access to the assets of Euratom. We said we did not think this request was justified, and I am glad to say that it was withdrawn. We have now agreed in principle to an exchange of knowledge of equivalent value, to take place immediately after our entry. We have also settled a number of legal issues arising out of our acceptance of the Euratom Treaty, including its application to our dependent territories with the exception of Hong Kong.
Next, tariff quotas. We reached agreement on arrangements for twelve industrial products which we at present import wholly or mainly duty free, and where it appeared that the imposition of the Common External Tariff would have meant a new charge on supplies to British industry. The products in question are phosphorus, silicone carbide, wattle extract, plywood, wood pulp, newsprint, ferro chrome, ferro silicone, aluminium, lead and zinc. The only product on which we have yet to settle is alumina. The effect of the arrangements we have made is that around 90 per cent. of our imports of these commodities from outside the enlarged Community would continue to be imported duty free.
The Community also agreed to an indefinite suspension of the Common External Tariff on tea. With permission, I will circulate details of these inevitably complicated arrangements in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
We then dealt with the important issue of agricultural transition and Community preference. Here we were able to settle the main problems, and agree on a basis on which the remaining points of detail can be worked out.
Briefly, we would adopt the mechanism of the common agricultural policy at the beginning of the transitional period, but
884
our transition to Community prices would be achieved by six even steps spread over five years. The deficiency payments system would be phased out gradually during that period. British producers and consumers and third countries should thus have time enough to make the adjustments which in many cases would be necessary.
On trade with third countries, we have secured explicit recognition by the Community that if circumstances arose during the transitional period in which significant volumes of trade risked serious disruption, then the enlarged Community would deal with the position. The Community would likewise take rapid and effective action to deal with any difficulties which might arise in the operation of the transitional mechanisms.
The Community recognised that we had a special problem over horticulture. Here it was agreed first that tariff adjustment for horticultural products should proceed at a slower rate; secondly, that no move on horticultural tariffs should take place until a year after our accession; thirdly, that there should be provision for flexibility in the adjustment of horticultural tariffs to permit some modifications of the process if necessary; and, finally, that for apples and pears, where there is a special problem arising from surpluses in the Community, we should replace our quota arrangements at the beginning of transition by a system of compensatory levies, offsetting the difference between British and Community prices. These levies would be gradually phased out during the transition period as British and Community prices come into line. Taken together, these measures should ensure that British horticulture gets the exceptional treatment which it needs.
I now turn to the question of our contribution to the Community budget. As the House will know, there are several ways of approaching this difficult and important problem. The Community has now suggested an entirely new approach, based on certain initial principles.
The idea is that a percentage—or key—would be set, which would vary by small amounts annually, and would represent the proportion of the Community budget which we would notionally be expected to pay in each of

885
the years of the transitional period. But the sums actually payable in each year would be reduced by a large amount at the start of the transitional period and by a progressively smaller amount as time went on until we arrived at full acceptance of the Community's direct income system. An important and favourable development is that the Community admits the possibility of a further period of correctives after the end of the transitional period.
While welcoming this new approach, I made it clear that its usefulness could only be assessed when precise figures were attached to the formula to enable us to see what we would actually be paying. But if the figures were fair and reasonable, I see no reason why the present proposal should not provide the means of arriving at a solution satisfactory to all concerned.
Finally, I come to two related questions: that of the association with the Community of the developing Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean and Indian and Pacific Oceans; and that of future imports Of sugar from the developing Commonwealth countries.
The Community has now agreed that it is prepared to reaffirm the 1963 Declaration of Intent in respect of the independent Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean, Mauritius, Fiji, Western Samoa and Tonga. This declaration offered a choice between two forms of association and a trading agreement. I warmly welcomed its reaffirmation, which would give the countries concerned complete and wide protection and freedom of choice. They would have up to 1975 to negotiate these arrangements with the enlarged Community, of which we should of course then be a member. Until then our existing pattern of trade with them would remain unchanged.
As regards sugar, the Community on 11th May undertook to bear in mind the importance of sugar for the economies of the developing Commonwealth countries concerned after 1974, and suggested that the question should be settled within the framework of negotiations on whatever form of association or trading agreement these countries wanted. I replied that this approach was helpful but needed clarification. I did not think that the undertaking, so far as sugar was con-
886
cerned, was sufficiently firm to provide the sort of assurance which the Caribbean countries and other sugar producers had always needed.
In the early hours of 13th May, after further contacts, the Community put an additional text to us. They now said that it would be the firm purpose of the enlarged Community to safeguard the interests of the countries in question whose economies depended to a considerable degree on the export of primary products, in particular sugar. This text amounts to more than a declaration of intention. It is both a specific and a moral commitment.
I can now say this to the developing sugar producing countries of the Commonwealth. There would be room in the enlarged Community, of which Britain would be part, both for present quantities of sugar from these countries at remunerative prives and for the development of sugar beet production. With this safeguard now promised, I believe the House can he satisfied that these countries will not suffer from our entry into the Community. The assurances which successive British Governments have given to these developing countries have now been double-banked by the Community's commitment.
I thanked the Community for its declaration but made it clear that before accepting it, I must consult the Commonwealth countries concerned. I am hoping to arrange these consultations in the very near future.
I believe that the progress on all these points which was made in Brussels last week is a clear demonstration of the Community's desire to carry the negotiations rapidly forward to a successful conclusion. We shall be meeting again at an additional Ministerial meeting in Luxembourg on 7th June.
At the end of the week I was in Reykjavik for discussions with my Ministerial colleagues of the European Free Trade Association. My colleagues unanimously expressed satisfaction at the progress made in the Brussels negotiations and in the discussions the E.F.T.A. countries were having with the Community. They expressed their confidence that all E.F.T.A. countries would be able to participate in the progress of European integration in a way acceptable to the Community and to themselves.
Mr. Healey: I hope that I may be allowed to concentrate on the sugar issue, not only because of its importance in itself, but because it is a symbol of two things: first, of the way in which the British Government are handling the negotiations, and, secondly, of the attitude of the Community to the developing world.
First, I should like to ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that many of us feel that he might have got an acceptable and bankable agreement on sugar if he had stuck to the line he took on Tuesday night, when he talked of figures and quantities, instead of collapsing like a pricked balloon when asked to create a pleasant climate for the meeting of the Prime Minister and President Pompidou.
He said in the statement that we now had a firm undertaking that the Commonwealth countries would not suffer. Does this mean that Her Majesty's Government are free to renew the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in 1974 if the Community fails to provide for a continuation of their sugar exports to Europe and if Her Majesty's Government and the exporting countries themselves feel they will be otherwise condemned to the fate which Madagascar, Congo-Brazzaville and Surinam have also suffered as a result of similar agreements made by France and Holland at an earlier stage?
My second question is this. I understand that Her Majesty's Government have not yet accepted this arrangement and that its acceptance depends on the outcome of consultation with the developing Commonwealth countries concerned. Could he assure the House that if the Commonwealth countries themselves take the view—which I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not—that they would be better off with figures and quantities, which is what he was asking for last Tuesday, Her Majesty's Government will go back to the Community and insist on hard figures and quantities?
My next question—and I know how seriously hon. Members on both sides of the House will take the reply—is this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would insist on precise figures for the financial contribution to be made by Her Majesty's Government. Could he assure the House that he will not accept a vague concatenation of adjec-
888
tives, as for Commonwealth sugar, as a substitute for hard figures in the case of New Zealand butter and lamb? If he is to insist on hard figures for New Zealand, why does he not do so also for Mauritius, Fiji and the Caribbean countries, which are very much poorer than New Zealand and much more dependent on Britain for a single crop?
Mr. Rippon: First of all, may I say that I got out of the Community a firm assurance that I sought. It was an assurance designed not simply to cover quantities but also prices and employment. What we need to do is to safeguard the interests of the developing Commonwealth countries as a whole. The combination of the offer of association and the wide-ranging opportunities under that, plus the specific reference to sugar, make it perfectly clear what we and the Community have agreed upon and the policy which the enlarged Community would be committed to follow.
So far as 1974 is concerned, I do not think then the question would arise of our renegotiating the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement as such. What we would then have to do is to renegotiate within the enlarged Community an agreement which covered their associates and ours. We have said what our position is in regard to our associates and the need we see to cover their position, and I believe that the Community takes the same view about its own.
As far as New Zealand is concerned, I think the position is rather different because New Zealand cannot be brought within the framework of an offer of association. Thus, a different approach is required in that regard. So far as my consultations with the Commonwealth are concerned, because many of them have anxieties, to some extent generated by comments which, naturally enough, are made far away from them, I hope to explain to them what the Community's assurance means and what opportunities are now open to them in negotiating whatever form of association or trading agreement they like with particular reference to the problems of sugar. If, of course, they ask me for a lesser assurance than the ones I have been given, then I would certainly take their views to heart, but I shall try to dissuade them.
Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that unless

889
the developing Commonwealth countries obtain a quantitative assurance this year their economies are likely to collapse long before 1974, because the planting of sugar requires assurances as to the market in seven years' time? To come back to my initial point, could he assure the Commonwealth countries either that they will get a quantitative market, on which they have always insisted, or that Her Majesty's Government will have the right to renew the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in the absence of an agreement by the Community? I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Surinam and a number of other countries have already suffered catastrophic economic damage to their sugar exports as a result of an agreement entered into by other European countries identical in form to the one the right hon. and learned Gentleman has presented to the House this afternoon.
Mr. Rippon: I have no reason to suppose that the Community would in any way depart from the spirit and intent of their declaration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] But let us suppose that in 1974 we were unable to negotiate a new regime. We would then be within the Community and have our own rights as regards voting. We have very much in mind, as I explained in the statement, the need to protect in an appropriate way the developing countries.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first for supplementary questions those hon. Members who had put down Questions and did not ask supplementary questions when they were called because the Minister said that he would be making a statement.
Mr. Moate: Would my right hon. and learned Friend accept that nobody could suggest he was selling out British and Commonwealth interests—rather, he is giving them away for nothing? Since he has failed to give specific answers, could he say specifically on sugar whether the Community has offered any means of reducing its surplus without which any agreement or assurance is meaningless? Secondly, would he recognise that the Community destroys more apples and pears than this country produces? Until that structural surplus is eliminated, any agreement of one, two, three or five years is meaningless and something of a farce?
Mr. Rippon: I do not accept the assertion in the first part of the question. In regard to apples and pears, in order to protect the British horticulture prices and producers against Community surpluses and lower prices in the Community, we have made special arrangements. There will be freedom for British horticulturists and opportunities in the enlarged Community for British horticultural produce which, if it cannot always compete on price, will be able to compete on quality.
Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the overall progress made at Brussels carries forward the policy of the previous Government and will be welcomed by a decisive majority of hon. Members in this House? [Interruption.]
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Sheik of Araby.
Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the new methods that he has outlined for the payment of the financial contribution have a number of obvious advantages? But will he say more about the period of time over which the rebates under this scheme are to be paid? Will it just be five years, or will six, seven or eight years be possible?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Rippon: I was so overcome by the generosity of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks that I almost faded away.
All the rebates will be completed in the five-year period—over the whole of the transitional arrangements—except for this possibility of correctives in regard to the financial arrangements.
Mr. Eadie: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, to some extent, he has prejudiced his negotiation standing in the sense that he thanked the representatives at the meeting, and now we have a situation where, I am convinced, an overwhelming majority of this House rejects the propositions that he has put forward and that, above all, the sugar interests involved reject them?
Mr. Rippon: I am sure that that is wrong. I am sure that the Community, whose intentions were good from the outset of our discussions, have clarified

891
exactly what they meant. I did not think that just "bearing in mind" was enough. To declare a firm purpose to safeguard interests does not mean only one vital interest but all of them. It means all the exports of developing countries, particularly sugar. One of the difficulties about sugar is that we have these agreements which run until 1974. So have the Community. Even in our negotiations, if we were not applying to join the Community, we do not state far in advance exactly what the position will be at the end of the negotiations. What we have to take into account is all the factors, which are quantity, remunerative price, and also the roll-on.
Mr. Marten: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he has not dealt with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)? Congo-Brazzaville and Madagascar had associated status of the type which is offered now. They had quotas, and now they have hardly any sugar trade with the Common Market. This was vetoed by the Council of Ministers. In the case of Surinam, the Dutch went into the Common Market on this sort of assurance with the result that Surinam's was cut by half and it expires in 1975. Has not my right hon. and learned Friend seen the writing on the wall?
Mr. Rippon: We are concerned, therefore, to protect our arrangements up to the period of renegotiation. When these matters are renegotiated, we shall insist on the implementation of the assurance that the Six have given us.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we can put our trust in the protections that have been given. Is not he aware that, only in the last few weeks, the Germans, who had agreed with the French and the remainder of the Six that they would not revalue unless they had the agreement of the Six, none the less revalued? There is an example of a definite promise and a written pledge being broken. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman trust a pledge such as this?
Mr. Rippon: That is an entirely different issue, and no written pledges were broken. There was a long and very warm discussion, at the end of which they reached a measure of agreement.
Mr. Wellbeloved: In respect of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a firm undertaking—
Mr. Jennings: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that this part of the sitting, while we are dealing with proceedings following on a statement, should be regarded as a hang-over from Question Time, when so many hon. Members who did not put down Questions are now denied the right for a long period to put Questions?
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I am denying anyone's right—yet. But so many right hon. and hon. Members try to catch my eye at the end of each answer that it is difficult for me to see whether those with Questions on the Order Paper are amongst them. Mr. Wellbeloved.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a firm undertaking that, in respect of super, he will consult the Caribbean Islands and Fiji and that, unless they agree to the terms that he will finally recommend, he will withdraw the whole proposition?
Mr. Rippon: That is not a good basis on which to start consultations, which will be full and will deal with all these relevant matters.
Mr. Sandys: While congratulating my right hon. and hon. Friend on the excellent progress that he has made in these extremely difficult negotiations, may I ask him a further question about sugar? Does not he feel that any realistic person who understands the problem will think that the offer of a long-term association coupled with a categorical declaration by the Community of their intention to safeguard the interests of sugar producing countries represents as fair and as reasonable a solution as can be reached—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is there any good reason to doubt the good faith—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—of those who, we hope, will soon be our partners?
Mr. Rippon: I think that my right hon. Friend is right. After all, in the last analysis, the prosperity of the sugar producers depends upon our good intentions and our determination to safeguard their interests as we go along. Since

893
13th May, our intentions have been reinforced by the declaration of the Community. That is why I say that the assurances have been double-banked.
Mr. Shore: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that he is taking a very great gamble with the livelihood and prosperity of people who are dependent upon us? He owes it to the House to say what it is that made him change his mind from demanding, as we all knew, bankable security for the West Indies, to accepting what at best is a statement of good will? At the same time, why have the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friends changed their minds about what is acceptable in relation to the financing of the Community and our part in it? Within four months of the opening statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that unless we could get a change in the system itself the terms that would result would impose burdens upon us that we could not bear and which no British Government could accept, why is it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have accepted precisely those terms and that system at the end of the transitional period, and have not had the face to tell us openly about it?
Mr. Rippon: As for the proposals in regard to finance and our contribution to the Community budget, given that we get percentages and figures put to the proposals which have now been laid before us by the Community, there is nothing inconsistent between those proposals and the ones suggested by the previous Government or by my right hon. Friend, the present Prime Minister. There is no difficulty about the principle. It was always understood that there were a number of ways in which we could try to approach the movement of resources problem, but that throughout the transition we should start relatively low and move up in a progressive way. In so far as the new proposals permitted it, I regarded that as a basis for negotiation, but I said that we must see in more precision what they had in mind and then come back to the House and report.
The difficulty about sugar is that we have our agreement, to which we have been told that we can hold and the Community have their own arrangements to
894
which they will hold, These agreements have never depended entirely upon precise figures of tonnage. If we had insisted on a negotiation of tonnage, they would then have had to reconsider their own arrangements, and we would have ended up perhaps with a lower figure than the one which we really wanted to secure. Bearing in mind that sugar is now linked with the offer of association and, therefore, that these people will be brought within the Community, this throws a different light on the situation.
I have said all along—I spoke to the House about this on my return from the Caribbean—that it was not sufficient to consider a sugar agreement alone. A sugar agreement alone would not cover all the problems of the developing countries, which could only be met by association. Equally, an offer of association would not be sufficient without an understanding on sugar. So these two matters have been closely linked together. I do not think that the full significance of this has been appreciated everywhere. At one time in the negotiations there was great pressure both inside and outside the Community not to extend the influence of the Community beyond Europe and Africa, and that this offer of association should not be extended to the Caribbean countries and to countries in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific. I pressed this case, and I am glad to say that the Community have now agreed to renew the offer.
Mr. Fell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the obvious desire of a vast number of hon. Members on both sides to have plenty of time to discuss this matter in full, will you allow the Leader of the House to tell us whether we can have an early debate on it?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. If the Leader of the House has a communication to make, no doubt he will make it.
Mr. Turton: After that last reply, will my right hon. and learned Friend explain why, in his dialogue to the deaf speech on Tuesday, he asked for bankable assurances for 1,400,000 tons of Commonwealth sugar and he now appears to have withdrawn that demand? Has that demand been withdrawn? If so, why?
Mr. Rippon: I did not put it in that way. I recognised that the situation had

895
changed as soon as the Community reaffirmed the Declaration of Intent of 1963. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to think of all these matters together within the context of association, which changes the whole negotiating position. I said that I thought that there would be a great deal of difficulty if we did not clarify the situation, because the developing countries of the Commonwealth needed some sense of security so that they could know that their interests were to be safeguarded and could plan their production in that way.
In the evening I spoke to them rather firmly about this matter and said that one of our difficulties in the negotiations was that I made a statement, the Chairman took note of it, and they then needed time to consider the effect of what I had said. I said that they should deal with this matter urgently; it needed only a sentence or two to clarify the position. As a result of the discussions which we had, we got this strong commitment. Many people have taken the view that all that we did was change the words from "bearing in mind" to "take to heart". That is not what happened. The translation of the French is not simply "take to heart", which is a very strong expression in French—[Interruption.] This is not unimportant. It is a strong expression—[Interruption.] It is a rather important point, because it is part of the agreement. This is the sentence to which we have to hold in future, a sentence which should be clear to ordinary men and women. It translates as, "It is the firm purpose of the Community to safeguard the interests". If I did not think that that was a bankable assurance, I should not have accepted it.
Mr. Harold Wilson: If the whole assurance depends on the translation of these rather obscure words in French, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now answer these questions on sugar? Will he undertake to report to the House the results of his negotiations and consultations with Caribbean and other Commonwealth Leaders? If they are not satisfied with the agreement with which he is satisfied, will he give due notice to the Community that it is not accepted and that he is reopening the matter?
Will he now answer the question which I put to the Prime Minister on Thursday
896
—it was rather early then for anyone to have the full details—namely, whether the French or any other country would have a veto on our proposal to continue the sugar agreement after 1974 in default of really firm bankable arrangements? Will he further give an undertaking that he will not seek to negotiate the New Zealand problem on the same basis as he appears willing to negotiate the sugar agreement? Finally, will he circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the name of a bank which would regard as bankable a three-year operation when there is a seven-year period of production?
Mr. Rippon: On the translation, the right hon. Gentleman, who has some experience of international negotiations, knows that it is important, for the avoidance of misunderstanding, that there should be clear understanding of what words mean in both languages. That is why I was concerned about clarification on that point. Clear language of that kind is, in my view, a bankable assurance. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] After all, many people buy products with guarantees with lots of fine print. They would do better to tear up the guarantees and rely upon the normal assurances about goods of warrantable quality. Long detailed guarantees, in my view, would not at the end of the day be as good a bargain for the developing countries of the Commonwealth as one simple statement which we can all remember for years ahead long after the small print may have been forgotten.
The consultations will be those which I have promised, and I shall report back to the House on the developments.
Concerning veto, I believe that we can rely upon the assurance that the Community have solemnly given. When there has been so much discussion about it in the Community, there can be no question of their saying that they did not understand what they were doing, because we underlined it in the most firm way. Our Commonwealth Sugar Agreement ends in 1974 and their convention ends in 1975. There will then be a renegotiation of two new régimes, and if we do not get safeguards for the interests of the developing countries, then we could exercise a veto. It must be remembered that we are very large consumers of sugar.
Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer my question about New Zealand?
Mr. Rippon rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) raising a point of order?
Mr. Paget: I was wishing to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—under Standing Order No. 9 to consider an urgent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
Mr. Speaker: This is not the right time to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Rippon: May I first answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition about New Zealand, and whether we can negotiate her position in the same way as for sugar. The answer is that, as things are at the moment, there is no question of New Zealand being offered association. It has not been sought, or been asked for by New Zealand. Therefore, we have to proceed in a different way.
As far as the sugar regime is concerned, perhaps talk of vetoes is unfortunate, because I am satisfied that the Community meant what it said, and that we can rely on that. If, at the end of the day, a situation arose which we could not agree, then one would no doubt have a crisis in the Community, which we would resolve, holding firmly to the assurance that we have been given. Without the implementation of that assurance, I do not see how we can accept a new régime, or an amendment of the régime.
Mr. Thorpe: Although there is still much to negotiate, may I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the progress that has been made to date? Is he aware that the interests of this country and, indeed, of the Commonwealth, do not depend on small print or phrases but on whether there is trust between the partners in Europe, and whether there is genuine enthusiasm for a united Europe? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take comfort from the fact that, apart from those who now choose to sit on the fence—
Hon. Members: Name him.
Mr. Thorpe:—wherever they may happen to sit in this House, the main critics, and the most vocal critics, are drawn from the extreme Right and the extreme Left of British political life, who have historically been renowned not only for their isolationism but for their complete lack of vision?
Mr. Rippon: I am sure that at the end of the day, when the House as a whole can judge the package, there will be no doubt whatever that it is a British interest, a European interest, and in the interests of the whole of the Commonwealth, developed and developing, that these negotiations should succeed.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: As one who believes—and many people in the country share this view—that the outcome of these negotiations is going to decide not just what will be the price across the counters of this country for the next five years but what will be the future of our children and our children's children, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he would not agree that it is important that all of us know the full package deal before we form any final judgment whatsoever? When that package deal is known, will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the opening sentence of the speech made to the Conservative seminar two weeks ago by M. Berthoin, who particularly emphasised that the purpose of the Treaty of Rome was political?
Mr. Rippon: All those considerations must be borne in mind. I can only repeat that, at the end of the day, I do not believe that this House would let the British people turn their backs on their rightful destiny.
Mr. Barnett: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the French still insist on sterling being part of the negotiations? While one would accept that the idea of cutting balances by 5 per cent. a year is nonsense, as I am sure they would, will he nevertheless be prepared to give a firm commitment not just about discussions, but about not having a higher level of sterling balances than there are now and about negotiating the removal of sterling's reserve rôle?
Mr. Rippon: Matters for negotiation are limited to questions such as the harmonisation of capital movements. We have made it clear that we are prepared to have discussions about the future rôle

899
of sterling, its reserve rôle, and sterling balances, in the appropriate forum, and in the appropriate way. I cannot add anything to what I said during the debate on 23rd January, and to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said in a number of statements to the House.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Is not the position in regard to sugar in essence that up till 1974 we have been graciously accorded permission not to breach our clear contractual commitments, and thereafter we have to make do with the general assurance, unparticularised as to terms, and unquantified as to amounts, which, in the language of the law, with which my right hon. and learned Friend is so familiar, would certainly be held void for uncertainty?
Mr. Rippon: I think we must remember that we ourselves would be renegotiating in 1974 on the conditions which existed then. To that extent, matters must be hypothetical. We must safeguard the interests of the developing countries in the context of the situation then. We are satisfied that, in the light of the assurances that we have been given, coupled with the agreement about association, or trading agreements, which can be negotiated in the period up to 1974, we can ensure that the developing countries in the Commonwealth not merely do not suffer, but will benefit to a greater degree by access, with us, to this large and growing market.
Mr. Bottomley: Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that trade, rather than aid, is in the best interests of Europe and the developing countries? I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing in support of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, but can he say what representations he has made to see that we maintain our trade with Malaysia, and retain the Anglo-Indian Trade Agreement which has been in being since 1939?
Mr. Rippon: I made a statement on this some time ago. In relation to the Asian Commonwealth, the Community confirmed its intentions of having a trading agreement in that regard. We have the nil C.E.T. on tea extended indefinitely, and the Community has spoken of the need not only to maintain but to extend
900
trade in that direction. I think that that covers that position.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of trade. This is the best form of aid. I was convinced, after my visit to the Caribbean, that it was no good saying to the Caribbean even simply that they would have the continuation of the benefits under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. There were all the other tropical products to be considered. It was imperative that they should have the offer of association. I urged on the Community, and on other Government who have an interest in this, that they should not face the developing countries of the Commonwealth with a choice between association with Europe, or loss of generalised preference schemes, and matters of that kind. All of us, as developed countries, have to make a contribution to the developing Commonwealth which not only maintains quantities at remunerative prices, but, above all maintains and, I hope, improve their present level of employment.
Mr. Tapsell: If the Deutschemark continues to float, will it be possible for the Community, within the next few weeks, to give my right hon. and learned Friend the firm figures for which he has naturally asked, so that he can assess the new proposals about our association with the common agricultural policy?
Mr. Rippon: I do not think that there will be any difficulty about that.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many of us who have the interests of the developing countries at heart have been impressed with what the Community has done for the 18 States in the Yaoundé Convention? If this means that we shall be able to extend the same advantages to our dependencies, it will be of great benefit to them.
Will the Minister confirm that when the YaoundéConvention has to be renegotiated, as we shall be concerned about our relations with our former dependencies on the question of sugar, we shall have a veto over the continuance of the Community's relations with its former dependencies, and this will be a mutual arrangement for the benefit of all parties?
Mr. Rippon: That is correct, and we shall have to make arrangements which,

901
at the end of the day, are acceptable to the enlarged Community as a whole, of which we would be part.
Mr. Jennings: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the only language allowed—and fully understood—in this House is English, and that the phrase "take to heart" may be strong in the French connotation but in this country is both ephemeral and imprecise? Will he promise to bring back from his future negotiations on New Zealand something precise and quantitative, in the form of a completely understandable formula, before we ever get into the Common Market? Is he aware that if he does not he will threaten the leadership of the Tory Party; he will split the Tory Party from top to bottom and bring about the downfall of the Tory Government?
Mr. Rippon: I understand that my hon. Friend is not particularly interested in the terms in forming his judgment whether or not we should enter the Community. On the question of language, the language that I used was precise and in English. On New Zealand, I have explained that different considerations arise, because we cannot settle the matter within the context of the offer of association.
Mr. Orme: Is the Minister aware that some of us find the Government's adherence to the declaration of intent very amusing, especially after the way in which in a different context they criticised what my right hon. Friend said in relation to the trade unions? If the Government are so concerned about a contractual approach, why should they throw it overboard on such a vital issue as the West Indies agreement on sugar? It brings into doubt the whole attitude of the Government in this regard.
Mr. Rippon: In both respects our attitude has been the same as that of the last Government.
Mr. Lane: While my right hon. and learned Friend is continuing to negotiate firm terms and safeguards—and, I hope, making further progress—will he also go on stressing to the public the great political advantages of an enlarged Community, in contrast, for example, to the speech made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), who
902
was again parading his narrow nationalistic prejudices?
Mr. Rippon: I am not responsible for the views of the right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore). Clearly his speech of yesterday did not correspond with his vote on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in May, 1967.
Mr. Oram: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that what the sugar-producing countries need is not only a guarantee of their sugar market but a diversification of their economy, so that they no longer have to depend on one crop? Did he discuss that aspect of the matter in the recent negotiations? When the Minister goes to the sugar-producing countries, will he be accompanied by the Minister for Overseas Development, so that those countries may be satisfied about this Government's intentions in both aid and trade matters?
Mr. Rippon: I hope that they will be satisfied in both regards. Certainly our purpose is to safeguard their interests, and their interests cover not only quantities and prices of sugar but the whole question of unemployment in those areas and their degree of dependence, in many cases, on other tropical products, such as rum, citrus products and tobacco. We must consider those matters in the broadest way and see that we really safeguard their economies in the years ahead by every means at our command.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: Can my right hon. and learned Friend explain how there can be any advantage in associated status for monocultural sugar States? That point has not been explained so far. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has suffered from the dialogue of the deaf in Brussels; are we now to suffer from the monologue of the dumb here?
Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend no doubt bears in mind the fact that some developing countries which are now monocultures do not want to remain in that state forever.
Mr. Loughlin: May I refer the Minister back to the question of New Zealand? Has his attention been drawn

903
to the New Zealand Government's statement, in which it is indicated that even a good transitional agreement would only mean the difference between sudden death and slow strangulation? Is he taking that factor into account when he is negotiating E.E.C. agreements?
Mr. Rippon: All these factors are taken into account. I went to New Zealand and I have had discussions with Sir Keith Holyoake recently, as did my right hon. Friends. Mr. Marshall is arriving here today, and I have no doubt that we shall discuss these matters in the course of the next few days.
Mr. Emery: Will the Minister clear up one point which seems to be slightly confusing? It has been implied that because certain French associated States were not able to maintain their sugar sales to the Community the same thing would automatically happen to any British colonies that became associated States. Will he confirm that as far as the American colonies or territories were concerned no safeguard was given, no statement was made, and no firm intent was given to safeguard the purpose and the interests of their economies?
Mr. Rippon: I am not sure about my hon. Friend's reference to the American States. I am sure that we, within the Community, will safeguard the interests of our clients—if I may put it in that way.
Mr. Emery: I meant "African States".
Mrs. Renée Short: Behind all the euphoria that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is unsuccessfully trying to create, is it not clear from the limited information that he has given us today that the housewives of this country will have to face an increase in the cost of food bought in this country once every 10 months—that is what he has told us—in order that we may bring our food prices to the level of the common agricultural policy price? Is it not also clear that they will have to pay more to buy British-produced and home-grown fruit? Has he considered what effect this will have, not only on the cost of living in this country but on the attitude of the trade unions and the whole economic situation, and is it not clear—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has already had three supplementary questions.
Mr. Rippon: In some cases the transitional arrangements provide for us to move up to Community prices and in other cases they provide for us to move down. That is the position in the case of horticultural products.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is it not clear that whether we are for the Common Market or against it we are equally concerned in this House about the future of under-developed countries in the Commonwealth? Are not the facts of the situation—as opposed to the fears—that my right hon. and learned Friend for the first time has obtained an assurance from the Six that they will treat in future the interests of the sugar-producing countries of the Commonwealth as being part of the interests of the enlarged Community and that we ourselves will be there to see that that is done? Is not that a much better guarantee than a quantifiable assurance that would soon be out of date?
Mr. Rippon: I believe that that is true. The difficulty about quantities is that there is a danger that the minimum will come to be regarded subsequently as the maximum, whereas what we require is the long-term safeguarding of these interests.
Mr. Fernyhough: We readily understand the main purpose of the Minister, which is to safeguard what he terms British interests, but does he realise that the overwhelming majority of our people would feel very sick at heart if at the end of the day in safeguarding British interests he sold down the river the interests of the sugar-producing countries and New Zealand? Will he give an assurance that under no circumstances he will have to come to the House as the Government did in 1938 to get an agreement to sell Czechoslovakia down the river?
Mr. Rippon: The whole purpose of these negotiations is to ensure that nobody is sold down the river; indeed, I believe that at the end of the day the British people will be satisfied that the interests of everybody have been adequately protected, as far as we can look ahead in these matters.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr, Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor of the Duchy rose 15 seconds before 3.30, when my Question No. 43 on the Common Market was due to be called. I thought that it was your intention to call me, Mr. Speaker, so I did not raise the matter at the time. Will you rule on that point?
Mr. Speaker: In fact, it was 3.30 when I called the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
The following is the circulated statement:

SOLUTIONS AGREED FOR THE TARIFF TREATMENT OF INDUSTRIAL MATERIALS
In the case of woodpulp and lead bullion (both key materials for industrial processing in the United Kingdom) the Common Tariff will either be completely suspended or equivalent arrangements made so that we are assured of continuing duty free access to these products even beyond the end of the transitional period.
In the case of newsprint we shall share in a Community duty free quota up to the full extent of needs not covered by domestic production. This means that our newspaper publishers will be able to buy the balance of their requirements duty free from the sources they choose including both Canada and Scandinavia. Agreement was also reached on widening the definition of newsprint to include lighter weight newsprint; otherwise some of our newspapers who use this type of newsprint would have had to pay a Common Tariff of 12 per cent.
In the case of phosphorus it has been agreed that we shall not start to apply the Common Tariff even at a reduced rate until 1977 and that it would be open to us then to apply for either suspension of the tariff or duty free quotas.
The remaining products on our list fall into two groups. In the case of plywood, arrangements have been made, including a duty free quota for certain specialised types of coniferous plywood which should continue to allow in most of our imports duty free. And for the wattle extract used by our tanners the Common Tariff will be cut by two thirds, down to 3 per cent. These arrangements for plywood and wattle extract are not limited to the transitional period.
In the case of the remaining products, silicon carbide, ferro chrome, ferro silicon, refined lead and zinc and aluminium it was established that we should be able to secure all or nearly all our needs duty free either from increased United Kingdom production or from other suppliers in the enlarged Community. And in the case of lead and zinc we shall be participating in existing Community tariff quotas which it has been agreed to adjust to take account of enlargement.
906
Moreover in the case of certain of these products it has been agreed specifically that if the supply position were to change it would be open to us to apply for duty quotas.

MOTOR INDUSTRY (TARIFFS)
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Davies): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about my recent reference to the unilateral abatement of tariffs.
It was suggested by a speaker at a party conference that the Government should consider the abatement of the existing tariffs which protect the motor industry as a means of dealing with the excessive wage settlements recently reached in that industry. I confirmed that I had that under consideration as one of a range of possible measures open to the Government. I also made it perfectly clear that there was no question of a decision having been taken. We on this side of the House have long said that we would be ready to consider reductions of tariffs, where appropriate, in order of heighten competition.
Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will be glad to have some conclusion brought to the confusion over the last few days, which led to variations in share prices on the Stock Exchange, to which he himself referred? May I ask him two questions? First, what estimates have the Government made of the effect of unilateral removal of tariffs on the level of imports, the balance of payments, the level of unemployment, manufacturing investment in the engineering and motor industries and on confidence in the industry, which is our greatest exporter and has suffered from all Governments over the last ten years by being used to some extent as a regulator of the economy?
Second, does he still stand firm to the statement which he made to The Times, reported on Saturday, in which he said:
"I would obviously have consultations with the car industry if I came to conclusions on the matter."?
Is he saying that there would be no consultations with the industry until he himself had reached a conclusion? I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is responsible to the House for his policy

907
and should report to the House on these matters.
Mr. Davies: In the first place, in my view, there was absolutely no confusion. In the second place, such variations in share prices as apparently took place were minimal. The effect of the removal of tariffs on a variety of indicators of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned is, of course, part of the study operation. I said that we were undertaking a study: we are undertaking a study and we will continue. As for consultations with the motor industry, those would take place at a time when the Government have reached some kind of conclusion. I would regard it as being entirely unsatisfactory to go into such discussions without any clear mind at all.
Mr. Longden: Will my right hon. Friend not be deterred by these wholly subjective, partisan and generally ignorant criticisms from continuing to administer salutary shocks to inefficient managements who, if language means anything, are primarily responsible for these inflationary wage settlements?
Mr. Davies: Yes, I can give that undertaking. Apart from the very many interests, which I have firmly at heart, as much as anyone does, of the motor industry, there has been this really great concern about the movement in wages recently.
Mr. Atkinson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that a fair interpretation of his comments over the weekend would be that some additional competition was necessary in the car industry? Therefore, is he not suggesting that there should be an increase in the number of cars imported? Would he therefore agree that the logic of all that is that he is now saying to the country that it would be patriotic for car buyers now to buy foreign cars?
Mr. Davies: What an extraordinarily complicated bit of logic that was. I am carrying out a study to see what it is wise to do in all the circumstances.
Mr. Rost: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what most patriotic people in this country are asking is not why the Minister has discussed reducing tariffs at this stage but why this question was
908
not discussed some months ago at the time when highly inflationary wage negotiations were in progress which could therefore have influenced these wage negotiations in the national interests?
Mr. Davies: These matters have, of course, been under study for a considerable time. The problems involved in taking any such action are very great, and I have not sought to minimise them, but if the circumstances justified them I would equally not hesitate to take them.
Mr. Edelman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his ruminations on the abolition of tax will have been warmly welcomed by the American-controlled companies which would gladly import into Britain greater quantities of cars, to the detriment of employment and of the level of wages in Dagenham, Linwood, Liverpool and Coventry? In these circumstances, would he realise that his reactionary, doctrinaire policies threaten to restore the depression in the motor industry which existed after the abolition of the McKenna duties?
Mr. Davies: No, I think that that is entirely incorrect from beginning to end. The American motor industry undoubtedly has a primary interest in the successful use of its own investments in this country above all things.
Mr. William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people, including many hon. Members on this side, would agree, as a general principle, that where an industry with tariff protection uses this hidden price subsidy to pay inflated wage claims without an increase in productivity, this damages the economy and consequently should be deplored?
Mr. Davies: This is a fundamental factor in the consideration which I am giving.
Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in normal times we on this bench could support him and welcome his conversion, or his attempt to convert the Tory Party, to the principles of freer trade? But is he aware that off-the-cuff major pronouncements of this kind at Scottish Tory Party conferences are apt to be construed as examples of instant Government?
Mr. Davies: It was certainly not an initial pronouncement of a policy. This

909
matter has been a stated element of Conservative policy for a very long time.
Mr. Michael Foot: Since the right hon. Gentleman says that the line of consideration which he indicated in his speech the other day was so wise, will he tell us which other industries he is now considering for using tariff policy to affect wage claims in those industries?
Mr. Davies: I am considering it over a very wide field of industries. I have no intention of stating a schedule of industries, but clearly those which are behind a considerable tariff wall are naturally the ones most concerned.
Mr. Foot: Since the right hon. Gentleman claimed at the weekend in one of his comments upon it that he was using this as a deterrent, surely he should tell us which industries he is considering?
Mr. Davies: When I have an industry to deter I will certainly let the hon. Gentleman know.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend clear up a point which has been nuzzling me a little? Does the fact that the Government are engaged on this individual and national study of tariffs mean that they have decided, after all, not to go into the Common Market—[Laughter.]—since if they have, all our tariff arrangements will be automatically regulated by the Community and its common external tariff policy?
Mr. Davies: This has nothing whatever to do with the question of our entry into the Community. [Interruption.] We must make our policies as things stand at present.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking that the only circumstances in which he will move in this House, which is the right place to do it, for a reduction in the tariffs of the British motor car industry is as part of an agreement with the other countries concerned, who have their own motor car industries, both Europe and the United States—[Interruption.]—that there will be a similar reduction in those countries against British motor cars?
Is he aware that this has been the policy of successive Governments, at the Kennedy Round and earlier? Or is he
910
saying, on the other hand, that he is prepared to give away this bargaining card as well to other countries with nothing in return?
Mr. Davies: The plain fact is that the Government have complete autonomy in this matter and can act as they feel inclined.
Hon. Members: Shame.
Other Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The question—
An Hon. Member: Wait to be called.
Mr. Wilson: I was too overcome by the right hon. Gentleman's answer to wait for you to call me, Mr. Speaker.
The question I asked the right hon. Gentleman was for an undertaking. I did not ask whether the Government were free to act in a dictatorial way and then announce their decision outside the House. Whatever the Government's powers may or may not be, will the right hon. Gentleman now give that undertaking?
Mr. Davies: No, I will not. [Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members rose
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
Mr. Leadbitter: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the progress and nature of the Common Market negotiations, the threat to important interests in the developing countries, the increasing concern in the United Kingdom, and the need for Parliament to examine the possibility of a political commitment affecting the future of the people whose interests, rights and privileges it is the function of this House to protect."
Nothing is more evident from the statements that we have heard in the last one-and-a-quarter hours that there is a need for the House to seek to reassert its authority over the Executive. It is my view that when matters are raised concerning people with whom we have an

911
allegiance and moral obligation, and our own people, we should make it clear that the Executive is beginning to use language which is usurping the authority of Parliament.
I remind the House that no major political party has a mandate to take this country into the Common Market. The Conservative Party manifesto at the last General Election went no further than to say that the Tories were concerned solely with a commitment to negotiate, and their manifesto used the words "no more and no less" in regard to that commitment. The Labour Party made it clear that negotiations for entering the E.E.C. were provisionally determined by an acceptance of a plain commitment that the essential interests of this country and of the Commonwealth should be safeguarded.
I raise this matter at this stage not because there has been a determination to ignore Parliament—there has been sufficient questioning to show that our ability to raise these matters with Ministers has not been withheld—but because during the past few months there has been a fundamental change in the language used by the Government over this matter. We are no longer negotiating but accelerating the pace at which we are expecting to get in to the Market, if not at any price, then certainly in my view at a price which the Government have not been given authority to offer.
The language began to change last October, when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, on the 26th, that the lack of enthusiasm for entry among the British people was not a factor which should be regarded seriously. From then on it was the duty of the House of Commons to watch progress on this matter with great care, for if it was not a factor which the Government would regard seriously, our vigilance became imperative.
The House has debated this matter on only four occasions in the last six years. The last Common Market debate took place on 21st and 22nd January of this year. However, we were then debating the subject from a point of view quite different from the one in which I am raising it now, for I am now asking Parliament to become alert to the sort
912
of attitude which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is adopting. [Interruption.] That attitude is bound to put into the minds of back benchers a fear—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the Motion. There is a convention that when speaking to a Motion of this nature hon. Members should restrict their remarks to the actual point of the submission.
Mr. Leadbitter: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I must, however, point to the fear which is bound to be created in the minds of back benchers when right hon. Gentlemen opposite take the sort of attitude that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is adopting.
The Government are, of course, expected to govern, but in a democracy like ours Parliament is expected to watch the Government with vigilance. It is not the function of Parliament to stand aside when matters of great moment are under consideration. It is not good enough for back benchers to wait until a three-line Whip is imposed to achieve the desired response. When no mandate exists to compromise the position of Parliament, our laws and our constitutional rights, the House of Commons and not the Government is supreme.
Parliament has been patient long enough. The language of negotiation has altered dramatically, even in the last few days. The pursuit of terms and safeguards on matters affecting Britain and the Commonwealth has changed course in terms of the language used when speaking of promises and understandings—[Interruption.]—and many of us feel that the moves of recent days—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the time of the House. I enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman, but an important debate is due to begin and I must ask him to be brief.
Mr. Leadbitter: I accept your request for me to be brief, Mr. Speaker, but, with respect, I must remind you that it was not my fault that certain Ministers had to waste the time of the House. The matter which I am raising is of great importance to the nation. I am anxious not to delay the House, but, after all, I have been speaking for only two or three minutes—[Interruption.]—or maybe four or five—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Member that it is much nearer 10 minutes.
Mr. Leadbitter: That persuades me, Mr. Speaker, to follow your direction again and to seek to be briefer, because if I am approaching 10 minutes, that is the point at which I should be coming to a conclusion. I wish to be co-operative, but I do not want the House to feel that, by restricting my remarks too much, I am less concerned about the issue which I have brought before it.
I take the point that the Motion is specific. It deals with matters concerning the interests, rights and privileges of the people. It is specific in the sense that it deals with the increasing concern in the country and pinpoints a threat to important interests in the developing countries.
It is important in the sense that the stage management and euphoria of last week is, towards the end of this week, culminating with the meeting between the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister and President Pompidou. All of us have a sense of fear that the acceleration of movements is providing a commitment to the Common Market which we feel that those we represent are not willing to accept at this stage. The matter is urgent because during the next few weeks we may be asked to deal with a situation in the House when a political commitment has already been made.
Mr. Speaker, with those few words, and bearing in mind that I have had to cut short a good deal of what I wanted to say, and because in essence it deals with the whole way of life in this country, I ask that the Motion be considered favourably. I thank the House for giving me its attention.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the progress and nature of the Common Market negotiations, the threat to important interests in the developing countries, the increasing concern in the United Kingdom, and the need for Parliament to examine the possibility of a political commitment affecting the future of the people whose interests, rights and privileges it is the function of this House to protect."
914
The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give me notice of his intention to move the Motion.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the various factors to which the hon. Member referred in his submission, but I am debarred from giving reasons for my decision. I have given careful consideration to the matter. I am aware of the deep interest which the hon. Member and many other hon. and right hon. Members feel in this matter and I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member had to say, but I have decided that I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had notice of another application, which I will take first. Mr. Atkinson.

MOTOR INDUSTRY (TARIFFS)
Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the refusal of the Prime Minister to take any action to restore confidence in the British motor industry following the contradictory statements made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment concerning import tariffs."
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has left the Chamber. I wanted to refer to one or two of his comments. I am not insensitive to time or to the importance of the debate which is about to follow. Therefore, I make only one or two brief comments, and I hope that my brevity will not undermine the importance of the issue I am raising.
The first point relates to an answer which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has just given; that is, that the Government have complete autonomy in the whole business of import tariffs. I suggest that that is not so. Surely it is

915
the House of Commons that has autonomy in finance matters of this kind. It is utterly wrong for the Secretary of State to claim that the Government have autonomy to fix import charges or tariffs generally concerning industry. He is misleading the House and should withdraw that statement, because it is totally inaccurate and an insult to Members of Parliament who adhere to the rules of the House and an insult to the power which the people give to Members of Parliament when they elect them to put a point of view on their behalf.
The first point about this matter is the serious situation in which we are now placed relative to the car industry. A very important matter arises on Thursday. It is the intention of the Opposition and of the Labour Party to inaugurate a campaign for a reduction in purchase tax. This is vitally affected by statements made by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon. It is the intention of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) to move that purchase tax on motor cars be reduced from 36⅔ per cent. to 30 per cent. For a motor car costing£800 this means a reduction of more than£50. This debate cannot proceed adequately and intelligently unless the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is prepared to make a further statement in the House and to give some details of his thoughts about the whole question of import tariffs, without which it will be impossible for the House to come to a conclusion on Thursday when on a vote we shall be asked to judge whether purchase tax on motor cars should be reduced by 6⅔ per cent.
This is a very serious question affecting the motor car industry and the many thousands of workers which it employs. Yet on Thursday we shall be voting in the absence of further information, and a decision will be further complicated by the answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given to supplementary questions this afternoon.
I submit to you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that it is very important that we should now have an emergency debate to clear up some of the answers which the right hon. Gentleman has given following his
916
statement over the weekend and the statement of the Secretary of State for Employment. The contradiction in the whole of this area of Government policy means that on Thursday we cannot come to a conclusion which will do justice to the car industry. It is necessary to have a debate as soon as possible.
My second point relates to the increased competition to which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has referred. He complains that my logic is extremely complicated. But surely, in the simplest manner, this is the argument that he used over the weekend. If he is to give an advantage to importers of foreign cars over British manufacturers, he is saying that it is the patriotic duty of people to buy foreign cars instead of British-manufactured cars. That is the element of competition for which he is arguing in the case of motor-car manufacturer. It is up to him to come to the House to clear up this matter and say clearly that that is not the Government's intention and that they are not arguing that it is the patriotic thing to do to buy foreign motor cars to cut the wage demands of workers employed in our car industry.
Further on that subject, we have the experience of the cotton industry and many others that where foreign products have been introduced on the basis of lower tariffs, it has cut back investment and ultimately murdered those industries in a way that I am certain that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry does not wish to see happen to the British motor industry. There is obviously a tendency to cut investment, and we have seen many examples of this in post-war years.
Finally, there is the whole question of the hysterical attitude towards wages generally. Most hon. Members opposite have no understanding of what the wage levels in industry are. We should get away from the hysteria in talking about abnormal wage increases as though they are crippling industry. Many of us on this side pay our respects to trade union negotiators who are doing their best to lift the level of demand in Britain and to create a possible setting for increased growth.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for allowing me these few minutes to say a few words as to why

917
we should have an emergency debate before Thursday's debate on the Finance Bill.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the Prime Minister to take any action to restore confidence in the British motor industry following the contradictory statements made by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Employment concerning import tariffs."
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in informing me of his intention to make this application.
As I have recently said, under Standing Order No. 9 the matter is now left to Mr. Speaker, and I am debarred from giving reasons. I have considered this matter carefully, both before the hon. Member made his application and also during the course of his speech. It is a matter on which I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong feelings. However, I have decided that I cannot submit his application to the House.

STANDING ORDER No. 9
Mr. Paget: On a point of order—
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that it is a point of order, if the hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to move the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. Paget: It is in fact a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have indicated that you would take applications to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 in order of priority of giving notice. I urge you not to establish that as a precedent. The whole point of applications under Standing Order No. 9 is to provide an opportunity for the House to discuss an urgent matter as and when it arises.
If it is reduced to a matter of giving notice, hon. Members who have given you notice will find themselves obligated to make the types of speech which we have now heard after Question Time. It will not get us anywhere. We shall then reach the point at which a further application is futile, because from sheer bore-
918
dom the House will be reduced to fewer than 40 Members.
I had hoped, Mr. Speaker, to raise the quite simple point that where the situation as to sugar was altered in the process of negotiations and without consulting the House, the effect within the sugar-producing countries was to produce very large and immediate financial losses. There is now no point in doing that, because the time is lost.
However, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, not to make notice in advance a question of priorities on this Standing Order. It will destroy the effectiveness of the Order if you do. It must be an application made spontaneously when the problem arises, and that is normally at the point where the Minister makes his statement. It is not possible to give notice in advance when that happens.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for raising this point of order. I am bound by the Standing Orders of the House. Standing Order No. 9(3) provides:
"A Member intending to propose to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of this order shall give notice to Mr. Speaker by twelve o'clock, if the urgency of the matter is known at that hour. If the urgency is not so known he shall give notice as soon thereafter as is practicable."
In the circumstances, I was bound to take first the hon. Gentleman who made the first application and then the hon. Gentleman who made the second application—the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). If after the hon. and learned Gentleman first rose and I told him that that was not the moment for him to make his application he had then passed me a note saying that something urgent had arisen, I would have regarded that as prior notice.
Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In the course of my application I raised the question of the Government's autonomy in the raising or lowering of tariffs. Can I, through you, seek an answer as to whether the Secretary of State was correct in saying that the Government have an autonomy in this and can do as they wish?
Mr. Speaker: That may be a very good point, but it is not a point for me. The hon. Gentleman must pursue it in the other ways which are open to him.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I beg to move,
  That this House, noting the resolution unanimously carried on 10th May relating to the increase in the price of basic foods and the setting up of an organisation for consumer protection, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to announce their plans for this new organisation and trusts that it will embrace all the powers of the Consumer Council.
  Time for this debate has been eroded by important statements. Therefore, in the interests of hon. Members who I know wish to speak, I shall seek to curtail what I have to say.
  The Motion arises from the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) on 10th May. In that debate my hon. Friend gave details of the steep rise in the price of basic foods and called for an organisation for consumer protection. It was an important debate in which several thoughtful contributions were made, although it ended with a very disappointing speech by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
  I regret that the Minister is not in his place today, but he has explained to me that he cannot be here owing to another engagement.
  When my hon. Friend's Motion was put there was general agreement with it and not one dissenting voice. It is so recorded—
  "Question put and agreed to."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 101.]
  We thought it possible that the Government had at last relented and seen a little sense and that the pleas of my hon. Friends, and indeed of hon. Members opposite, had had some effect.
  However, it became apparent on the following day that nothing had changed on Tuesday, 11th May, we were back to the old slogans—"Stand on your own
  920
  two feet. Shop around. Competition will solve all the problems."
  There is a consistency about the Minister, even if it tends to get rather tedious. However, he and his right hon. Friends must realise that when the House of Commons approves a Motion it means something. It is not to be flouted in the way the Minister did on Tuesday. When I asked him what action the Government proposed, he used these words:
  "Although the House did not divide on the Motion, I listened carefully to the points raised in what was, after all, a private Member's MOtion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 189.]
  I regret to have to say that I regard this as executive arrogance of the worse kind. Do not the Government realise that the majority of us are private Members, that when a private Member raises a subject in this House, it is not to be taken lightly, and that when the House accepts a Motion proposed by an hon. Member the Executive should take action on that Motion? That is the very basis on which our democratic system is based. The Government Amendment, far from heeding the will of the House, compounds the insult to the House and makes it clear that they have decided to do nothing.
  If it was the case—I am not suggesting that it was—that the Government could not get sufficient Members to the House to divide on 10th May, that only shows with what little interest the Government view the serious problem of rapidly increasing prices. Whichever way we look at it last week's debate exposed the Government's total failure to grapple with this problem. We are entitled to view with some scepticism the Minister's claim that the Government are concerned about the rising price of food and other essential goods, because we also remember his statement in this House on 29th July, 1966, when he was on the back benches on this side of the House when he said:
  "The time has come when we should have higher prices for food and no subsidies for either the agricultural or the fishing industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1966; Vol. 732, c. 2127.]
  Today we are seeing in action the policy in which the Minister of Agriculture believes, a policy of high food prices. Despite the promise at the General Election, put into final form on 16th June by the Prime Minister, and which more than anything else won the Conservative Party

  921
  that election, the Government have deliberately taken steps which must have the inevitable effect of increasing food prices. Blaming the trade unions trying to make them a scapegoat is the ultimate hypocrisy. What they are doing and what they have in the pipeline makes further wage demands inevitable and they must face this.
  Inflation is the greatest problem facing the Government and this is certainly not the way to tackle it. The record of the Government since the Prime Minister's pledge has been deplorable. Far from taking action to hold or reduce prices their policies have made increases certain. Far from seeking to protect the consumer they are the Government which has abandoned consumer protection.
  Let us consider what they have done. First, they abolished the early warning system. This gave the Minister notice of price increases, and gave his officials the opportunity to advise whether such increases were justified in their view. The officials in the Ministry—and I know them well and have a great respect for them—have built up considerable expertise in this field. I could speak at length of my experience with the early warning system, but I will desist.
  Secondly, the Government abolished the Consumer Council. Excellent work was being done by the Council under Dame Elizabeth Ackroyd. When I was the Minister there were times when I felt that the Consumer Council was a bit of a nuisance, times when I was overwhelmed with work and I felt that it was badgering me a bit too much. What that proved was that the Council was doing an effective job. Looking back at my experience I can say that Dame Elizabeth and her colleagues were doing a good job in the interests of the housewives. Here again, groups of skilled people have been disbanded but I believe that the Council will have to return in some form or another.
  Nothing would please me more than for the Minister to get up tonight and to say, "We have changed our minds". There is a great deal of virtue at times in being able to change one's mind. After all, it was a Conservative Government which set up the Council. I would remind the Front Bench of what their pre-election guide said. It said:
  922
  "In 1963 the Conservative Government set up the Consumer Council which has since proved to be a powerful and influential spokesman for the interests of the consumer,"
  They were ready to claim credit for it when they thought it might win a few votes. The Council proved to be powerful and influential and its record over six years was impressive. Was it a case of proving too powerful and too influential for some friends of the Conservative Party in industry?
  The Amendment says that the Government will rely upon other organisations to protect the consumer. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will say which public and private organisations. I have a great regard for the Consumer Association but I would point out that no one was harsher in its criticism of the abolition of the Consumer Council than the Consumer Association, so that must not be called in aid.
  Thirdly, the Government abolished the Prices and Incomes Board—
  Mr. John Gorst rose—
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I must get on with my speech. We have lost a good deal of time. The hon. Gentleman must try to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. The Government abolished the Prices and Incomes Board which did some first-rate work under a distinguished Conservative, Mr. Aubrey Jones, to whom great credit is due. I am afraid that he is a different type of Conservative from those whom we have on the Front Bench today. He did a job honestly and ably. He was not a "yes" man. If anyone doubts the value of references to the Board on prices they should read some of the reports it produced on tea, margarine, bread, beer.
  The Minister has written the Board off with some references to gimickry and bureaucracy. I say that the reference on retail price margins which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and I made to the Board was not a gimmick. It was made after a good deal of though and if hon. Gentlemen opposite will refer to the Food Manufacturers' Federation, with which I discussed this reference, they will find that the Federation supported it fully and was anxious that it should be fully processed.
  After all their promises the Government have gratuitously abandoned all of

  923
  the machinery for protecting the consumer. Although the Minister of Agriculture admitted to me last week that the Board found from time to time that the increases were not justified. He agreed that the Board did a good job and added:
  "…from time to time increases were not justified."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 95.]
  If certain industries increased their prices without justification, when they knew that there would be scrutiny of them by the Board, what are they likely to do when they know that they have a Minister who does not care a rap? It is naive in such circumstances to talk loftily about the virtues of competition. It is the consumer who is squeezed all the time.
  There is no moral value in competition. The ultimate object of competition is to make a profit, not to help the consumer. In a mixed economy of course we accept that we must have competition. It has its part to play. It is not only what the Government have abolished which worries us, it is the other measures taken by them which will have the effect of increasing prices. We must bear in mind the promise to bring down prices. All the following measures will increase them.
  There are the levy proposals, which will deliberately increase the price of meat and flour, which means the price of bread, and the price of some milk products. Government spokesmen have brushed aside this increase as something insignificant. It is not small and it is in addition to the rising trend of increases. I know that they said they would do this before the election, it was part of Conservative Party policy. They also said that they would hold prices. What they did not tell the electorate was that these two pledges were incompatible, that they could not hold down prices and at the same time introduce the levy system. Then we had the Annual Price Review which this year places a larger burden on the consumer than ever before. It means an increase in the price of milk, milk products and sugar.
  I understand that there are to be sharp increases in the price of some baby foods as a result of the additional cost of milk.
  924
  I have read in some newspaper reports that the increase will be as much as 25 per cent. I should be grateful if the Minister would say whether this is correct. We are deeply concerned about the effect of increased prices on the older people. Here we have a blow at the babies. We want to know more about this matter from the Government before the end of the debate.
  I should be the last to suggest that the task of a Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is easy. I found it an extremely difficult and arduous office to hold. There are factors which are beyond the control of a Minister of Food. He must take into account such matters as fluctuations in the cost of imported materials. But he must satisfy himself that the food-producing industry is making an effort to absorb part of the increased costs. The Minister of Agriculture does not believe in taking any action at all.
  One thing which the Government have done which they claim is making a contribution to reducing prices is to cut selective employment tax. What significant effect has it had? My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) said in the debate last Monday that the effect would be negligible. He gave the figures. Certain firms—and they are some of the best firms, like Marks and Spencer and Sainsbury—published lists of price reductions. But, having studied the lists, however welcome they might be, one could not see that they would have a significant effect on rising prices.
  The Minister—and I must quote him because it is important in the context of this debate—said a week ago:
  "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 98.]
  We saw a graphic picture of Lord Sieff and Sir Jack Cohen on the pavements pushing the customers into their shops as a result of the Chancellor's measures. The Minister of Agriculture is living in cloud cuckoo land. We must get the matter in the right perspective. I do not say that the cut in S.E.T. has made no

  925
  contribution, but the right hon. Gentleman built it up out of all proportion to its real value. The fact is that prices are rising at 10 per cent. per annum. Let hon. Members study the details given in HANSARD last Thursday as supplied in a Written Answer to me at column 162. Prices have gone up markedly since March.
  While, the Minister has been hard at it abolishing things, he has been advising us to shop round. I must comment on this advice, because he gives it at every Question Time and in almost every speech he makes on food matters. There is a touch of unreality about it. It may be possible and prudent for some people to shop round in certain circumstances. But what about people who live in villages? What about people who live in the countryside, with whom the Minister of Agriculture must be concerned? What about the elderly and the infirm? What about mothers with young children? I must point out to the Government Front Bench that there are many housewives who do not have nannies to look after their children. There are housewives and mothers who just cannot follow the Minister's advice to shop round. They have not the time or the facilities to do so.
  The price of the food in the weekly shopping basket has become intolerable for many housewives since the election. They are unable to buy many of the things which they could afford to buy 12 months ago when the election pledge was made that prices would be held.
  The Government have been in office for nearly 12 months. They must begin to shoulder the responsibility for their actions. It is no use their blaming past Governments for their own misdeeds. They have deliberately decided, as an act of policy, to return to free-for-all competition. We ask them seriously and sincerely to pause before it is too late; this is the object of our Motion. There are actions—not compulsory measures, but actions in relation to co-operation with the food sectors of industry—which they can take at once. One would like to feel that the Minister had invited the baby food manufacturers to his office for a discussion about the increase of 25 per cent. in baby food prices. Has he done so? I am sure that large sectors of the food-producing industry would be prepared to co-operate—it would be very
  926
  much in their own interests—if they were given the opportunity.
  I am beginning to mistrust the philosophy of the Minister of Agriculture. I can summarise it in one sentence. He said on 11th May:
  "Under Conservative prosperity peaches will he eaten much more than before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 193.]
  What people want is stability in the price of the basic necessities of life—meat, bread, milk, rent. This peaches-and-pigeons philosophy is so unreal as to be farcical and grotesque. We appeal to the Government to institute studies into the whole field of food prices before it is too late.
  We must charge the Government with failure. Last week, the people spoke clearly in the local government elections. Let the Government therefore change their policies forthwith. Let them live up to their promises or make room for a Government which has the confidence of the country.
  5.27. p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move to leave out from 'House' to end of the Question and add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the determination of Her Majesty's Government to protect the interests of consumers through greater competition and through the efforts of existing organisations both public and private'.
  The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) asked me why we did not vote against last Monday's Motion. It was not at all clear what the Motion meant, particularly in relation to the organisation proposed in it. The question of an organisation to scrutinise and check prices was never spelled out. No one in the debate spoke about it. There was only one paragraph in the speech of the mover of the Motion, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace), describing what he had in mind. I propose to quote it so that there is no error:
  "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

  927
  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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 48.]
  Is that the Opposition's policy? No other hon. Member opposite mentioned the organisation at all. Not one of them believed in it. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) said that he was in favour of the last Government's prices and incomes policy. He is a very brave man. I congratulate him.
  Mr. George Wallace: I deliberately left the question of the organisation wide open simply in order to invite the Government's co-operation. I do not pretend to know all the answers, but I know that I have the housewives behind me.
  Mr. Ridley: I want to show that the hon. Gentleman's omission was quite an important one. We well remember the prices and incomes policy of the last Government and how it split the Labour Party down the middle. We well remember how more than half of that party hated it from the very beginning. We must now ask the party opposite, has it been converted? Why did not hon. Members opposite vote against their hon. Friend's motion last Monday? Why did not the Labour Party come out and vote down that dangerous Motion to bring in another such incomes policy? Presumably hon. Members opposite will vote with us tonight.
  There is a further difficulty arising from last week's Motion. The Motion by the hon. Member for Norwich, North spoke of
  "an organisation for consumer protection with powers to scrutinise and check prices of essential services".
  The Motion today, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, speaks of "an organisation for consumer protection". It is not speaking of "powers to scrutinise and check prices". [An HON. MEMBER: But with "powers of the Consumer Council."] I am going to talk about the Consumer Council in a short while, but the Opposition have got to make up their minds whether they want this Consumer Council they are talking about with powers to check prices, or not, because this is at the crux of the issue. Would
  928
  they return to a policy of compulsory control of prices and incomes or not? As everybody in the House knows, we cannot have a compulsory prices policy without having a compulsory, statutory incomes policy. The Opposition have not made clear what they want, and their Motion last Monday was not worth voting against.
  Is this to be a debate about prices and incomes, or consumer protection? Consumer protection is a related but separate subject apart from control of prices themselves. Consumer protection is about standards and quality, and I want to talk for a short time about both those subjects because they are implicitly covered by the Motion.
  First of all, we have two basic beliefs which the Opposition do not appear to share. The first is that large increases of wages beyond the productivity obtained push up prices. The second is that competition is the best way to keep those rises in prices to the absolute minimum consistent with investment in the future. The right hon. Gentleman believes that there is no moral value in competition—no moral value at all, he has just said. I am going to give him some figures to prove that that is not so.
  Starting with the question of wages.
  "There is a danger that, under the pressure of steeply rising incomes, unit costs will go up more rapidly and we may move on to a much steeper trend of inflation than we have known in the past."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th April, 1970; Vol. 799, col. 1224.]
  Those are not my words, but words of the former Chancellor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). They are true.
  Over the calendar year, 1970, the wage and salary bill in this country rose by£3,175 million in total. The gross pretax company profits in the same period rose by only£81 million. In fact, profits after tax, which is the money available to industry for investment, actually fell during last year. This was not just a freak year. Over the whole period from 1964 to 1970 the wage and salary bill in this country rose by£7,782 million. The gross pre-tax company profit rose by only£428 million. So it must be patently and abundantly clear to all that there is no scope for these wage increases to come out of profits. Therefore, they have to come out of increased prices.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: Just to get my own mind absolutely clear. The profits to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which are taxable, refer to the calendar year earnings up to December, 1969, not December, 1970, because we are not yet taxing profits made up to December, 1970?
  Mr. Ridley: That is correct. That is why I gave figures for the longer period, the six-year period, because they bear out the point that the increase in company profits is very small before tax and probably negative after tax. Figures for after tax are difficult to obtain.
  The point is that if wages go up by sums of that amount there can be no other possible consequence than that prices must follow and, indeed, the share of the gross national product which was taken by pre-tax gross company profits in 1964 was 15·6 per cent., and in 1970 it was only 11·7 per cent. So the share of profits in the economy has been dropping, and this is resulting in an ever-weakening position relatively in relation to our competitors and in relation to investment. And there one has it. The increased wages which we have been paying ourselves in this country have come partly out of profits and investment, and they have come out of higher prices as, indeed, they had to.
  I now want to come to the question of competition, in which the right hon. Gentleman believes that there is no moral value. During last year, wages rose by 14 per cent. The total wage bill rose by 14 per cent. and prices rose by 8 per cent. Have the Opposition ever considered why it is that the total of prices did not rise by as much as the total of wages? Because if competition did not work, one would have expected that wages and prices would have followed each other by equal amounts. That was not the case, because wages were absorbed, partly through the profit margin, partly through increased efficiency, and partly through the process of competition.
  I find it extraordinary, how two-faced the Opposition are about competition. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) is always absolutely rigorous in his demands that we should promote investment. When we do something which affects the motor car industry or the steel industry or any other
  930
  industry there are howls of protest from his hon. Friends. It would seem to me that the Opposition must make up their minds whether they believe in competition or not. I pay the tribute to the right hon. Gentleman that obviously he does.
  Mr. Gorst: Would it not be true to add also that there has been a failure in competition in one respect, and that is in the area of the supply of labour, which is still a monopoly? This is why the imbalance to which my hon. Friend has referred has taken place.
  Mr. Ridley: I think there are imperfections in true competition in the labour market, but I would prefer not to stray on to that ground because I want to say some important things about competition in prices and industry.
  We believe that the area for action by the Government is where competition is weak or imperfect or less effective than it might be. It is not just a question of monopolies. We would define it as extending the activities of Government to promoting competition wherever it is weak, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said in his statement of 17th December. We hope to continue some useful consultations and discussions which we are having with interested parties on ways to improve the economy, and that that will lead to legislation on monopolies and restrictive practices next Session. Reform of the Monopolies Commission will mean an organisation which scrutinises and will check some prices where competition is weak.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I wonder what happens when competition becomes so strong that one firm pushes up a lot of prices and the monopolistic position then affects production—which is the monopoly position. Do the Government then intend bringing in some private competitor or another? This could become a continuous process back and forth.
  Mr. Ridley: When that happens, it becomes a monopoly. There are various remedies open to us. One is to increase foreign competition. Another is to bring new entrants into industry. Another is direct control of monopoly prices. These are all available, but it would be better, as the hon. Gentleman will agree, to try

  931
  to prevent monopolies arising, because they are difficult to deal with once they do.
  I will tell the House the actions which the Government have taken to promote competition in the short period they have been in office. They have referred the rope industry to the Monopolies Commission. They have refused, after a reference, permission for the British Sidac Transparent Paper merger They have allowed foreign steel to compete with British steel for shipbuilding plate in the shipbuilding market. They have freed the scrap export market and the coal import market. All these actions will lead to greater competition. The Government have made estate agents compete in their fees and are approaching the question of the professions in the light of the Monopolies Commission's Report on that subject. As my right hon. Friend said today they have considered whether tariff reductions can contribute. We have produced the Bank of England paper on competition in banking which has been welcomed throughout the House, and we have brought into existence the second force airline.
  I should now like to announce—
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have increased competition, but does he not agree, particularly with expensive consumer durables, that there need to be rules, recognised by everybody, and an effective referee? In doing away with the Consumer Council, he has left out that important part of effective competition.
  Mr. Ridley: I do not agree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but I will say something about that when I come to deal with consumer protection.
  I should like to announce my new set of references to the Monopolies Commission. The first one is of the traditional type and will cause no great surprise. The boot and shoe machinery industry, which might be a monopoly industry, is to be referred to the Monopolies Commission. Secondly, the breakfast cereals industry—cornflakes and so on, which are vital to the housewife—is an industry whose structure may be leading to abuse through excessive price rises. This is right on the point of the Motion, and I am referring the in-
  932
  dustry to the Monopolies Commission. There is, we believe, a connection between the structure of the industry and the prices which have been charged. Thirdly, we intend to make a general reference, of the type which has occasionally been made in the past, into practices in general, not related to any specific industry. That is the reference of parallel pricing and price leadership, an area where study will be useful, and we hope for advice on how to sharpen competition as a result of the Monopolies Commission's work.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will it be within the terms of reference for the Monopolies Commission to look at the costs that arise with breakfast cereals from extremely expensive coloured packaging and coloured printing?
  Mr. Ridley: The terms of reference are usually very wide, and it will be for the Commission to decide. Fourthly, we intend to make our first reference of a nationalised industry. Under Section 2(2) of the 1948 Act, the practices of the gas and electricity supply industries over connection charges can be examined. The two industries have kindly given their consent to co-operate; we have no power to force them to do so. This problem is an old one which arises basically out of the monopoly position of the electricity supply industry in the supply of lighting for houses. It is an appropriate subject for the Commission to investigate so that competition can take place despite the monopoly position.
  Three out of four of these references are concerned directly with prices. I do not want to prejudge them, but in making this announcement we believe that the references to the Commission will have a direct bearing on prices. This makes five monopoly references in under one year by this Government, which compares favourably with the three monopoly references in the last three years of the Labour Government.
  Mr. Edmund Dell: There are one or two questions which I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, the answers to which will affect the debate. He said that under the legislation to be introduced the Monopolies Commission would check certain prices, but he was not clear on the circumstances in which

  933
  this power may be exercised. Will it be limited simply to the 33⅓per cent. situation, or is it intended to define market power more widely? Secondly, are the references on boot and shoe machinery and breakfast cereals to be of the normal duration of about two years, or short references, to the possibility of which the Secretary of State referred in his statement in December? Lastly, is the general reference likely to take about two years and would the recommendations, if necessary, be implemented by legislation?
  Mr. Ridley: I am sorry to take up more time, but I cannot help doing so if I am to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's question. On the general point, we have not yet made clear to the House the substance of the forthcoming legislation on the Monopolies Commission. I am not able to answer the question as to whether the criterion for a reference will be one-third, but I will inform him when we have made decisions. We hope that the cereal prices reference will be a quick one. The boot and shoe machinery reference is a standard monopoly reference and will perhaps take longer than the other one, but I hope that the Monopolies Commission will be as expeditious as possible. The general reference is more difficult to predict, and I think we must leave it to the Monopolies Commission.
  Mr. Dell: Will legislation be required?
  Mr. Ridley: I cannot answer that hypothetical question until we see what the Monopolies Commission requests. If legislation is required, we will consider it.
  We shall continue to watch for areas of weak competition and excessive price or wage increases and make further references in due course of other candidates of the type I have just mentioned.
  I should like briefly to say a little about consumer protection, which is the other leg of the subject we are debating. It is confusing to bring this issue of the Consumer Council into a debate which in the main has been about prices—or at least it was last week—and not about questions of quality analysis, safety, labelling and the general aspects of value for money upon which the Consumer Council has done its work in the past.
  We are entirely in sympathy with "consumerism", the demands of con-
  934
  sumers for a square deal. These demands are healthy and represent one of the forces which contributes to the improvement of the goods available in the shops, the standard of living and competition. It is not a question of ends, it is entirely a question of means. Our means are slightly different from those which have been employed in the past.
  The function of the Government is to establish and maintain a body of law which sets out the ground rules for good commercial behaviour. Such law may be positive, in the sense of requiring food to be labelled, or defining specific obligations which sellers are to accept, or negative, in the sense of saying "Such and such an action is so contrary to the well being of the community that it must be treated as a crime." Central Government has shown itself ready and willing to play its part. One only has to look at the record of the last 10 years—major legislation on weights and measures, hire purchase, trade descriptions and medicines, and valuable Acts of Parliament on such matters as misrepresentation and unsolicited goods. Here I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) who will be pleased to know that their Act has reached the Statute Book. Extensive new food labelling regulations are coming in. This is not the end of what we are doing. We hope before long to act on the question of exclusion clauses, and we are considering action on the Crowther Report on consumer credit. This adds up to a body of consumer law which must already be the envy of most other countries, a constant readiness to developing needs, and a readiness to act upon them where legislation emerges as the proper answer.
  It is no use just passing laws about this, that or the other. Somebody must see that they are obeyed. In the field of criminal law designed to protect the consumer this matter has traditionally, and properly, been the rôole of local government. It is therefore with great pleasure that I pay tribute to the work of the local inspectors in administering this body of the law, and the House will agree that their expertise and knowledge has increased enormously in the last 10 years.
  I would stress that all consumers do not live in the West End of London.

  935
  They live all over the country. Therefore, it is vital that the enforcement of the consumer protection laws should be based on local government so that everybody has an opportunity to benefit from the protection which exists.
  I do not believe nor does the Government that it is any more the function of the State to provide the consumer pressure groups. I pay tribute to the Consumer Council and to its members who served it for so many years for the valuable work they carried out. In a sense the Council blazed the trail. Many of the Acts on the Statute Book which I have mentioned owe something to the Council, and indeed in a way the Council paved the way for its own abolition. It increased awareness among consumers, it stimulated other bodies to come into the field and it was influential in getting legislation on the Statute Book.
  There are more private organisations in the field. There is, of course, the Consumers' Association which has a growing reputation. Its magazine Which? is widely read, comparative testing is perhaps its strongest side, and it is enlarging its field in many other directions. If any hon. Gentleman feels there should be more representation for consumers or if constituents write to him suggesting that they are not represented, he should suggest that they join the Consumers' Association, and perhaps even bid for office on that body's managing board. There are now over 80 local consumer groups which carry out valuable work in the districts and give their members full value for money. If any hon. Member has not such a group in his constituency, he might feel inclined to try to stimulate one to come into existence.
  There are over 500 Citizens' Advice Bureaux, partly supported by the Government, which undertake work in this field as well as in many others. Therefore, the pattern of consumer protection is emerging as consumers themselves want it. It is for them to provide the organisation they need locally and centrally. A Government body could induce the idea that the Government have guaranteed quality and approved everything they buy. This would lead to pressure for government to take responsibility for too much and would lull the citizen into a false sense of security.
  936
  One cannot protect people against their own mistakes, whether it be in buying the wrong lawnmower or putting in a wage claim that could price them out of the market. The difference between us and the Opposition is that we do not pretend that people do not have to show responsibility for themselves. It is downright irresponsible one day to come to the House and demand higher wages for all, on another day to demand that prices be stopped rising—except, of course, in the case of steel on which the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is always so eloquent—on a third day to demand that we increase company liquidity and investment, which could only mean higher prices or lower wages, and then, today, to put down this Motion demanding that the Opposition's irresponsible schizophrenia be sorted out by "an organisation" of unspecified powers and duties, which is to sit like King Canute on the rising tideline of prices, ignoring the economic facts of life. I ask the House to reject the Motion.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris): I would remind the House that there is three-quarters of an hour left for debate. If six hon. Members wish to take part in the discussion, three on each side, it will mean that each speaker should take seven minutes.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. George Wallace: I hope to speak very briefly indeed since I have virtually had my say on this matter on an earlier occasion. I would remind the Under-Secretary of State that the Motion which I put before the House last week was entirely my own and I was not assisted by any political party or group. It was put together by my wife and myself in our own home and was an amalgam of the experience of all the people in our area.
  The hon. Gentleman said that my Motion was not worth voting against. I find that remark offensive, contemptible and arrogant and an insult to the House which accepted the Motion. What is more the remark will cause deep offence in East Anglia because, during the debate on my Motion, one hon. Member said he regarded my contribution as moderate and one that should be listened to. I make no exaggerated claim for my efforts, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman

  937
  made a terrible mistake in making the remark he did.
  It has been claimed that the debate on the subject last week which was widely publicised, particularly in East Anglia, had some dramatic effect on the elections last Thursday. I reject such a claim entirely, but from the letters I have received since then from all over the United Kingdom there is an indication of public interest, support and concern. Indeed, favourable reaction has come from well-known members of the Conservative Party as well as from others. One staunch Conservative, a small grocer, was so incensed at the price of butter, and found it so difficult to convince his elderly customers that it was not his fault, that he came along to the Labour Committee rooms and offered the use of his car for the rest of the day and drove Labour supporters to the poll. At a social function I was approached by a Conservative lady who had retained her seat on a rural authority and who told me "Don't forget that I am a housewife, too, and I would urge you to keep up the pressure on the Government on this very important matter." I will not refer to what happened in Lowestoft, but if the Minister of Agriculture himself were here I am sure he would feel very worried.
  The Minister last week made great play, as did the spokesman for the Government this afternoon, about demands for the return of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and all the cumbrous machinery that he envisaged. I made no such suggestion and I do not make it today. I want to see some definite protection organisation set up by the Government which will co-operate with the Government and be recognised by the Government. The Government's theory of unrestricted competition, with the help of one or two organisations, is wishful thinking. In the present situation it will not work and certainly will not convince the housewife. While prices and the profits of the big food combines continue to rise, discontent will continue to grow. Do not forget that it was the women who swayed the General Election result in spite of the public opinion polls. It is my experience that women have longer memories than most men give them credit for.
  The Government have an almost pathetic belief in the value of competition
  938
  to reduce prices. This may be justified in circumstances where there are adequate supplies to meet demand. But when demand exceeds supply, as in the case of butter and beef, prices rise because of keen competition for supplies. People corner wholesale supplies by astute buying, and the resulting competition for supplies puts up prices. There are many basic foods which are in short supply, and competition for them puts up prices. That is a basic business philosophy. I am not an economist. I believe that we suffer from them too much. But these are the simple facts of life. This is the sort of situation that I am asking the Government to investigate and control as part of the battle against wage-cost inflation.
  I do not detract from the value of voluntary organisations such as those mentioned by the Under-Secretary of State. Apparently, there is now a move to set up a consumers' union. I have been approached in this connection and it may be that other hon. Members have. Such a body could become quite a militant one, and there is a danger in this. I remember the Housewives' League, which put out the Labour Government of 1945–50 and became almost a subsidiary of the Conservative Central Office —[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may laugh, but I am giving them advice based on experience of the past.
  The Government made a fatal mistake in abolishing the Consumer Council. I feel that they should now set up a similar body with wider powers, and I have suggested already that among its members there should be representative housewives. I do not suggest that lightly. I hold the view that the Government would be well advised to keep in touch with representative housewives, who can keep their Government closely in touch with their problems. This is vital from a public relations point of view, and I appeal to the Government to do it.
  Another factor which has emerged since last Monday's debate is one that I have taken very seriously. A letter from a Norwich doctor supporting my case appeared in my local paper. It went on to express serious concern about the inevitable lowering of nutritional standards due to the rising prices of basic foods, with a consequent threat to the nation's health. This is a very serious

  939
  matter. It is a point of real substance and an added and vital reason for a strict watch and check to be made on the price movements of essential foods.
  Today's debate inevitably is political in character, but I appeal sincerely to the Government to set aside their natural party prejudice. I do not blame them for it. We on this side have it as well. The Government should implement the requests made by an undivided House last Monday. To do so would be an act of statesmanship. To fail would intensify the divisions in the nation, which I for one would deplore.
  6.5 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace), no doubt with the best intentions, once again has confused two quite separate matters. The separation was made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in a brilliantly clear speech. It is that consumer matters divide themselves fairly sharply into those dealing with the terms of trade, price movements and matters of that kind, and those concerned with the framework of the trade, advertising, hire purchase, quality and all those matters. What is the right machinery for one is not the right machinery for another.
  When the hon. Gentleman appeals for the reinstitution of the Consumer Council, I cannot help thinking that lie believes that somehow the Council has control over prices, or would have had if it had continued. However, that was not its function. I am certain—and, if I were not, no amount of doctrinaire feelings or dogma would prevent me changing my mind—that no agencies or boards, whether public, semi-public or private, will ever be able to control prices. The most that we can do is, in conditions of monopoly or semi-monopoly or of restrictive practices, to provide suitable judicial and quasi-judicial agencies. I was delighted to hear that a rolling programme is envisaged by the Government for a bigger and better attack upon the monopolies and near monopolies which exist in our commercial and industrial system. We are told that it is foreshadowed for the next Session.
  I want to devote my speech mainly to the second and quite unrelated matter, that of consumer protection, properly so-
  940
  called. I agree with the objective of my hon. Friend, which is that as far as possible this must be self-regulating. Parliament must provide the framework of laws in which the consumer has a chance to protect himself and stand before the law on something like equal terms against his adversary, who must be the commercial and industrial interests.
  I fear that he does not do so at present. I do not think that one can do what I should like to see done eventually, which is to withdraw all public support for the consumer in this connection, until there is a greater equality before the law in this matter of the consumer claims. Whereas I welcome such legislation as the Misrepresentation Act and other improvements in the civil law, both actual and envisaged, which will give him greater powers and I am glad to know that the exclusion of the normal Sale of Goods Act warranties is very much in the mind of the Government at the moment—none of that will do much good unless in the civil courts the consumer is able, for reasons of cost and so on, to take advantage of these laws. At present he is quite unable to do so. That is why it was necessary in the Trades Descriptions Act to give to the criminal law functions which are not or should not be criminal at all. The consumer is unable to take action in the civil courts because he cannot afford it.
  I shall not expand upon this point. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) know my views on the subject, and they have been somewhat crystallised in the Private Member's Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for the institution of small claims courts.
  There are many different views about the machinery which should be set up, just as there are about whether we should adopt the American system or adapt our own county court system. However, the way to get down costs, which is the crux of the matter, is not by means of increased legal aid. No amount of legal aid in the future could possibly deal with the problem. The only way to keep costs down is for the court itself to call the evidence, instituting the investigating officer as an official

  941
  of the court, and thus doing away with the very expensive cross-examination of experts, with an expert's fee for each side, and with a great deal of time spent in the county courts.
  At present it is quite outside the scope of possibility of the consumer, not merely the poor consumer but the average consumer, who buys his washing machine or some other consumer durable and finds that it goes wrong, or who puts in central heating and finds that it goes wrong. At present he has no effective redress in the civil courts against the offending firm purely because lie cannot afford the costs. Certainly he cannot afford the possibility of defeat in the county court. That is a wrong situation. Hon. Members on both sides must have experienced the sort of hollow echo of laughter which occurs when a constituent asks, "What am I to do? I have a dispute with a commercial firm." Faced with such a situation, an hon. Member may say, "I am afraid that that is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the law courts, for you and your legal advisers." That is the correct answer. It is not a matter in which either central or local government is involved. The theory on which we work is that we should not interfere in such matters. But the hollow laughter which comes back is more than most of us can take because that advice is no advice. First, solicitors are reluctant to take consumer cases, as is well known, because there is no money in them. So the county courts have become totally unbalanced. The courts which were to have been for the poor man, created about 120 years ago, are now barred not only to the poor man but to the average man regarding these small claims.
  It is in this direction that the Government, particularly their legal members, should be directing their attention. So far there have been indications to the contrary, from both this Government and the last Government, on this all-important question of the small claims court. I use that as a "shorthand" description, although it is not a very good title. Until that is put right, there is not much point in passing civil law after civil law giving increasing rights to the consumer when they are theoretical in 99 per cent. of cases.
  942
  I hope that when we congratulate ourselves on these splendid laws which we have passed and are to pass, we shall realise that passing them is only the beginning. Until the procedure in the small claims courts is made open and possible for the consumer, I believe that there must be a public pressure group, which in theory I and my hon. Friend dislike, which, in some inefficient way, at least would hold the line until the legal procedural reforms which I have advocated are put into practice.
  6.12 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), who is my constituency neighbour, that prices and the general problem of consumer protection are to some extent separate issues. I do not want to talk about prices today—the Minister will be very relieved—except to say that the Government can hardly complain if they have been knocked about a bit concerning prices. We all vividly remember the lurid details set out in equally lurid leaflets about every small price increase which occurred under the Labour Government and the explicit promise issuing forth from the Conservatives before and during the General Election campaign that they would somehow bring a halt to rising prices. Since they have not done that, they can hardly complain if we rub it in a bit.
  Consumer protection is really the problem of the day-to-day frustrations of ordinary people whenever they come into contact with commercial organisations, whether shopkeepers or manufacturers, to get any satisfaction from legitimate complaints. We all know about these frustrations because we have all suffered from them.
  It is significant that today the Sun in its leading article, under the headline, "The Great Repair Racket", says:
  "The service and repair of household appliances is now a national scandal."
  This is perfectly true. One buys an expensive washing machine and assumes that it will last for a long time. When the housewife tries to obtain a spare part for a small appliance which has gone wrong she is often rebuffed and suffers a series of excuses: "The thing is now out of stock. There is a new model.

  943
  Write to our service department". When she writes to the service department, she does not get a reply. So she then writes to the headquarters and again gets no reply, or an excuse.
  The irritability, temper and effect on the health of the average person due to his or her inability to get any kind of satisfaction on a minor point, is very great. Shopping around for a small washer does not work, because one cannot get it. It probably is not made. This is why there is a need for a powerful body to speak for the consumer.
  Mr. Neil McBride: I am following my hon. Friend's argument with close interest. Does he recall that the Crowther Report on Consumer Credit advocated the appointment of a consumers' ombudsman in that sphere? Does he agree that this official should have his powers extended to cover the surveillance of all prices?
  Mr. Davidson: I agree; but I want to go further. One reason for the public being so frustrated is that they do not know where to make complaints. I should like to see a specific Government Department responsible for consumer affairs and nothing else. The Minister may nod and think that it is impracticable. I remind him that in Canada a Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has recently been appointed and is doing a very good job. The public in Canada are able to write to a Government Department with their complaints. The oath of office of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs states:
  "The Minister shall initiate, recommend or undertake programmes designed to promote the interests of the Canadian consumer."
  I should like a Minister, preferably of Cabinet rank, to have the specific job of promoting the interests of the British consumer. No Department has specific responsibility for the consumer. It seems to be the responsibility of a number of Departments and Ministers. The Department of Trade and Industry deals with weights and measures rules, trade descriptions, and the like. In some ways, it carries out those responsibilities very well. But the main responsibility of that Department is directed towards trade and industry. The pressure of trade and industry on the Minister is very great indeed, but no pressure is brought to bear
  944
  upon him by the consumer in general because he has not got access to him.
  Similarly, the Home Office has responsibility for bringing in all kinds of safety regulations, but it acts in a rather dilatory manner. Safety is important to the public, yet they have no say in the matter.
  I believe that a Department with specific responsibility to act for the consumer is essential if he is to get anything like a fair deal.
  Mr. Charles Curran: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, but will he take it a stage further and tell us what power he proposes to give this Department?
  Mr. Davidson: No, I will not tell the hon. Gentleman. He will have to work that out. I can understand the reluctance of hon. Members opposite to accept that they are the Government, but they must take responsibility. They have expert advisers, so it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility to work something out. I hope they will.
  I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he would take some action on the irritating matter of exclusion clauses in contracts of guarantee. I hope that early action will be taken, because the Law Commission has recommended that they should be abolished. There is no reason for the Government not acting upon that recommendation as soon as possible.
  Also, for consumer protection, the Government ought to introduce by law the concept of unit pricing for a wide range of commodities such as detergents, soap, cosmetics and biscuits. I cannot see why the public should not be enabled to compare value for money price for price and weight for weight. It should be easy for the public to do that, and I should like the Government to consider implementing that proposal as soon as possible.
  I do not want to delay the House for much longer. I have made my point, and I conclude by saying that there is a need for a specific body to represent the consumer. Despite what the Minister said—and I think he was rather complacent—he has not made clear why, if the Consumer Council was necessary and a good thing a few years ago, and the Opposition as they then were felt constrained to praise it in their election manifesto, they have suddenly, on becoming the Government, found a reason for abolishing it.

  945
  They have not explained why they have abolished it. I think they have done so because they have a doctrinaire objection to it, and for no other reason.
  6.21 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I have no doubt that rising prices had a profound effect on the local government election results last week, but it is somewhat odd that the Labour Party should be the beneficiary of the failure so far of the Government to bring prices under control. After all, it was the Labour Party that invented S.E.T., and it was the party that lost the local government elections which halved that tax. It was the Labour Party which, in Budget after Budget, raised indirect taxation, and only this afternoon we have seen hon. Gentlement opposite go into paroxysms of rage at the suggestion that tariffs should be cut. A tariff cut can only benefit the consumer, whatever other results may flow from such a move.
  I want to devote the main part of my remarks to supporting the plea made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) for a small claims court. Like the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), whom I think I can call my hon. Friend, I was delighted to hear that the Government intend to take action on the exclusion clauses under the Sale of Goods Act. This may be of some importance, but in the years that I have been in the House I have known only one constituent take action under the Sale of Goods Act to protect himself, and he won his case. Not only did he win, but he received all the legal aid that it was possible to give him. Nevertheless, at the end of the day he told me, "I thought I had won, but I find that I have lost", and that was because, although we gave him all the help that was possible, and although he won on every ground, he was worse off than he was before he brought the case. That situation is clearly a nonsense, and until the consumer can go to court, without ruining himself, to protect himself against goods and services that are defective, he will not be properly protected.
  The Consumer Council, whose passing I lament—I join the hon. Member for Accrington, and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen in regretting its demise—produced a report on the small claims court. That was only
  946
  one of the Council's many good works. The consumer still needs a pressure group working on his behalf, and the way in which the Department of Trade and Industry has taken on more and more responsibility over the whole range of industry increases rather than decreases the necessity for the views of the consumer to be heard in the echoing corridors of that Department.
  6.26 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I shall be brief, but I want to deal with the point made by the Minister that so much legislation in this respect has been passed that in a sense it absolves us from the necessity of having a conumer association to protect the consumer.
  Among the legislation that we have passed, there is the Trade Description Act. Having reread the kind of fraud with which the Minister and his colleagues went to the country, I am not sure that we cannot invoke the Trade Descriptions Act to deal with the situation confronting us. Hon. Gentlemen opposite promised:
  "We will give overriding priority to bringing the present inflation under control."
  It seems to me that under Section 11(3) of the Trade Descriptions Act they are in grave danger of offering goods as available for supply and then failing to come up with the goods, but I agree with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Good-hart) that this has become a major political issue. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, because he has recognised what his Front Bench has not.
  What was regarded as one of the Government's meanest measures was the ending of the Consumer Council. I speak with care, because I had a slight vested interest in it by marriage, because my wife was a member of the Consumer Council. However, as the Government have sacked her I am by the same token free, for once, to speak on consumer affairs.
  It is not sufficient to pass legislation to deal with the problem. The real difficulty is that people do not know how to take advantage of that legislation. My weekends used to be plagued by the telephone ringing and people asking, "Are you the woman who takes up carpets?" That is how they used to describe my wife, because there was no one else to whom they could put their queries.

  947
  They used to try to do things in that amateur way.
  It is clear that the Government do not intend to recreate the Consumer Council which they have just abolished, but the Minister has rightly paid tribute to the work done by many voluntary and private bodies. I am associated with the running of two such bodies, the Retail Trading Standards Association and the Consumer Association, and there are a number of other effective bodies in this field.
  I hope the Minister will consider setting up a committee with representatives from all the private groups in existence to give him advice from time to time and to supplement the advice that he gets from his own excellent officials. I fear that the voice of the consumer is not heard as loudly as it should be, and unless his voice is heard and heeded, last week's results at the polls may be repeated next year.
  We have the Trade Descriptions Act, but we have not made it easy for people to use the provisions of that Measure. My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) talked about value for money weight for weight and price for price. It is not good enough to say that a consumer can tell whether it is better to buy 6⅞ ozs. of biscuits at 21p, or 7¼ozs. of biscuits at 23½p. Perhaps the Minister will tell me which is the better value.
  Nor is it good enough to say, as the Minister did, that because it was so effective, and because of the work that it did in stimulating consumer protection, the Consumer Council is no longer necessary, that it has worked itself out of existence having done the job that it was set up to do. Every consumer organisation protested against the abolition of the Consumer Council. The real difficulty about the Council was that it did not have enough powers. Something on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington—a Ministry of Consumer Protection—may be the right way forward. Perhaps we could resurrect the Council and give it power to investigate complaints. That is one of the difficulties. Amateur organisations have been examining complaints. All the best ones have said, "Write to your M.P." We hope that House of Commons notepaper will make a firm jump, but it does
  948
  not always work. We have no power to make a firm jump if it does not wish to do so.
  The Minister has said that we are no longer talking about prices. In that case, what about the debate last week, when a Motion concerning prices was agreed to by the House? Today's Motion trusts that the new organisation
  "will embrace all the powers of the Consumer Council".
  I hope it does, and I also hope it will have the power to examine prices.
  It is not true that competition by itself brings down prices. Competition takes place in order that the competitive battle may be won by somebody. Firms do not compete and then blow the whistle for half-time. That is the great dilemma of the party opposite. Firms are competing to win, and when a firm wins it immediately occupies a monopolistic position, which means that the Government are in trouble. What are they to do? Are they to create an artificially stimulated firm, so that competition can start again, or do what is being suggested now, by setting up an organisation for consumer protection? Either they are going to interfere or they are not.
  Today's Motion is a very serious one. It is not enough for the Minister to sneer at it. He has said that my hon. Friend did not say how the organisation would be constructed, and he read an extract from his speech. To me my hon. Friend seemed to spell out a pretty good remit. There was no need for the Minister to sneer at the suggested presence of housewives on the body to be set up. Until we can extend democracy in this way there is no call for that kind of reply. We should pass the Motion because it is the will of the House, as indicated last week.
  Secondly, we must pay atention to prices. Prices are not rising by accident; many factors are involved. We have appointed a Minister whose wholehearted philosophy is to increase prices At the same time as the Government were saying, two days before the General Election, that they would cut prices at a stroke they were busy making preparations to appoint a Minister whose view is that the nation has been molly-coddled for too long by receiving cheap food. That person is now Minister of Agriculture,

  949
  Fisheries and Food. It is no accident that food prices are rising. It has not been due to inflated wage demands alone; it is also because we have a Government and a Minister of Food who are dedicated to the proposition that food prices should rise.
  Unless we hear that philosophy repudiated from the Front Bench today we must push the Motion to a Division. I hope the Government will accept the will of the House and agree to the Motion.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Luce: I shall be brief. I have been concerned in matters affecting consumers and consumerism for the last three or four years, and I therefore want to make two or three points. Perhaps because I have been succeeded in my last job in the National Innovation Centre by Dame Elizabeth Ackroyd, whose work has been so concerned with consumer interests. I have a more direct link with the work of the Consumer Council.
  I agree with my hon. Friends who have suggested that it is a fallacy to suppose that there is a link between setting up a national agency such as has been suggested—perhaps a revival of the Consumer Council—and a reduction in prices. I should have thought that the people who worked in the Consumer Council during the last seven years would be the first to agree that their work has had little effect in terms of a reduction in prices. They might argue that some of the work they have done has had a marginal effect upon prices. We would all agree that some of their work has had an educational effect upon the consumer, in that consumers have been told the reasons why price increases have occurred.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Does the hon. Member agree that the Consumer Council would be deeply concerned about the quality of a product in relation to the price paid for it?
  Mr. Luce: I am coming to that point. There is general agreement, certainly among those who have worked in the consumer field, that the setting up of such a body would not have the literal effect of reducing prices.
  Nevertheless, I believe that in a competitive economy it is necessary to have
  950
  a central consumer organisation. In the private sector excellent work has been done by the Consumers Association, which gives information on products and services. Products have been examined by about 80 consumer groups. There is the Housewives' Trust and the C.A.Bs. But, despite all these bodies, the evidence is that we still need a focal point to act as a lubricating machine between the interests of the consumers and the interests of the producers. We need such a body to co-ordinate consumer activities and to apply pressure.
  An examination of the work done by the Consumer Council over the last seven years bears out my point that it has had little direct effect upon prices but has nevertheless played an extremeliy useful rôle in helping the consumer in putting forward his case in many ways. It advocated the abolition of retail price maintenance, but in 1964 the Government had already decided to take action.
  The Council exerted pressure to enforce maximum prices for the resale of electricity and gas, and to retain the sixpence after decimalisation. It has done useful work in many ways. It has advocated the setting up of local insurance information centres and the licensing of brokers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) will bear me out when I say that some of the Council's most valuable work has been in connection with selling methods. It has said some strong things about doorstep selling methods and some of the abuses that have taken place, and has managed to bring about a voluntary code of conduct in connection with the sale of educational books and central heating systems by doorstep salesmen. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham will also agree that it played an invaluable rôle in helping him to get through his Unsolicited Goods and Services Act.
  In travel, the Council has played a leading part in getting a petrol grading system, and has also played a most useful role in improving the safety of electrical appliances, fire extinguishers, flammable nightdresses, toys, and so on. Its rôle in the consumer field has been very useful.
  The Government should go out of their way to encourage the revival of a central consumer organisation, but there is a case for a joint effort by the Government and

  951
  private sources together. I would urge the Government to consider doing everything in their power to bring this about. But it is a sheer pipe dream to suppose that by setting up or reviving the Consumer Council one could dramatically reduce prices.
  6.41 p.m.
  Mr. Edmund Dell: At any rate today we have heard a new principle of Government—at least of this Government—that when Motions are moved which the Government think are inadequately argued, they will not oppose them but will then arrogantly reject the view of the House. This will assist the Opposition in putting down Motions and in getting them through, but it may not assist them in getting them implemented.
  The Opposition Motion calls for the setting up of an organisation for consumer protection; the Government Motion places its faith in competition plus the efforts of unspecified public organisations. One which the Under-Secretary mentioned was the Monopolies Commission. I will come to what he said on that score. One public organisation should be an organisation like the Consumer Council. What public organisation is there which on its own initiative, without reference from the Government, after a survey of the whole field and a careful study, can advise the Government, Parliament and public on matters like consumer protection problems, on legislation for consumer protection, on how—as the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) put it—to achieve greater equality before the law, on improvements needed in competition legislation for the benefit of the consumer?
  Why have not the Government understood the significance of the fact that it is some of those of us on both sides of the House who are most in favour of strengthening the forces of competition who are most in favour of an organisation like the Consumer Council? The hon. and learned Member for Darwen I sometimes regard as the voice of competition on the Government benches. He is in favour of a body like the Consumer Council. Indeed, I think that every hon. Member opposite who spoke is in favour of body like that.
  952
  What was the Council's own definition of its job? Its definition, written by Lord Donaldson, was "to make competition effective"—to make it effective by pressure, information and legislation. I would remind the House of Lord Donaldson's judgment at the end of the years of the Consumer Council:
  "The experience of all consumer organisations is that it is becoming more, not less, difficult for consumers to get value for money."
  I was interested in the example of Canada quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson), where they have seen the importance of bringing competition legislation together with Consumer Council-type activity to the extent of putting them together in the same Government Ministry, recently created. These things go together. The object of the Consumer Council was indeed to make competition more effective.
  Two questions arise out of this debate. The first arises from the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen and the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and others. That is, what will the Government do about the idea of a small claims court proposed by the Consumer Council? Second, are the Government preparing the Crowther legislation? It will be difficult and complicated legislation to write. Are they doing that job? When will it be introduced?
  The Government obviously consider that there are many areas of economic activity in which competition is not effective. They take a certain amount of credit for price cuts which they say have followed the cut in S.E.T., although they are rather naive in this. They seem to have forgotten what no housewife would forget—that talking about price cuts is one of the methods of competition in this country. But this is clearly the Government's basic view—that there are many areas where competition is not effective.
  This is most recently shown by the statements over the weekend and today by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the consideration given to cutting motor car tariffs. He obviously thinks that competition is not effective enough in that industry, so he is considering unilateral tariff reductions—but he

  953
  will not make such reductions. He has also made that sufficiently clear. He may have pleased some of his hon. Friends by saying that they are thinking about it, but the idea of making these cuts is one which the Government obviously will not fulfil.
  If the Government are not going to do this in an area where they claim, in these statements, that competition is not effective, what will they do? Why will they not introduce price control? What will they do about the motor car industry if that is their view?
  We have been hearing for some time most recently in the Press, leaks and rumours about what the Government would do to strengthen the forces of competition. I welcome the announcements by the Under-Secretary today, particularly the short reference on breakfast cereals. He said that more references have been made by his Government in the last year than were made by the Labour Government in their last years. But I would remind him that if he is to have competition with us in the numbers of references—I do not mind such competition—he must count the references made to the Prices and Incomes Board, which was also concerned with the effectiveness of competition in securing price reductions or ensuring that price increases were not greater than they had to be. When he can beat us in that competition, I will certainly compliment him.
  But the House should realise what certain of the hon. Gentleman's announcements today really mean. For instance, there was the important announcement about the subject of price leadership. He said that that was a general reference. General references to the Monopolies Commission do not give the Government powers of action when it reports. If any action is required which is outside the existing law, as is very often the case, legislation is necessary. So what is the total process in the Government's consideration of price leadership? We have had a year of this Government before they decided to make this reference, and now there will be two years, probably, while the Monopolies Commission considers it, and then, if necessary, legislation. If this is dealing with prices at a stroke, we need some redefinition of terms.
  954
  The Under-Secretary also suggested that perhaps when the legislation is introduced in the autumn there will be something to do with price control in certain market power situations. When I asked him what those situations amounted to, he could not tell us. I suggest to him and the Government that they should do precisely what was included in the Commission for Industry and Manpower Bill, which they opposed—that is, make it clear that, in all market power situations, not just any situations defined within the existing legislation as dealing with a third of the market for goods, there should be a power of price control.
  Until the Government have gone that far, they cannot claim to have sufficiently strengthened the forces of competition to deal with the price situation which arises in areas of imperfect competition, which is what they apparently claim to be doing. But what will have been apparent during this debate—it is certainly apparent to this side of the House—is the complete and obvious inadequacy of what the Government are doing about prices in this period of gross inflation.
  Their powers are inadequate, and they are not taking more until studies are done or until the autumn. The timescale of their handling of the problem is inadequate. Indeed, it is clear that the Government have not the faintest idea what to do in this situation. Their desperation about what to do, as speeches by hon. Members opposite have shown, has not been reduced by the local government elections.
  So we are getting a new style of Government—government by ineffectual threat. "We will not bale out companies which give inflationary wage increases". How many companies have so far asked the Government to be baled out? "We will consider unilaterally cutting tariffs for industries where inflationary wage settlements are made." What unilateral cuts in tariffs have been made or will be made?
  I shudder to think what terrible threats the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will come out with next to chill our blood. He may shortly be using the famous words of King Lear, who had trouble with two of his daughters, greater than even the trouble that the Secretary

  955
  of State for Trade and Industry has with British industry:
  "I will do such things—
  What they are yet I know not—but they shall be
  The terrors of the earth."
  The Government do not know what to do. All they are doing is to threaten but not to act. Indeed, this is the judgment on the Government. Instead of competition, we have threats; instead of leadership, floundering; instead of action, words.
  6.50 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): I have only a brief time in which to reply, and I shall, therefore, have of necessity to go rather quickly. This debate has been conducted on two levels. At one level it has been a bit of a charade, and at the other perfectly serious.
  When the Opposition Motion calls for a new organisation, perhaps I need say no more than this. The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) last week and his hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) today both made it clear that they are looking for an organisation which will control prices. "Investigate and control" was what the hon. Member for Norwich, North said. Anybody who heard my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food wind up the debate last Monday will have been left in no doubt that it is not the Government's intention to introduce any body to start controlling prices. That was our attitude, and it remains our attitude a week later.
  Bearing in mind the clear, unequivocal, specific and categorical repudiation of that part of last week's Motion, I say on behalf of the Government that the Opposition Motion today is a bit of a charade. It was suggested by one or two hon. Members—the hon. Member for Norfolk, North himself used some fairly extravagant language—that it was offensive, contemptible and arrogant that we had not immediately adopted his proposal.
  Mr. Wallace rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I cannot give way; I have only about eight minutes left.
  There is plenty of precedent for this. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West
  956
  (Mr. Hamling), in a Motion concerning single women and their dependants, made the most specific demands for new social security benefits, and his Motion was carried. The Government did not do anything about it—nobody seriously suggested that they would—but the constitution did nod fall around our ears.
  We all know that hon. Members opposite, or some of them, are looking for the return of the high old days of the Prices and Incomes Board, with the joys of norms and criteria, early warnings and statutory guidelines. Equally well, however, they know that we on this side are not. That is why I describe that part of today's Motion as a charade.
  A number of serious issues have been raised and I will try to deal with them. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) mentioned the suggestion made by the Consumer Council in its publication "Justice out of Reach" for small claims courts. I remind him that on 17th February this year my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General told the House in response to a Question that this was one of the matters that were being studied by the Lord Chancellor. There were certain difficulties in the precise proposals put forward in the publication, but my noble Friend has arranged for the matter to be considered at a conference of county court judges, registrars and chief clerks and their suggestions are to be put to the County Court Rules Committee. It is suggested that to make justice cheaper in the county courts would be likely to be more effective than to set up an entirely new set of courts.
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) asked about the Crowther Report. He will, I am sure, recognise that this was a long and complex Report. It is, of course, being urgently considered by the Government, and I am sure that the House will realise that it is too soon for me to make any sort of announcement on legislation.
  The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), asked about weights and measures and whether we should not extend the powers under the weights and measures legislation to other categories of consumer protection. The Government are to produce a White

  957
  Paper on metrication, and there is not the slightest doubt that the introduction of metric standards will greatly simplify the problems of weights and measures. I think we should await that White Paper before taking any decisions.
  The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) made the astonishing suggestion that housewives are frequently incapable of shopping around, for a variety of reasons which he gave.
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: In some categories.
  Mr. Jenkin: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman what the Prices and Incomes Board said in one of its final Reports, on Prices, Profits and Costs in Food Distribution, at paragraph 199:
  "our consumer survey…showed that most shoppers did not in practice use manufacturers' recommended prices as a basis for judging whether the price of an item was high or low. They tended to compare prices between shops rather than against the recommended price."
  Mr. Cledwyn Hughes indicated dissent.
  Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Member shakes his head, but that was a point made by the board which he wants to restore. It really is not on.
  I should like, during the last few moments of the debate, to say a word about price inflation. It is a serious social evil as well as a grave economic danger, because it hits the poor and the retired, and it hits those on fixed incomes hardest of all. It forces a redistribution of income from the weak to the strong.
  "If we want price stability, then we cannot all have large increases in pay every year regardless of the rise in productivity."
  Those are not my words. They come from the last Government's White Paper on prices and incomes of December, 1969. There is not the slightest doubt that the sharp acceleration in wage claims since the third quarter of 1969 has had a
  delayed but dramatic effect on the increase in price inflation.
  Had there been time, I would have been delighted to quote the figures, but the pattern is absolutely incontrovertible: wage rises increasing rapidly from the middle of 1969 and price rises following six to nine months later. There cannot be one right hon. or hon. Member who does not in his heart acknowledge it. We are, therefore, asked for price controls. This is a lot of nonsense.
  "Modern industrial society, modern consumer requirements, modern design and selling, would make it impossible for a total system of price control, which could only become increasingly bureaucratic and irrelevant."
  Those, again, are not my words. They are the words of the Leader of the Opposition in a lecture in New York less than two weeks ago. I concede that he was not forswearing all price controls. Nevertheless, his words, spoken less than two weeks ago abroad, contrast markedly with the words of many hon. Members opposite in the House this afternoon.
  The fact is that we have a policy to fight inflation which is clear, which is working and which will be effective. It is the de-escalation of wage settlements. It is a firm control of the money supply. It is the reform of industrial relations. It is the reduction of taxation. It is the promotion of competition. We will not be deflected from this course by temporary unpopularity outside the House or by foolish charades in it. The Labour Party has nothing to offer but a repetition of the measures which failed when it was in office.
  I ask the House to accept the Government's Amendment and to reject the Opposition Motion.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 255.

  Division No. 364.]

  AYES

  [7.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Braine, Bernard

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Benyon, w.

  Bray, Ronald

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Brewis, John

  Astor, John

  Biffen, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Awdry, Daniel

  Blatter, Peter

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Body, Richard

  Bryan, Paul

  Balniel, Lord

  Boscawen, Robert

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

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Buck, Antony

  Batsford, Brian

  Bowden, Andrew

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Burden, F. A.

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Carlisle, Mark

  Holland, Philip

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Osborn, John

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hordern, Peter

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Channon, Paul

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Parkinson, Cecid (Enfield, W.)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Peel, John

  Clark William (Surrey, E.)

  Hunt, John

  Percival, Ian

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Clegg, Walter

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pounder, Rafton

  Cockeram, Eric

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cooke, Robert

  James, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Coombs, Derek

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cordle, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Timothy

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Costain, A. p.

  Jopling, Michael

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Redmond, Robert

  Crouch, David

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Curran, Charles

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Kilfedder, James

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Dean, Paul

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kirk, Peter

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Dixon, Piers

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Knox, David

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lambton, Antony

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Lane, David

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Rost, Peter

  Eden, Sir John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Royle, Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Emery, Peter

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Eyre, Reginald

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

  Sharples, Richard

  Farr, John

  Longden, Gilbert

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

  Fell, Anthony

  Loveridge, John

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Luce, R. N.

  Simeons, Charles

  Fidler, Michael

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McCrindle, R. A.

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

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McLaren, Martin

  Soref, Harold

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Speed, Keith

  Fortescue, Tim

  McMaster, Stanley

  Spence, John

  Foster, Sir John

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Fowler, Norman

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Sproat, Iain

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

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Stainton, Keith

  Fry, Peter

  Maddan, Martin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Madel, David

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Gardner, Edward

  Maginnis, John E.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Marpes, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Stokes, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Marten, Neil

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Mather, Carol

  Sutcliffe, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maude, Angus

  Tapsell, Peter

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Gorst, John

  Mawby, Ray

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

  Gower, Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Gray, Hamish

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Green, Alan

  Temple, John M.

  Grieve, Percy

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

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

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Moate, Roger

  Tilney, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Molyneaux, James

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Trew, Peter

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Monro, Hector

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  More, Jasper

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morgan, Geriant (Denbigh)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Waddington, David

  Havers, Michael

  Mudd, David

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Murton, Oscar

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Neave, Airey

  Walters, Dennis

  Heseltine, Michael

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hicks, Robert

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Warren, Kenneth

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Normanton, Tom

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Nott, John

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  960

  961

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Wilkinson, John

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrlick

  Worsley, Marcus

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Younger, Hn. George

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Ford, Ben

  Marks, Kenneth

  Albu, Austen

  Forrester, John

  Marquand, David

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Marsden, F.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Ashley, Jack

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Ashton, Joe

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Atkinson, Norman

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mendelson, John

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ginsburg, David

  Mikardo, Ian

  Barnes, Michael

  Golding, John

  Millan, Bruce

  Barnett, Joel

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Gourlay, Harry

  Molloy, William

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hamling, William

  Moyle, Roland

  Booth, Albert

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Hardy, Peter

  Murray, Ronald King

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Harper, Joseph

  Ogden, Eric

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

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Oram, Bert

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

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Orbach, Maurice

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orme, Stanley

  Buchan, Norman

  Horam, John

  Oswald, Thomas

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

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Paget, R. T.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Palmer, Arthur

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Hunter, Adam

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

  Pendry, Tom

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Janner, Greville

  Pentland, Norman

  Coleman, Donald

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

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Prescott, John

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  John, Brynmor

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Crawshaw, Richard

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

  Probert, Arthur

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Rankin, John

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

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

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

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

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Richard, Ivor

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Judd, Frank

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Kelley, Richard

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kerr, Russell

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

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rddgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Lambie, David

  Roper, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lamond, James

  Rose, Paul B.

  Deakins, Eric

  Lawson, George

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Leonard, Dick

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

  Dempsey, James

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sillars, James

  Driberg, Tom

  Loughlin, Charles

  Silverman, Julius

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Dunn, James A.

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Small, William

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Spearing, Nigel

  Eadie, Alex

  McBride, Neil

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Edelman, Maurice

  McCartney, Hugh

  Stallard, A. W.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McElhone, Frank

  Steel, David

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Ellis, Tom

  Mackie, John

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  English, Michael

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stodart, David (Swindon)

  Evans, Fred

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Fenryhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Strang, Gavin

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

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Swain, Thomas

  Foley, Maurice

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Taverne, Dick

  Foot, Michael

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

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

  962

  963

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

  Wallace, George

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Watkins, David

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Tinn, James

  Weitzman, David

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Torney, Tom

  Wellbeloved, James

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Woof, Robert

  Urwin, T. W.

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Whitehead, Phillip

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Whitlock, William

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

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

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Main Question, as amended, put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 255.

  Division No. 365.]

  AYES

  [7.12 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Jennings, J, C. (Burton)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Eden, Sir John

  Jessel, Toby

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Astor, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Jopling, Michael

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Emery, Peter

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Awdry, Daniel

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Farr, John

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fell, Anthony

  Kilfedder, James

  Balniel, Lord

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fidler, Michael

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Batsford, Brian

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Kinsey, J, R.

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Kirk, Peter

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kitson, Timothy

  Benyon, W.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Knox, David

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Fortescue, Tim

  Lambton, Antony

  Biffen, John

  Foster, Sir John

  Lane, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Fowler, Norman

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Blaker, Peter

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

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Fry, Peter

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Body, Richard

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Gardner, Edward

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gibson-Watt, David

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

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Loveridge, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Luce, R. N.

  Bray, Ronald

  Goodhew, Victor

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Brewis, John

  Gorst, John

  MacArthur, Ian

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gower, Raymond

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  McLaren, Martin

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gray, Hamish

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Bruce-Cardyne, J.

  Green, Alan

  McMaster, Stanley

  Bryan, Paul

  Grieve, Percy

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

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

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Buck, Antony

  Gummer, Selwyn

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gunden, Harold

  Maddan, Martin

  Burden, F. A.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Madel, David

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Halt-Davis, A. G. F.

  Maginnis, John E.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Marples, Rt. Hn, Ernest

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Marten, Neil

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Mather, Carol

  Channon, Paul

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maude, Angus

  Chapman, Sydney

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mawby, Ray

  Churchill, W. S.

  Havers, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J,

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Clegg, Walter

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Heseltine, Michael

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Cooke, Robert

  Hicks, Robert

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

  Coombs, Derek

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Moate, Roger

  Cordle, John

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

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Molyneaux, James

  Costain, A. P.

  Holland, Philip

  Monks, Mrs, Connie

  Critchley, Julian

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Monro, Hector

  Crouch, David

  Hordern, Peter

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Curran, Charles

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  More, Jasper

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

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

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Dean, Paul

  Hunt, John

  Mudd, David

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Murton, Oscar

  Dixon, Piers

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Neave, Airey

  Drayson, G. B.

  James, David

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Noble, Rt. Hit. Michael

  Normanton, Tom

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Nott, John

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Rost, Peter

  Tilney, John

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Royle, Anthony

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Trew, Peter

  Osborn, John

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Tugerdhat, Christopher

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Sharples, Richard

  van Straubenzee, W, R.

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Simeons, Charles

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Peel, John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Waddington, David

  Percival, Ian

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Pink, R, Bonner

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

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Soref, Harold

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Speed, Keith

  Walters, Dennis

  Proudfoot, wilfred

  Spence, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Sproat, Iain

  Warren, Kenneth

  Stainton, Keith

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Raison, Timothy

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Stokes, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Redmond, Robert

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

  Worsley, Marcus

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Tebbit, Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Temple, John M.

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Mr. Hugh Rossi.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Albu, Austen

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Horam, John

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Allen, Scholefield

  Deakins, Eric

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Ashley, Jack

  Delargy, H. J.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Gledwyn (Anglesey)

  Ashton, Joe

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Doig, Peter

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Barnes, Michael

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Hunter, Adam

  Barnett, Joel

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Driberg, Tom

  Janner, Greville

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Dunn, James A.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Eadie, Alex

  John, Brynmor

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Booth, Albert

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Ellis, Tom

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

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

  English, Michael

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

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

  Evans, Fred

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Buchan, Norman

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

  Judd, Frank

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Kelley, Richard

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Foley, Maurice

  Kerr, Russell

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Foot, Michael

  Kinnock, Neil

  Cant, R. B.

  Ford, Ben

  Lambie, David

  Carmichael, Neil

  Forrester, John

  Lamond, James

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lawson, George

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Freeson, Reginald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Leonard, Dick

  Coleman, Donald

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Concannon, J. D.

  Ginsburg, David

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Cronin, John

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  McBride, Neil

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

  Hamling, William

  McCartney, Hugh

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  McElhone, Frank

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Hardy, Peter

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Davidson, Arthur

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mackie, John

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Maclennan, Robert

  966

  967

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Pendry, Tom

  Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Pentland, Norman

  Strang, Gavin

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

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

  Prescott, John

  Swain, Thomas

  Marks, Kenneth

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Taverne, Dick

  Marquand, David

  Price, William (Rugby)

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

  Marsden, F.

  Probert, Arthur

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Rankin, John

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

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Meacher, Michael

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Tinn, James

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Torney, Tom

  Mendelson, John

  Richard, Ivor

  Tuck, Raphael

  Mikardo, Ian

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Ca rnarvon)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Millan, Bruce

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Molloy, William

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

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

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Roper, John

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Wallace, George

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Watkins, David

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Weitzman, David

  Moyle, Roland

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Murray, Ronald King

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

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Ogden, Eric

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

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Whitehead, Philip

  Oram, Bert

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Whitlock, William

  Orbach, Maurice

  Sillars, James

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Orme, Stanley

  Silverman, Julius

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Small, William

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Paget, R. T.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Woof, Robert

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Stallard, A. W.

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Steel, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Mr. John Golding.

  Resolved,

  That this House welcomes the determination of Her Majesty's Government to protect the interests of consumers through greater competition and through the efforts of existing organisations both public and private.

  ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
  Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not certain what the procedure is likely to be. The Committee has made some Amendments. I take it that the Bill as reported from the Committee will be moved and spoken to by somebody in charge of the Bill before the main debate begins. Can you give us an indication?
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that this is not a matter for the Chair.
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: It is regrettable that nobody responsible for the Bill, neither the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) nor any spokesman for the Government, who made observations on the Bill in their report to the Committee, is prepared to present the Bill to the House. Without hearing any of the arguments of those in support of the Bill, we must make our own observations immediately.
  Clause 5 deals with public order and public safety. This Clause was the subject of considerable debate on Second Reading. The Government then told us that they would make their views on the Clause known to the Committee. The Government have done that. I believe that if they had made their views on Clause 5 known to the House on Second Reading it is doubtful whether the House would have given a Second Reading to a Bill containing the provisions set out therein.
  The report made to the Committee by the Secretary of State for the Home Department made it clear that in the opinion of the Home Department Clause 5—
  "Control of large overnight assemblies in the open"
  was not a satisfactory Clause as drafted. The report called the Committee's attention to a number of matters and suggested that Amendments should be made.
  970
  The Secretary of State for the Environment supported the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The report made to the Committee by the Department of the Environment said this: "He"—that is the Secretary of State—
  "would …deprecate the passage of legislation which might inadvertently have the effect of making a bona fide promoter, who was both able and willing to make reasonable provision for these purposes liable to unreasonable harassment. He therefore would wish to be associated with the comments on points of detail made in the report to the Committee of the Secretary of State for the Home Department."
  So the unique position is that the Home Department and the Department of the Environment have grave reservations about the Clause.
  The Bill as amended still contains the basic provisions which were in the Bill before it went to the Committee. It still contains the very subsections to which the two Departments I have specified took exception. Clause 5(1) requires that a promoter or an occupier of land upon which a festival or an all-night assembly is to be held
  "shall give…not less than four months' notice of his intention to do so."
  The report by the Home Department suggested that this figure should be reduced to three months, but the Committee saw fit not to accept that recommendation.
  Mr. Mark Woodnutt: The Bill has had a Second Reading, and it may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that promoters of pop festivals have said that they need at least four months in which to make all the arrangements and to do the advance publicity for these matters.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Have all those likely to wish to hold pop festivals on the Isle of Wight made such an observation? Is that observation made by an association of promoters of pop festivals or is it just one person who has made that observation? I pray in aid not the comments of one unknown and unidentified possible promoter but the observations of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who thinks that the period should be three months.
  The Clause is even more serious, in that the promoters set out to make not only the promoter but also the owner or

  971
  occupier of the land liable to these penalties. It seems to be introducing a rather remarkable principle into a piece of private legislation, to make both the promoter and the owner of the land jointly responsible. How is the owner of the land, having let that land to a promoter for a specific purpose, to be held liable for any failure arising through the hirer?
  Mr. J. T. Price: I will try to answer that rhetorical question. The owner or occupier of the land, who is induced by the promoters of these great jamborees to accept a high fee for the purposes of housing or staging these jamborees—which may attract at least half a million people—must be held responsible pari passu and in similar manner to the promoter. Otherwise any attempt to control this in the interests of public order and sanity would break down.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: That may be my hon. Friend's answer to the question, but would he apply the same principle to someone who hires a motor car? Are we to take it that the principle now enshrined in the Bill would apply then, and are we to say that the person who has hired the vehicle to someone who shows good intention, has a current driving licence and proper insurance, is to be responsible in law for any breach of the road traffic code by the hirer? Are we establishing the principle that the owner of a piece of property, whether it be a motor car or a site on the Isle of Wight, should have responsibility in law for the failure of the person to whom he hires the vehicle or site under the general law of this country?
  Mr. J. T. Price: If my hon. Friend is sticking his chin out and asking rhetorical questions I will answer them. There is no analogy between the hiring of a car and the hiring of a piece of land, without sanitation or provision for public order, to attract vast numbers of people. It is a completely false analogy.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that every bona fide promoter of a festival on the Isle of Wight is not prepared to give a reasonable undertaking to a local authority, then he is taking a great deal upon himself in respect of a large number of people who regularly promote large gatherings and do conform to the law. Is it being sug-
  972
  gested that, because there have been isolated cases of abuse in the Isle of Wight, because the Isle of Wight Council was possibly incompetent and could not get a reasonable undertaking with a promoter, we should put into this Bill a principle that would be unacceptable to this House and to the democratic system if it were applied to any other area of activity?
  Mr. John Golding: Does my hon. Friend realise that the Newcastle Rural District Council, which is in my constituency, had similar difficulties in getting assurances from the promoters of a pop festival? Is he aware that the time allowed was too short to get proper guarantees from the festival operators? Many difficulties arose after the festival had finished, mainly financial. Those of us who represent constituencies in which pop festivals have been held realise the practical problems that arise because of the lack of powers on the part of local authorities and the police to control them properly.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I accept that. No one doubts—and on Second Reading I made it clear—that I am in favour of a law which would deal with the difficulties that arise at such large gatherings. I take the view expressed in the report to the Committee by the Secretary of State for the Home Department who said:
  "The Secretary of State understands that the type of assembly that has caused concern in the County Council's area has been the popular music festivals held there over the summer Bank Holiday period. He appreciates that such festivals may cause annoyance and nuisance to surrounding residents, but doubts whether problems of law and order"—
  and, if I may interpose, this is what this part of the Bill deals with, law and order—
  "to which such festivals may give rise are suitably dealt with by a Private Bill."
  He goes on to say:
  "He has considered whether general legislation would be justified, and, on present evidence and experience, he is not satisfied that it would."
  The Government say that the extent of the problems to which the Isle of Wight and the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) have been subjected, distressing and difficult as they may be, are

  973
  not matters suitable to be dealt with, in terms of the law on public safety and order, by this type of private legislation. On the evidence that the Government have received, they are not certain that there is a need for public legislation. I take issue with the Secretary of State. I believe that there is sufficient evidence, adduced by the Isle of Wight and my hon. Friend, of the need for some form of legislation. I am absolutely at one with the Government in that it should not be promoted in a private Measure—by a county council of the reputation of the Isle of Wight. This House ought not to be considering this type of legislation.
  The Government have a responsibility to recognise the difficulties and to deal with them by public legislation rather than running away from the issue. What divides my hon. Friends and myself are not great issues of freedom of assembly but what is desirable in terms of the control of these assemblies. Some of my hon. Friends, because they recognise that there are difficulties, are prepared to swallow this sort of objectionable legislation. I say that they are wrong, and should be joining me in saying to the Government tonight that it is the Government's responsibility to deal with such things.
  Mr. Woodnutt: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a need for public legislation. I have been saying so for the past two years. I think we shall get it. However, if Erith and Crayford were in the same position as the Isle of Wight, expecting 200,000 people and with no method of establishing whether there were sufficient lavatories, what would the hon. Member do? Would he advise his local authority to go forward and obtain legislation?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Prior to 13th May, I would have been in some difficulty because I had a pretty incompetent local authority in the London Borough of Bexley. I can now answer the hon. Gentleman's point with absolute certainty. The present, newly-elected Council of the London Borough of Bexley—which encompasses both my constituency and that of the Prime Minister—would, I am certain, by dint of application and persuasion come to an understanding with any promoter who wished to hold such a
  974
  festival in its area. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always telling us that we should do these things not by legislation but by voluntary agreement. I agree in this case. I believe that my Council could reach an agreement with the promoter. I am not put off by that red herring.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Would my hon. Friend deal with the question of whether in practice there is a need even for Government legislation to control law and order at pop festivals? Will he tell me the instances in which pop festivals have contravened law and order regulations?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not want to get into a detailed discussion about the festival to which the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight referred on Second Reading. One thing which is certain about that festival is that the chief constables who advised the Home Secretary took a completely different view from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight. They must have looked at the evidence because, in their advice to the Secretary of State, they made it clear that they did not believe there was any likelihood of trouble arising. In the report of the Secretary of State for the Home Department which he made to the Committee it is said:
  "The level of crime at such festivals is low. Chief constables, whom he"—
  that is, the Secretary of State—
  "has consulted, are of the opinion that the criminal law as it stands is adequate to deal with the problems that arise and that further legislation is unnecessary."
  The House must choose between the advice tendered to the Secretary of State and the right hon. Gentleman's recommendation to the Committee and the panic cries—because that is what they are—of the Isle of Wight County Council.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: What many of us find so objectionable about this private Bill is that it tries to treat the Isle of Wight as if it was separate from the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is part of the United Kingdom and therefore should be treated in no better or worse way and that the legislation which exists is adequate to cover the issue?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I would go a long way with what my hon. Friend says. However, I depart from him to this

  975
  extent. Large numbers of people—far in excess of the number which the promoters would wish to come together at this type of assembly—can be drawn in because of the enthusiasm which young people have developed for this type of music.
  Mr. Loughlin: Why not?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I agree with my hon. Friend. These people should be able to have an assembly in the open provided that adequate sanitary facilities are provided.
  There is legislation on the Statute Book dealing with these matters. If there were doubt about that, I am sure that the Secretary of State for the Environment and his Department, when they made their report to the Committee, would have said, "We welcome the Isle of Wight's Private Bill because the present law is not sufficient". They did not do that. There may be a need for public legislation in respect of very large gatherings. But, unfortunately, we have not had the opportunity of hearing tonight from either the Government or the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight. Neither of them was prepared to do the House the courtesy of deploying their arguments in support of the Bill. If they had done so, we might not have needed to deal with the matter in such detail as appears necessary in order to show the House and those of my hon. Friends who have expressed doubts about the case why it is necessary to oppose this piece of panic legislation.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharpies): On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I am not clear about how wide the debate can go. My understanding was that on the Report stage of a Private Bill it was possible only to discuss the Amendments which had been made in Committee. I should like to have your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it could affect the course of the debate.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: Further to that point of order. Would it not be easier to discuss only the Amendments which have been made if the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Wood-
  976
  nutt), had opened the debate by indicating what they were?
  Mr. Orme: Or the Minister.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): It so happens that, in this consideration of the Bill, there are not any Amendments. But Erskine May is clear about how the debate should proceed. Let me read what is said in the new edition:
  "Debate on the question for consideration of a private bill, as reported from a committee, or for its third reading, has been confined by rulings from the chair within narrower limits than the debate on second reading. Not only have attempts to raise questions of general policy been ruled out of order, but debate on the later stages has been restricted to the matters contained in the Bill".
  Mr. Loughlin: Further to the point of order. Would you help me, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I appreciate that I am not as bright as some hon. Members. Provided we relate our remarks to a particular Clause and its implications, I take it that we are perfectly in order.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes. The hon. Gentleman has stated the matter as well as Erskine May.
  Mr. Driberg: Did I hear you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say that the Bill has not been amended or that there are not any Amendments—because the Bill says, "As amended in Committee"?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry if what I said was not clear. What I meant was that there were no Amendments down on Report. The Bill has been amended in Committee, and it is the Bill as amended in Committee which we are discussing.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Fortunately, like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I acquired a copy of the new edition of Erskine May and I took the precaution of looking up the matter. I am delighted that your Ruling confirms my interpretation of Erskine May—that we are in order providing we talk about matters contained in the Bill. May I say, for the benefit of the Minister of State, that we stray out of order if we try to introduce matters not referred to in the Bill.
  Subsection (2) of Clause 5, which deals with public order and public safety,

  977
  provides that the Isle of Wight County Council may:
  "serve a counter-notice on the person giving such notice, requiring him to comply with such reasonable terms or conditions as they think fit with respect to water supply and securing sanitary conditions, public order and public safety and for the prevention of nuisance".
  I wish to pray in aid in support of my argument the report of the Secretary of State to the Committee. It says:
  "The Secretary of State recommends that the words 'public order'"
  —those are the words in subsection (2)—
  "should be deleted. He considers that the term 'nuisance' should be defined as a statutory nuisance within the meaning of the Public Health Acts".
  The Secretary of State, with all the advice available to him, has made a clear recommendation that the words "public order" should be removed from the Bill, and yet hon. Members opposite, I assume with the aid of the Whip which the hon. Member for Isle of Wight and others have sent out, are prepared to steamroller the Bill through as if it were an essential piece of legislation. It flies in the face of all reasonable men who believe in the right of free assembly subject to reasonable laws. It flies in the face of the recommendation which the Secretary of State made to the Committee. I hope that, bearing in mind Clause 5(2), the House will think very carefully before it allows the Bill to proceed further.
  Subsection (3) of Clause 5 refers to the necessity for an occupier as well as the promoter to be liable in law for the failure of the organisers in respect of any of the provisions of the Clause. I have entered into a dispute with my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) about this point in the Bill. Therefore, I shall not go over those arguments in great detail, but only say again that it would be a wrong step for this House to agree to this private Member's Bill, to a departure from the general principles of law so that the responsibilities at law of a person who hires a piece of property fall upon the owner of that site or piece of machinery.
  By subsection (4) the Clause goes on to lay down:
  "If the Council have reason to believe that any assembly to be held in the county will he an assembly to which this section applies but no notice has been given to them thereof
  978
  under subsection (1) of this section, by the person intending to hold the same or by the occupier…they may as soon as reasonably practicable after the intention to hold the same has come to their knowledge serve"—
  notice to supply information and money required.
  As drafted, that subsection is so wide that, in my judgment, it is conferring upon the County Council of the Isle of Wight a right to harass any organisation which wishes to hold an overnight assembly on the Isle of Wight, whether that organisation is the Boys' Brigade, or the Boy Scouts—whatever it may be. You name the organisation, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that Clause would give the county council the right to say, irrespective of the numbers involved or the intentions of the promoters—
  Mr. Woodnutt: Oh, no. This applies to assemblies of more than 5,000 people. It cannot apply to the Boy Scouts.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I read out the words of the subsection because they give the county council, if it has reason to believe that an assembly proposed to be held comes within the provisions of the Clause, the right to do certain things; the Clause does not lay down any restriction. The Clause does say not more than 5,000, but all the county council has to do is to say, "It is an assembly which we believe may exceed 5,000". Whether or not it is the intention of the promoters to have more than 5,000 is completely immaterial. Under this subsection the county council will have power to harass any bona fide organisation which wishes to hold an assembly on the Isle of Wight.
  Quite frankly I would make it clear to the House that I do not trust the County Council of the Isle of Wight to exercise such a wide power. I would not trust the Government to exercise such wide powers in a matter of the basic British freedom—the right of assembly. This is what the county council wants to do: it wants to have the power to harass, to stop, what it, in its own judgment, may consider to be an undesirable gathering, and it wants to have the right to require deposits of money to be laid down if it believes—as it can, under the subsection, say that it believes—that the assembly may exceed 5,000. So I say again that the Boy Scouts could come along, a group of young people not connected with any

  979
  recognised youth movement could come along, and then because they wear their hair very long or they have beards, somebody on the county council can say, "This is an assembly which may exceed 5,000, and therefore we require them to put down a deposit of x amount of money." This could be a harassment which could be used by the county council and it would destroy that fundamental freedom of the right of assembly, a right which we have treasured for so long.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I am fascinated by this argument about people who are promoting this sort of festival being required to put down an x amount of pounds for the privilege of doing so. My hon. Friend is surely aware that the people who promote these things commercially require the customers to put down x pounds for admission at the gate, and expect to make great profits out of the festival? What is the difference? It is no use quoting this libertarian argument to me. I have been here too long to listen to this sort of stuff without protest. These festivals are not necessarily cultural. They are purely commercial. Whether the people who come to them are young or old does not matter; they have to pay at the gate; and the promoters should provide a security for costs—because they can disappear to America once a festival is over.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I have already conceded my acceptance of some need of public legislation to deal with abuses, and my hon. Friend really should not try to—I will not use the word "twist", for that would be unfair to him—misinterpret my argument as he has done. Of course commercial organisations selling tickets in advance may require the participants, the consumers, to put down a deposit, a payment in anticipation, but I beg my hon. Friend to recognise that Clause 5(4) does not deal only with public festivals but would give to the County Council of the Isle of Wight means by which it could harass any organisation or any group of young people who might wish to have an overnight gathering, whether a two-day camp, or whatever it might be, on the Isle of Wight. Subsection (4) is so widely drawn.
  980
  The Clause lays down that the promoters of an assembly coming within the terms of the Bill will be required to put down as a deposit such sums as the county council determine to be reasonable in respect of the extra expenses incurred by "any authority". Subsection (13) says:
  "In this section 'authority' means the Council, a local authority, the police authority, the river and water authority, or any other body discharging functions in the county in pursuance of statutory powers."
  So a deposit is required to be put down by a promoter, whether he be an incompetent promoter of a festival which will take in people in excess of the numbers which are reasonable, or a competent promoter of a reasonable assembly. He is required to put down as a deposit a sum to cover the expenses of all those authorities, including the police authority.
  What did the Secretary of State say in his report to the Committee? He took exception to this broad principle. He sought in his recommendations to leave out the "police authority" from that definition. I completely agree with that view which he took on the advice given to him. He took as an illustration a football match. If a police constable is invited to a site where a football match is to be played, the promoters have to pay for that police constable's services. Quite right and proper. If a police constable is invited to a large assembly on the Isle of Wight, it is quite right and proper that the promoters of the assembly should pay for the police constable's services.
  By saying "any expense incurred by the police authority" the council is going further. The council is interested not in control but in completely stopping the right of free assembly. A policeman outside a football ground who is controlling the crowd and doing the normal duty of a police officer is paid for by the community as a whole. The Isle of Wight County Council is departing from this general principle and saying that the cost of policemen, whatever function they may be performing, shall be paid for by the promoters if the function is remotely connected with the pop festival. So a principle will be applied to the Isle of Wight which is not accepted by the Secretary of State for the Home Department

  981
  as applying to the rest of the United Kingdom.
  When hon. Gentlemen opposite next attend the Conservative Party conference there are likely to be many citizens demonstrating outside the Conference Hall in indignation at the things that this miserable Government have inflicted upon the nation. I will not develop this theme because I have noticed hon. Gentlemen looking at you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for protection against the charge that I am making.
  Mr. Woodnutt: I am not taking any notice of the last bit of nonsense, but will the hon. Gentleman read to the House the Clause which says that the Isle of Wight County Council will be able to charge the whole of the cost of the police?
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Clause 5(7) reads:
  "A person giving notice under subsection (1) of this section or information under subsection (4) thereof shall deposit with the Council by way of security the amount required by the Council under subsection (3) of this section and shall also give to the Council a bond of reasonable amount with a sufficient surety to be approved by the Council for the payment of the amount which the person giving the notice or information may be liable to pay to the Council in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) of this section."
  The hon. Gentleman will see that, taking subsections (7), (3), (6), and (13) together, this hears out precisely what the Secretary of State for the Home Department said in relation to the Bill when it was before the Committee.
  As there is some confusion in the hon. Gentleman's mind, I will quote what the Secretary of State for the Home Department said:
  "The Secretary of State considers that the efficacy of voluntary arrangements should be more fully tested and he takes the view meanwhile that those provisions of subsection (2) relating to public order and the prevention of nuisance (other than statutory nuisance) are open to objection. The costs of policing a festival site are high, but if police were required to perform crowd-control duties on the site itself, the organisers would normally be required to meet the cost in accordance with the usual arrangements for policing private property. In general, however, it is accepted that, while the organisers of events (such as football matches) that attract large crowds pay for the police employed inside the grounds the police are responsible for policing public places outside. The Secretary of State sees no reason to distinguish in that respect
  982
  between "pop" festivals and other large assemblies, as would appear to be intended, by the inclusion of the words 'police authority' in subsection (13)."
  In conclusion, this Clause, which deals with public order on the Isle of Wight in respect of pop festivals, is an unjustifiable and unwarrantable incursion into the freedom of the people. The Secretary of State for the Home Department concurred generally with that judgment in his recommendations to the Committee. The Isle of Wight County Council would do much better to direct its attention to other matters of public interest in the area rather than attempt by this Bill to ensure that the County Council of the Isle of Wight shall have the power to stop any festival or gathering which it considers undesirable. This is an affront to our democratic principles, and I hope the House will reject it.
  8.6 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Gorden: I do not intend to enter into argument about the Bill in any detail, or to take issue with the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) on the merits of the individual Clauses. I am no more qualified than he is to reject the findings of the four hon. Members who adjudicated in Committee on the terms of the Bill. They did this at the request of the House of Commons and have rendered good service to the House.
  The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford said that this was not a suitable Bill to bring before the House and that it should be brought by the Government and not by the Isle of Wight. The answer is that the House has given a Second Reading to a Bill which has been brought, quite properly, by the Isle of Wight County Council. It is common practice for local authorities to bring Bills before the House. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to say that it is not a proper Bill to be brought before the House when this question was properly and fully settled on Second Reading.
  Mr. Driberg: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present on Second Reading, but if he was not he will have read the debate in HANSARD. He will know that several hon. Members on both sides of the House—not only opponents of the Bill—said that this matter should be dealt with in a public

  983
  Bill. The Minister who replied suggested vaguely that the Government would consider whether there should be a public Bill. We shall possibly hear more about this tonight from the Minister. This was felt very strongly by hon. Members who were not opposed in principle to the Bill.
  Mr. Gurden: I am saying that this matter has been settled by a Division in this House on Second Reading. Therefore, the matter is no longer at issue. In fact, it probably is not right to bring up the matter tonight.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned, probably by accident, that this was a Private Member's Bill. It was said that my hon. Friend and a spokesman for the Government were expected to get up first to speak and accusations were made about that matter. That has nothing at all to do with it. This is not a Government Bill, it is not my hon. Friend's Bill, nor is it my Bill. It is a Bill brought by the Isle of Wight. It is beyond me why the hon. Gentleman should make such accusations.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misconstrue what I have said. It is normal that when a Private Bill is promoted by a private organisation, whether by a county council or some other body, and is before the House, an hon. Member is in charge of the Bill here. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) was in charge of the Bill on Second Reading. He has shown a great interest in the Bill and has received considerable publicity in his own area for his skill in conducting the Measure through the House. I should have thought that, as a matter of courtesy, he would have presented it again today.
  Mr. Gurden: That is absolutely wrong. My hon. Friend has no responsibility of that kind at all. The hon. Gentleman should know that. The Bill came before the House for Second Reading and was then sent to a Committee. It is not for any hon. Member here to take responsibility for the Bill when it comes back from Committee.
  The House gave the Bill a Second Reading—it could have rejected it, but did not do so—and requested four of our
  984
  colleagues, two from each side of the House, to consider fully every aspect of the Bill and to listen to all the evidence. The Committee apparently took all the evidence into account and its members alone are the only people qualified to know whether the Bill was properly dealt with.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: No.
  Mr. Gurden: Yes, because they heard the whole of the evidence.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: And it has all been published.
  Mr. Gurden: They alone know the full facts and they adjudicated upon the matter. Those four hon. Members did a service, not to the Government or to the Opposition or to any individuals, but a service to the House. They faithfully and properly carried out that service for the House as a whole. They had no interest whatever in the promoters of the Bill or its opponents. They declared that they had no personal interest in the Bill. I suggest that before we oppose this Bill, or any other Private Bill, we should have regard to the service which those hon. Members did for the House.
  Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although it is permissible to make a point en passant, it is surely hardly appropriate to continue a point to the extent that the hon. Member is doing.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is not out of order at this stage. I will keep a particular eye upon him.
  Mr. Gurden: I am about to conclude what I have to say. My experience of private Bills is that the Members who serve on such Committees carry out their work extremely well. They must be in attendance at the Committee for the whole of its sittings, they have to study the whole of the evidence and must come to a decision in an unbiased fashion. Therefore, before the House seeks to reject or criticise the Bill, hon. Members should be mindful of the comments I have made.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. J. T. Price: There are rare occasions in this House when we are in a position to discuss an important Measure on non-party lines, and

  985
  this is one of them. This is an occasion on which the House is asked to endorse action already taken by a group of its Members who have considered the earlier stages of the Bill.
  I must protest as mildly as I can that anybody on my side of the House seeks to suggest that because this is a county council Bill promoted by the Isle of Wight the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) in some subtle or mysterious way intervened during the Committee stage. That would be quite wrong. In fact, it displays a deplorable ignorance of Private Bill procedure in this House. One of the first disqualifications of any hon. Member for taking part in the judicial functions of a Private Bill Committee is that he has any remote personal vested interest in the subject matter of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) made use in his speech of the term "Private Member's Bill", obviously wishing to convey to the House that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight had in some way promoted this Bill, which is quite untrue. The hon. Gentleman was not allowed to function on the Bill in its judicial stages because he was disqualified by the rules of procedure in the House from so doing.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: If I used the term "Private Member's Bill" it was obviously a slip of the tongue. I do not recall using that particular term. It is a Private Bill promoted by a county council to which the hon. Member on Second Reading, in the broad terms as defined in Erskine May, was the Member in charge of the Bill.
  Mr. Woodnutt: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford has referred to me as the Member in charge of the Bill all the way through his remarks. I am not the Member in charge. I spoke upon and introduced the Bill on Second Reading but I am not the Member in charge.
  Mr. Price: I do not think we need pursue that will-o'-the-wisp very far. The Bill during its important Committee stage in this House was considered by two Conservative and two Labour Members. Those hon. Members carried out their onerous duties without payment or reward, and unless there was something
  986
  fundamentally wrong with the judicial procedure—
  Mr. Driberg: I hope that my hon. Friend is not going quite as far as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), who seems to be suggesting that, therefore, we in this House tonight have no right to utter a word or comment upon the findings of the Committee. Sometimes the House rejects the recommendations of a Select Committee.
  Mr. Price: I accept that fully. This is a matter for the House. If I conveyed any impression that no one had the right to make objection or criticism, I must have been using language more loosely than I do on other occasions. I do not want anyone to think that I have become so depraved as to deny the right of hon. Members of this House to criticise. However, that right is not always exercised as critically and sceptically as it should be.
  The opponents of the Bill say that they agree that there are circumstances, of which this may be one, in which a public nuisance or a threat to public order may arise where the Government of the day have a responsibility, and that it should not rest with local authorities like the Isle of Wight County Council to take it upon themselves to promote private legislation to protect the interests of their ratepayers and local populations. I do not want to bowdlerise or misrepresent the argument. They say that they do not disagree in principle that something needs to be done to control vast, disorderly assemblies of large numbers of people—in one case, up to ¼ million people—but that this is such a big task that the Government should take responsibility.
  If someone in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford gave three months' notice of his intention to bring in¼million people and dump them in a local public park for a musical, sporting or other cultural activity, I am sure that my hon. Friend would be equally vigorous and eloquent in his protest that bloody murder was being done in his constituency.
  The argument that until we have universal application of something desirable, no pioneer would do anything is completely bogus, even from a Socialist point of view. If Manchester Corporation had not taken powers in this House many

  987
  years ago to enable it to build up Manchester Airport, the second most important in England, long before the British Airports Authority, it would not have existed today. If Margaret McMillan had not started the first nursery school in Deptford and laid down the foundations of the nursery school system long before the legislators took charge of it, it is probable that we should still have been awaiting that development. So many of our great developments started in this way. If the Rochdale pioneers and Robert Owen, whose bicentenary has been celebrated this week, had not started the Rochdale Pioneers Co-operative Society, our great co-operative movement might not have been born and would not have developed in the way that we have seen. It is quite bogus to say that, however desirable a thing is, private initiative should not be taken in a pioneering spirit to create it.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Perhaps I might add a more recent example to those that the hon. Gentleman has provided of ways in which a Government can be influenced. In the last Parliament, when the hon. Gentleman's party was in office, there was a Bill to lay down a reservoir in Rutland. It was a Private Bill. It was fought very hard on the Floor of the House by the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, with the support of a number of his hon. Friends. We nearly won the day, but not quite. However, we made such an impact on the Government that they had to proceed in a way which has taken reservoirs out of the realm of the Private Bill procedure. In the same way, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) may be a pioneer if he forces the Government to take action on the matters dealt with in this Bill.
  Mr. Price: The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) has succeeded in getting those facts on record. I have no doubt that that will please the people of Rutland.
  This is a serious matter. It deals with a source of growing public concern, the assembly of large numbers of people without proper control. Quite apart from the merits of the Bill, which have been dissected by its critics, so long as we have a procedure under which Private Bills
  988
  can be promoted and financed without cost to this House and so long as this House understands that that procedure, archaic though it may be, is an integral part of our parliamentary system, we should honour it and support those hon. Members, whoever they may be, who recommend that a certain measure is desirable in the public interest or in the interests of those who promote it.
  8.26 p.m.
  Mr. A. E. Cooper: Listening to the debate, I have been prompted to ask what are the motives behind the opposition to the Bill from the outset by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg). Is it that, by permitting these people to go to the Isle of Wight, they wish to protect themselves ultimately from influxes at Erith and Crayford or Barking Creek? I cannot imagine anyone wanting to go to either place.
  Both hon. Members represent constituencies which are members of the Greater London Council. I challenge them both to say whether they have any idea of the powers of the Greater London Council in these matters. I assure them that the Isle of Wight is not asking for any greater powers than the Greater London Council has at the moment, without protest from either hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Driberg: Since the hon. Gentleman challenges us, may I point out that there is a slight difference between a crowded urban area and a rural area.
  Mr. Cooper: I suggest that when we are talking about a quarter of a million or up to half a million people, it does not matter whether it is an urban or a rural area; it is a very serious problem. When we put a quarter of a million or more people on to farms where there is no proper sewage or other services for them, I suggest that the residents of the Isle of Wight are entitled to come to this House and ask for protection.
  Mr. Wellbeloved rose—
  Mr. Cooper: I ask the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford not to interrupt me at the moment. He is a rare disciple of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson). He never uses

  989
  one word where two will do. This evening the hon. Gentleman spoke for three quarters of an hour and told us nothing.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: The hon. Gentleman put out a challenge concerning the powers held by the Greater London Council. I should be delighted to hear from him the Act, and the year, which gives the G.L.C. powers similar to those contained in Clause 5. If the hon. Gentleman will give me the details, I shall leave the Chamber and get the Act. If he is correct, my case falls. I ask him to give me, chapter and verse, the powers which he alleges the G.L.C. has.
  Mr. Cooper: I invite the hon. Gentleman to think of what happens practically every week in this country where large numbers of people assemble. The G.L.C. has powers, which it takes, to prevent people assembling in all kinds of places. It has power to call in the police to prevent certain incidents happening. The hon. Gentleman cannot deny things of this kind. Every Sunday we have to put up with demonstrations and protests within this great city which the Greater London Council, together with the Commissioner of Police, has to try to contain.
  I submit that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt), who represents his constituents in a most able manner, is entitled to ask this House that his constituency be protected from further incursions. I am sure that if this kind of thing happened in either Barking or Erith and Crayford, hon. Gentlemen representing those constituencies would be the first to protest and come to this House asking for powers to protect their constituencies. Frankly, I should be astonished and dismayed if they did not.
  We are entitled to live in an orderly way in which, shall we say, convention has a place, so that people can live as undisturbed a life as possible. I remind the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford that this Bill, which he is now opposing, received its Second Reading, despite the vehement arguments and opposition of himself and his hon. Friend the Member for Barking, by a majority of 62 to 2. That is all that the opposition could muster against the Bill. Tonight, I charge them with wasting the time of this House
  990
  on a Bill which they know the residents of the Isle of Wight need and have a right to demand from this House.
  I have been a Member of this House for about 18 years. In that time there has always been a tradition that when a Private Bill is promoted by a local authority it generally has the acceptance of the House because the House accepts that the local authority needs those powers. The argument is heard upstairs, usually by a Committee of two or three hon. Members from either side.
  I remind the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford that on Second Reading I had to give him a little lesson on Private Bill procedure, which he obviously knew nothing about. This procedure has been operated on this occasion, and it is the right procedure. A Select Committee of the House, comprising two Members of the Labour Party and two Members of the Conservative Party, has dissected the Bill, examined it, approved it, amended it where necessary, and sent it back to this Chamber for approval. I submit that in accordance with our best traditions we should accept the Select Committee's Report and give the Bill a Third Reading.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. John Golding: I came to the House tonight as a supporter of the Bill, because I have experience as the Member of Parliament for a constituency which has been hit hard by a pop festival.
  I was very much persuaded by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). He did not overstate his case. He accepted, as I do, the need for public legislation to deal with the problem. The danger of passing this legislation is that it will lead to a succession of Private Bills from counties hit one way or another—
  Mr. Gurden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can overhear some criticism of you in the Chair. I am not sure, but I believe that it is about the selection that you have made of hon. Members to speak.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I heard no such thing.
  Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. If an hon. Member makes the kind of allegation made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden),

  991
  surely it is incumbent upon him to charge the hon. Member concerned to repeat his statement? If the hon. Member who raises the point of order does not take that action, he ought to withdraw his remarks.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Golding: You will realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is an occupational hazard I face, that of being interrupted. I hope that hon. Members will listen to the arguments, rather than bicker across the Floor of the House.
  I wonder whether, by the Bill, the Isle of Wight County Council is making the situation worse for constituencies such as mine. Because of the restrictions which the promoters of the Bill are seeking to impose, pop promoters may prefer to take concerts to Keele rather than face the rigours of the administrative rules that will operate in the Isle of Wight.
  I believe that there is no need for legislation of this kind for the purpose of bringing about a greater degree of public order. The pop festival that I saw did not present any problems of public order. Before the festival was held I expressed grave doubts about what might happen, but the local police assured me that they were able to control the situation. I was in fact taken around the festival by the chief superintendent, and I realised that my fears were groundless.
  It is not necessary to have legislation of this kind to deal with the public order aspects of the holding of pop festivals, but there is a need to clarify the powers of local authorities. My local authority, Newcastle Rural District Council, found it very difficult to discover precisely what powers it had, and it appears that the administrative procedures are not very well defined. One argument for having four months' notice of a festival is that it gives local authorities the chance to come to grips with the problems which the holding of the festival creates. There is a case for legislation to tackle the administrative problems facing local authorities. I think, too, that there is a strong case for the inclusion of a deposit requirement.
  The problem of pop festivals does not arise from the young people who attend them; in my experience they are well
  992
  behaved. They are entitled to attend pop concerts, and to enjoy them in their own way. I emphasise the fact that the young people who came to Newcastle-under-Lyme were well behaved. The problem is to know how to control the promoters. I hope that my hon. Friends do not assume that talking in terms of the control of pop concerts one is automatically attacking the youngsters who attend them. On the contrary, I am attacking the promoters, because they are often people who have come together for a quick financial killing out of the youngsters.
  During the pop festival that took place in my constituency, my biggest complaint arose from the exploitation of the youngsters who attended by the people who ran the refreshment bars, and so on. A deposit should be required, because promoters can be fly-by-nights. After the concert is held they can easily arrange their financial affairs so that they can liquidate their company, which may owe money to the police, local landowners, and other local people. We require legislation to control the activities of such promoters.
  I oppose the Bill not because I do not believe that legislation is required but because I have been persuaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford that it is probably wrong to tackle the problem by way of a Private Bill. I am also worried because the Bill does not go to the heart of the problem, namely, the control of the promoters.
  8.42 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): It may be convenient if I intervene briefly now in order to indicate the Government's view of the Bill. This is a Private Bill, which received a Second Reading in the House. It consists of 58 Clauses and two Schedules, and deals with many different points, including such matters as power to borrow and power to make payments of superannuation.
  I was the Government spokesman in the Second Reading debate, and I expressed reservations about Clauses 5, 8 and 26. After a Bill has received a Second Reading, negotiations normally take place between the promoters of the Bill—the Isle of Wight County Council in this case—and those people who may

  993
  feel that the Bill needs amending in some way—Government Departments or petitioners against the Bill.
  The suggestions made by the Government in respect of Clauses 8 and 26 were accepted in full by the promoters. In view of the debate which has taken place it is worth reminding the House that Clause 5 is only one of the Clauses in a Bill that involved the ratepayers of the island in considerable expenditure. The promoters have accepted the larger part of the recommendations put forward in the report on behalf of my right hon. Friend, relating to Clause 5.
  The only major point outstanding is the question of the definition of "public order". The most important point accepted by the promoters related to the question of appeals. The Bill now includes a provision for appeal to the courts by a person aggrieved by any action of the county council in refusing an application, or attaching onerous conditions. This is a most important point. If the Bill is allowed to proceed further, there will be proceedings in another place, where points of detail can be discussed.
  Mr. Gurden: Does not my right hon. Friend agree with me that this is not a Government matter but a House of Commons matter and that, whatever the Government's feelings are, or could have been, this is a matter purely for the House to settle?
  Mr. Sharples: I would entirely agree, and it is not normal for a Minister to intervene on a Private Bill, but I thought that, for the convenience of the House, it would be courteous. There is, of course, no Government responsibility for the Bill.
  Mr. Driberg: The hon. Gentleman said that the report from the Home Office dealt with three Clauses about which the Government were worried and that two of the recommendations on Clauses 8 and 26, had been accepted. But Clause 5 is a very long Clause, so he may not be right to say that the greater part has been accepted.
  Mr. Sharples: The greater part has been accepted. The report dealt, of course, with a large number of details like penalties and to a great extent those have been accepted. The point to which we attached the greatest importance was
  994
  the question of appeals, which was a question of principle for the Home Office.
  Mr. Loughlin: Clause 26 does not relate to public order or assembly but to the council's power to borrow money. I want to get clear what the promoters have actually agreed to.
  Mr. Sharples: These were detailed points put forward on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment, and they were discussed in the normal way before the Committee. We feel that the Bill should be allowed to proceed.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Loughlin: Hon. Members opposite have made accusations about the motives of those who oppose the Bill. It has been said that one of the reasons why my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) are opposing the Bill is that their constituencies are urban and the Isle of Wight is rural, and so they need not bother about Bills of this kind. Perhaps, subconsciously at least, this is their motivation—
  Mr. Driberg: It is not.
  Mr. Loughlin: I would not like to argue that. I will be generous enough, as one who represents a rural constituency, to concede that their motivation is an abhorrence of Clause 5, which seeks to do nothing other than stop youngsters indulging in festivals of this kind.
  In my constituency there is the Forest of Dean. It is a national park. Every week of the tourist season we have an enormous influx of people who want to enjoy the countryside. It is true that we have not had any pop festivals so far, but every week, starting from immediately after Easter and going on until late in the year, somewhere around September, we have an influx of visitors into the Forest of Dean and we make provision for them.
  The Forest is administered by the Forestry Commission, and in all the areas of the forest there are picnic sites, camping and caravan sites and all the amenities that are required to provide for the enjoyment of the environment by all sorts of people. At least in one respect therefore, no one on the Government benches can claim that I am motivated by my urban constituency.

  995
  There has been a lot of discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price)—I do not know whether it is "Westhowton" or "Westhorton"; it depends which side of the line across the Midlands one is. It is "horton" at the top and "howton" at the bottom.
  Mr. J. T. Price: We speak English in my constituency.
  Mr. Loughlin: Hon. Members opposite have complained about the impudence almost of hon. Members who have opposed the decision of a Committee which has considered a Bill of this kind. I have known the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) a long time. I understand that he was associated with Wathes, Codtell and Gurden, one of the leading milk firms in Birmingham. From my experience of the hon. Member in the discussions we have had and the type of interventions he has made, it must have been goats' milk because his contributions in the House are so trivial and so out of accord with the type of people he represents that he ought not to be here.
  When the hon. Member tries to lecture me on the procedures of the House, when, in his mealy-mouthed fashion, he says, "Well, Mr. Speaker, four Members of the House have discussed this matter and we ought to concede them the right to do so", he is the last person who will lecture the House, or this side of it, and get away with it. We as a House have a perfect right to discuss—
  Mr. Gurden rose—
  Mr. Loughlin: I will give away presently. The hon. Member will catch it if he tries to be clever.
  We have a right to discuss any Bill that has gone into Committee, and we have a right at any time to overturn the decision of the Committee. If we did not have that right, the Bill would not be before us tonight. Indeed, the procedures of the House, which allow the Bill to come back to us from the Committee, underline the inherent right of the House to reject or accept a decision of a Committee.
  Mr. Gurden: Nothing has been said tonight to deny hon. Members the right
  996
  to oppose the Bill. I said that we should have regard for what four hon. Members did in Committee. They were better qualified, having listened to all the evidence, to judge the Bill.
  Mr. Loughlin: When in tomorrow's OFFICIAL REPORT we read the whole tenor of the hon. Gentleman's comments, we will see that he suggested that it would be improper for the House to reject the recommendations of a Committee composed of two hon. Members from each side. If that was not the hon. Gentleman's intention—and I gather from some faintly murmured remarks from my hon. Friends that they, too, had my impression—then I can only say that I must be dimmer than I thought I was. I do not see anything wrong in our rejecting the recommendations of any selected number of hon. Members who get together in a committee to consider Bills of this kind.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton took us on a tour. We went to see the Rochdale Pioneers and Margaret McMillan, ending up at the Rutland Reservoir.
  Mr. J. T. Price: My hon. Friend was obviously not listening to my remarks.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member for Selly Oak argued that the Government had certain reservations on Second Reading about Clauses 5, 8 and 26. I would have thought that the Government's main reservations were about Clause 5, which is extremely comprehensive and deals with every aspect of the holding of the sort of assemblies with which we are concerned. This is really a question of whether or not we should allow such assemblies to take place. Clause 5 is designed not to regulate assemblies but to ensure that festivals of this kind do not take place on the Isle of Wight in future.
  Mr. Woodnutt: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in that assumption. If he reads the Clause carefully he will see that it is designed to ensure some decent control over these large events in the open and not to ban them.
  Mr. Loughlin: I would not like to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that I have a good deal of affection for him. I am only sorry that I find myself on the opposite side tonight. I accept

  997
  that he firmly believes that the intention is to restrict assemblies. I shall not read out all the subsections of the Clause or go into detail, but when one looks at them together one can only conclude that the Bill's primary intention is to ensure that no further festivals of this kind take place on the Isle of Wight.
  I do not object to that. I do not object to the elected people of any area taking precautions against something with which they disagree. I do not disagree with that. What worries me is that if the Isle of Wight can promote such a Bill and, in so doing, ensure that there cannot be within its territory a festival of the kind that has taken place there in the past, it is equally proper for every area of the country to promote a similar type of Bill to prohibit such assemblies. On the first principle, one can only conclude that it is not right and proper that a particular section of the community should promote Bills of this kind because it is obviously a matter of national importance.
  But if the Isle of Wight has a right to promote such a Bill, and if the House allows it to go through, we may have the following situation. Another area—say, Gloucestershire County Council, my own county council—may decide that if the Isle of Wight would not tolerate such assemblies because someone on the Island thought that they were assemblies which ought not to be tolerated, the Gloucestershire County Council should take the same view and promote a Bill which, no matter how disguised, is designed to prohibit festivals of this kind. One can see that very quickly, once this psychology had been built up, all the areas of the country which were likely to attract pop festivals would adopt precisely the same attitude lest they were the recipients of, say, 150,000 or more people.
  Mr. Woodnutt: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman again, but does he not know that the County Councils Association, of which the Gloucestershire County Council is a member, supports the Bill and has requested the Government to pass legislation in similar terms to Clause 5, and that this also has the support of all the other local authority associations?
  Mr. Loughlin: Yes, that is precisely what I am frightened about, because the Gloucestershire County Council and other
  998
  county councils are not, by and large, red-hot seats of Socialism. I know my county council, and when I think in terms of county councillors, with the possible exception of the Forest of Dean, I think of lieutenant-colonels, the Lord Beaufort and one or two others. I know that they are not interested in pop festivals. The Gloucestershire County Council would oppose any Bill which sought to prohibit the horse trials at Badminton or horse trials of any kind.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: Does the hon. Gentleman know of any of the examples he has given which take place between midnight and 6 a.m. for a period of three hours or more?
  Mr. Loughlin: After the jumping has finished at a reasonably early hour at horse trials, what takes place then is a different kettle of fish and may well be illegal, but more recently we have been more liberal about morality.
  I repeat that the question is to what extent the Bill constitutes a precedent which will enable other areas to introduce similar Bills designed for the same purpose prior to the Government's taking some action, if any. The Government are composed of people who spoke about action, not words, but about the only action for which this Government are noted has been Ministers making gaffes at week ends.
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) bothers me because he confirms my fears. He says that the Gloucestershire County Council and other county councils support the purposes of the Bill and believe that it is right that the Isle of Wight should be able to prohibit pop festivals on the island. The hon. Gentleman says that other county councils hope that the Government will take action to deal with the situation at a national level.
  I am not against pop festivals. More nonsense is talked about young people and those who attend pop festivals than about any other subject.
  Mr. Swain: Bar politics.
  Mr. Loughlin: My hon. Friend knows how much nonsense is spoken in politics. He is an expert.
  We are trying to judge youngsters using our standards. I know that when a youngster puts on the television or radio

  999
  he turns the volume high and it drives me barmy. They have different decible standards but that is the only thing on which we can fault them. There is less immorality. There may be some sexual immorality, but there is less in a pop festival—
  Mr. Woodnutt: On a point of order. This is off the point of the Bill. The Bill does not deal with long hair, morality or anything of this nature. It is concerned with public health.
  Mr. Loughlin: It may be that I am out of order. The alternative to listening to me as I am performing now is for me to relate every part of my argument to Clause 5. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to talk out the Bill—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are hon. Members who wish to speak and it is the usual courtesy of the House to provide that opportunity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the Bill.
  Mr. Loughlin: I do not think that you have the right to instruct me—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair was not instructing the hon. Member, as the hon. Member knows, but merely drawing attention to the fact that there is a Bill under consideration.
  Mr. Loughlin: As long as you are not instructing me, as long as you are drawing my attention to what might be the courtesies of the House, I am satisfied. It is not perhaps in accordance with the traditions of this House to interrupt an hon. Member—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not going to criticise the Chair.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am not criticising the Chair. What I am saying is that the Chair does not have absolute rights in this House and if the Chair acts in an improper way I am entitled to draw the Chair's attention to it. As to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, all I can say is that I have not strayed out of order during the debate. Every remark which I have made—and intend to make—reflects the notes that I took on every speech in the debate. The hon. Member can see that it is no
  1000
  orderly note-taking; it is the sort of note-taking we do in this House. If I am out of order, then at least 50 per cent. of those who preceded me have been equally out of order.
  Clause 5 appears to be designed in the main to stop pop festivals. It is so designed because it is subsequent to the holding of pop festivals in the Isle of Wight.
  The intention of Clause 5 is to impose onerous terms on any organiser of assemblies in the county of—according to subsection (12)—
  "more than 5.000 people in the open which continues for a period of three hours or more between midnight and 6 o'clock the following morning."
  What other assemblies are held in the open and continue
  "for a period of three hours or more between midnight and 6 o'clock the following morning"?
  I would never charge the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight with sponsoring the Bill, because it is essentially a Private Bill, but he has a primary interest in it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He is piloting it."] I will not accept that the hon. Gentleman is piloting it. He has a primary interest, because he has a predominant constituency interest to ensure that the Bill is passed. I do not think I am being unfair to him.
  If the hon. Gentleman has a primary interest in the Bill, it presupposes that he has gone into fairly full detail about the reasons for and purposes of the Bill. It presupposes that he has discussions with his county council and that in those discussions the county council has told him why the Bill is necessary. The county council will have accepted that, as the hon. Member for the constituency, he has a primary interest in the Bill and would need to be briefed to the fullest possible extent on it.
  Mr. Driberg: The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) is an alderman of the county council, so naturally lie is for the Bill.
  Mr. Loughlin: That merely reinforces what I have said. If the hon. Gentleman had not been directly associated with the county council I would still have expected the county council to brief him to the fullest extent. If he is also an alderman of the county council there is a far greater responsibility on the council

  1001
  officials to give him an absolute and complete briefing, because any defect in the briefing would reflect on the hon. Gentleman, not only as a Member of the House, but as a member of the council. It can therefore be reasonably assumed that the hon. Gentleman has been told what is in the county council's mind concerning the Clause. It is reasonable for us to assume that, when the discussions took place, the hon. Gentleman said, "What assemblies does this part of the Clause refer to? Does it refer to the Boy Scouts? Does it refer to day trippers? Or to whom does it refer?" I am perfectly willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman now if he will indicate his desire to explain to us to what assemblies, other than pop festivals, this Clause relates. I do not think he can, because it relates to pop festivals.
  Clause 5 of the Bill challenges the right of assembly of a very large section of our younger community. Although this Bill, if it is consented to, will apply to the Isle of Wight and will restrict assembly in the Isle of Wight, it can be made a precedent, as I argued earlier, for other county councils and other authorities in this country, a precedent which they can follow, so that they can seek to take powers similar to those in this Bill. Indeed, on the basis of this Bill, after its passage, the Government could say, "We have a mandate from the House to make a provision of this kind applicable at the national level." For if the House passes this Bill applicable to the Isle of Wight what purpose is there in the House refusing to agree to a similar Bill at the national level?
  Mr. J. T. Price: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. This may give him a chance to get his breath back. Let me put this to my hon. Friend, whose full deployment of his arguments we are all enjoying—although we have other business, too, tonight—that I recently, in the last few days, presided over a Committee on another Private Bill dealing with another important matter—antipollution. I must not discuss the merits of that Measure now. I know that. However, this argument was deployed most forcefully on behalf of the objectors to that Bill to give powers to London to arrest pollution in this city. They said that if we gave powers to this city others might want them, but this is not an
  1002
  argument worthy of my hon. Friend, for, whether the Bill will or will not create a precedent, we are dealing with the merits of the Bill under procedure which the House has created and accepted, the Private Bill procedure.
  Mr. Loughlin: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that I dealt with his argument about the validity or otherwise of this House dealing with this Bill tonight when he, unfortunately, had to leave the Chamber for a time.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I have to leave it sometimes.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am not complaining. I said my hon. Friend had to leave the Chamber for some time. As to his second argument over another Bill to which he referred, I am very reluctant to enter into an argument on that, because I do not know the full circumstances about which he talked.
  What I was saying was that what we have to be concerned about are the implications of Clause 5 of this Bill. It is a dangerous precedent to set and a dangerous weapon to give to the Government. If the Bill goes through, the Government may decide that these powers can be given to other local authorities, and this would mean that no pop festivals could be held in the country.
  Mr. Woodnutt: Nonsense.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman may say that it is nonsense, but I invite him to examine the arguments in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow.
  Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North): Nonsense.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman has just walked into the Chamber—he has just come back from the bar no doubt. No argument has been advanced tonight by any hon. Member on the Government side to justify the abolition of pop festivals, as Clause 5 will do.
  Mr. Woodnutt: Nonsense.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman can repeat in his parrot-like fashion the word "nonsense", but he has not yet sought to address the House on this Bill in which he has a primary interest. I am one of the later speakers in the debate,

  1003
  and the hon. Gentleman has not sought to intervene—
  Mr. Woodnutt: Wait for it.
  Mr. Loughlin: I have repeatedly challenged the hon. Member to tell us what is in the mind of the Isle of Wight County Council. A few minutes ago I dealt with subsection (12) and asked him to tell me what other assemblies are referred to in Clause 5(12).
  Mr. Woodnutt: If the hon. Gentleman sits down in time I will deal with it.
  Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman should know that I will sit down in my own time. He has intervened time and time again, as will be seen in HANSARD tomorrow. I am concerned about the principle enshrined in Clause 5. If the hon. Gentleman can convince me that the Bill is not designed to deal with the pop festival, I shall quite likely change my mind, even at this stage. I ask the hon. Gentleman to tell me what assembly other than pop festivals are referred to in Clause 5? The hon. Gentleman does not respond, because he knows, as we all know, that the Bill is designed solely to stop pop festivals.
  Mr. Mawby: It is not. The hon. Gentleman should read the Clause.
  Mr. Loughlin: Will someone take the hon. Member out?
  We in this country have the weird idea that the youngsters are immoral and peculiar, and that because they have long hair and beards they are to be despised. It is the guilt complex of the hon. Gentleman that motivates Bills of this kind. I say that again and again and again.
  Mr. John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been out wandering round the House and when I came back the hon. Gentleman was making exactly the same remarks as he was making when I went out the first time. It seems to me that the hon. Member's remarks have reached the point of tedious repetition.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) will bear that point in mind. There are the provisions of Standing Order No. 22.
  Mr. Loughlin: With great deference to you, Mr. Speaker, if I have been guilty of tedious repetition while you have been in the Chair, I am willing to sit down immediately.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman made the threat a moment ago that he was going to say something again and again and again.
  Mr. Loughlin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I said "again and again and again". That is not a threat to repeat it time out of number. It is simply an expression which I thought that you understood.
  Mr. Gorst: Get on with it.
  Mr. Loughlin: I am happy to give way if the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) wishes to intervene.
  Mr. Gorst: I thought the hon. Gentleman wanted to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) had to say.
  Mr. Loughlin: I return to the point that I was on when interrupted by the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells). I say that this Bill is designed to attack the youngsters. If we have a Bill of this kind, including Clause 5, applicable to the Isle of Wight, and then other areas take powers—
  Mr. Woodnutt: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I have listened to this particular sentence being repeated no fewer than six times. I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to call the hon. Gentleman to order.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker. I have sat here through the whole of my hon. Friend's speech and I do not share the view that has been put to you in a point of order that my hon. Friend has repeated himself. On the contrary, he has used a number of varying arguments against the Bill, and I hope that you will take my point of view into account as much as that put forward by the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  Mr. Speaker: In fact, I shall be very considerably guided by the view of Mr. Deputy Speaker, who also gave me her opinion about these matters. The House is a fairly tolerant place and the hon. Gentleman has had quite a long run. I

  1005
  hope he will bring his remarks to a conclusion so that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) can speak.
  Mr. Loughlin: If I had not been interrupted, Mr. Speaker, I would have finished 10 minutes ago. I was talking about the youngsters being decent and moral, and I had almost finished. All I want to say is that the Bill is designed against youngsters, and I do not believe one can have a Bill of this kind without interfering with the fundamental freedom and liberty of a large section of our community.
  9.34 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Woodnutt: I will not waste the time of the House by repeating my Second Reading speech, which was on 19th March and is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 1789–95. If the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) had read that speech, he would have had a better understanding of what the Bill is about. It is a complete nonsense to say that this Bill seeks to ban pop. He threw out a challenge "If it is not pop, what is it?" Of course it involves pop. This matter has arisen, as I explained on Second Reading, because we have had three pop festivals in the Isle of Wight, the last of which was attended by some 200,000 people. All this Bill sets out to do is to exercise some control. It seeks to lay down rules by which the promoters of such festivals will have to abide.
  I was grateful for the intervention of one hon. Member opposite who said that this was aimed at the promoters, and not at the young. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has just talked about morals, long hair, sex and drugs. On Second Reading the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) called us all "youth haters". Both hon. Gentlemen are talking absolute poppycock. The Bill has nothing to do with drugs. It has nothing to do with morals. It lays down rules whereby the people who promote these enormous festivals for private profit are made to provide the proper facilities for the young.
  The Bill is designed for the young. It aims to see that they are protected from the kind of people who ran the Isle of Wight festival last year with inadequate facilities. It is to ensure that they get the right facilities.
  Mr. Driberg: The hon. Gentleman will recall that on Second Reading when I made that perhaps exaggerated remark about hatred of the youth, it was provoked by the tremendous chorus of approval of hon. Members opposite. Although the hon. Gentleman said that the Bill was not intended to kill pop festivals altogether, when I said that it would have that effect, great shouts of "Hear, hear" and "Good" came from the benches opposite.
  Mr. Woodnutt: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was provoked. I know that he was being interrupted. In any event, he referred to us as "haters of youth". In fact, in promoting the Bill the Isle of Wight County Council is aiming at protecting youth, as well as the local residents.
  It is quite useless hon. Members talking about the Forest of Dean. Everything is laid on there, and it is a regular place where amenities are provided. However, when the events which we are discussing are promoted, a farm is taken over and there is no provision for lavatories, water supplies and so on. Something has to be done to make sure that the promoters spend some of the vast sums that they receive in ticket money—£3,£4 and£5 a ticket—on providing the right facilities.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite has said that these powers are unprecedented, and they asked why the Isle of Wight should have them. We are dealing with an unprecedented situation. It is a new development in our society when vast numbers of people live in the open for several days and nights on end. When I went to the pop festival last year and walked past the inadequate latrines, there was a river of effluent flowing right across the field, into which everyone had to walk. That is the sort of thing that the Bill is aimed to prevent.
  I assure the House that the Bill is not to ban pop. It is unworthy of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West to say that it is. It is not to ban pop festivals. It is to give the local authority power to control them. That is why we have suggested that the fines should be so large, though they have been reduced by the Committee. At the moment, in the public health regulations there are various rules which the local authority can apply. However, the fines are a derisory£10 a day. A person who is seeking profit by

  1007
  promoting pop will not worry about£10 fine if he does not provide the lavatories and other facilities required by the local authority.
  I said that I did not intend to bore the House with a repetition of my Second Reading speech. However, I should point out that the support that the hon. Member for Barking and the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved) have can be judged by the fact that on Second Reading, which they ran through until nearly 3 o'clock on a Friday morning, they were beaten by 63 votes to 2. Following that, a Committee of this House made up of two hon. Members from each side spent three sittings considering the Bill and were unanimous in their decision. In addition, several hon. Members on the Benches opposite have signed the unofficial whip which I sent round, and have promised me their support. Moreover, Lord Blyton, an ex-Labour Member, who is held in affection by hon. Members on both sides, has undertaken to steer the Bill through the other place if it is supported by hon. Members opposite.
  Mr. Driberg: He will be in charge of it.
  Mr. Woodnutt: In my experience, this House has always been most sympathetic to the individual problems of individual constituencies and Members of Parliament. I hope that tonight it will not fail to send the Bill onwards to its Third Reading.
  9.40 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Driberg: We were extremely interested to learn that Lord Blyton, for whom we all have affection, as the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Woodnutt) said, is to steer the Bill through the other place, or as much of the other place as he can command.
  There are different procedures in the other place. The hon. Gentleman is not "in charge" of the Bill here. Although he introduced it, he is not "piloting" it; nor, I take it, is he "steering" it. Lord Blyton is steering it through another place. It is possible that he may meet some opposition there, because a number of noble lords, and even gracious dukes, open their extensive grounds and houses
  1008
  to the public and have even provided accommodation for pop festivals. Therefore, it would be interesting to listen to the debates on the Bill in another place.
  The hon. Gentleman in his concluding speech, which was as he said it would be brisk and brief, and creditably so, spoke of a "river of effluent" which he saw pouring through the Isle of Wight at the last pop festival. It sounds a little like Mrs. Whitehouse on the B.B.C., and it is just about as exaggerated. If there had been a serious river of effluent, I am sure that the medical officer of health for the island would have taken a serious view of it. As we know, the medical officer of health said that the health risks had been greatly exaggerated. I am told that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight said on television that he had never yet agreed with the medical officer of health for the island on anything.
  Mr. Woodnutt: I must put the hon. Gentleman right. The gentleman to whom he is referring is not the medical officer of health for the island; he is the medical officer of health for the rural district council.
  Mr. Driberg: I am obliged for that correction, but I do not see that it affects the argument, because he is presumably a qualified doctor. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is also a qualified doctor. At any rate, a qualified doctor would not say that the health risks had been greatly exaggerated if, in his qualified opinion, they had not been.
  Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, what is more important, the medical officer of health for the area in which the festival is held, who is charged with the duty of protecting public health, took this view. He is not just a general medical practitioner; he is a medical officer of health skilled in public health administration who took that view.
  Mr. Driberg: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Until the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight corrected me, I had confused the two medical officers of health, but do I take it that there was no great public dispute between them?
  Mr. Woodnutt: The medical officer of health for the rural district council said

  1009
  what the hon. Gentleman has indicated, but most of the doctors on the Isle of Wight thoroughly disagree with him.
  Mr. Driberg: Did they do so publicly?
  Mr. Woodnutt indicated assent.
  Mr. Driberg: I will not pursue the point.
  Mr. Gorst: It would be a great help, now that this confusion has arisen, if the hon. Gentleman could clarify one thing about the tenor of his argument. Is he saying that there was not sufficient pollution, effluent, rubbish, or whatever it is that 200,000 stampeding people create, to justify precautionary measures being taken as proposed in the Bill?
  Mr. Driberg: I think that precautionary measures were taken last year. Otherwise there might have been some health risk. But we are assured by one medical officer of health that the health risk was greatly exaggerated—exaggerated by those who are, no doubt, using that as an argument against the festival. That is the main point.
  There is then the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman and touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price). I have no brief to speak for the promoters of the festival, but it appears to be a very wicked thing that they should be what is called "commercial". The evil of the profit motive crept into the hon. Member's speech. I am sure that the Isle of Wight and the hon. Member himself are not against all commercial interests and all exercise of the profit motive. I am sure they are not against the capitalist system and the commercial society in which we live.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: That point has been concerning several of my hon Friends and myself. When the hon. Member talked about the evil of the profit motive he might have referred to something that appeared in newspapers in his area, about something called Bern-bridge Harbour, in which, I understand, he has some interest himself.
  Mr. Driberg: I shall not go into that question, because it is not strictly relevant to the Bill. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning it, but not for introducing it at this point. It is an important matter, but another matter.
  1010
  As for being commercial, that is part of the society in which we live; it applies to every place of entertainment—to every theatre and cinema in the land. Let us hear no more humbug about the wickedness of promoters being commercial and seeking to make great profits. They do not seem to have been very clever profit makers, because they lost a lot of money last year. They were not so clever as are some hon. Members opposite in making their financial arrangements.
  When the hon. Member says that the Bill is designed for the protection rather than the restriction of youth I must take issue with him. I shall not repeat my reason, because I do not want to be guilty of tedious repetition. It is the reason I gave when I interrupted the hon. Member's speech. There was a tremendous clamour from his hon. Friends when I said that this might make it impossible to have another pop festival in the Isle of Wight. There was a great roar of "Hear, hear"—fairly late at night, of course.
  One hon. Member had the impertinence and effrontery to talk about the motives of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and myself. It is strictly out of order—and the hon. Member would have been reminded of that fact if he had pursued that line—to impute any dishonourable motive to hon. Members in this House. It is not a dishonourable motive to take care of one's constituency interests, and the hon. Member therefore was not imputing a dishonourable motive but he was imputing a very foolish motive in not realising that the difference between an urban area and a rural area is that in an urban area, with a few relatively small parks, there simply would not be room to accommodate a pop festival of 200,000 people.
  It appears that in the Isle of Wight, which is a mainly rural area, there are many plots of land, fields, and so on, which have been considered for this year's festival—as I gather from the newspapers. I do not know which has been booked, if any has. Obviously, there is infinitely more room in a rural area to hold that sort of crowd. I like the amenities of our countryside as much as any hon. Member, but it is a matter of simple common sense that a country site can accommodate a pop festival,

  1011
  whereas an over-populated urban site cannot.
  As I said on Second Reading, our real motives are, primarily, concern for the right of assembly. This is one point at which I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), through whose comprehensive speech we all sat with great interest. He asked what possible crowd of more than 5,000 people could go to the Isle of Wight for this purpose. The danger seems to be to the whole right of assembly, not only for pop festivals. It could be a political assembly which was distasteful to the Isle of Wight County Council as at present constituted.
  A few years ago, when the great marches from Aldermaston were in progress at Easter, lasting a good many days, in fine weather, many of the people
  taking part would sleep out of doors, or sometimes in halls—
  Mr. Gorst: Which politician could command an audience of 200,000?
  Mr. Driberg: I doubt whether either the hon. Member or I could do that—
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: He could on commercial radio.
  Mr. Driberg: My hon. Friend says that the hon. Gentleman could do so on commercial radio. I think that he is—
  Mr. Woodnutt rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 43.

  Division No. 366.]

  AYES

  [9.52 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Green, Alan

  Monro, Hector

  Astor, John

  Grieve, Percy

  More, Jasper

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Berry, Hn, Anthony

  Gurden, Harold

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Biffen, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mudd, David

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Neave, Airey

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hannam, John (Exeter

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Braine, Bernard

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Normanton, Tom

  Bray, Ronald

  Hawkins, Paul

  Osborn, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

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

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

  Hiley, Joseph

  Peel, John

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

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

  Percival, Ian

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Chapman, Sydney

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Redmond, Robert

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Clegg, Walter

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Cooke, Robert

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cooper, A. E.

  James, David

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cordle, John

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Critchley, Julian

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

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Crouch, David

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Curran, Charles

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

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

  Kilfedder, James

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Dean, Paul

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Sharples, Richard

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Kinsey, J. R.

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

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Knox, David

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Emery, Peter

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Simeons, Charles

  Evans, Fred

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Eyre, Reginald

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Soref, Harold

  Farr, John

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Speed, Keith

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

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

  Spence, John

  Fidler, Michael

  Longden, Gilbert

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Luce, R. N.

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Fortescue, Tim

  McLaren, Martin

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Garrett, W. E.

  Maddan, Martin

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Temple, John M.

  Gorst, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Tilney, John

  Cower, Raymond

  Moate, Roger

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Molyneaux, James

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Waddington, David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Wilkinson, John

  Mr. Ray Mawby and

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Woof, Robert

  Mr. Mark Woodnutt

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  younger, Hn. George

  NOES

  Barnett, Joel

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Orme, Stanley

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Oswald, Thomas

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  John, Brynmor

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Dempsey, James

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Varley, Eric G.

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Driberg, Tom

  Lamond, James

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Lawson, George

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Golding, John

  Meacher, Michael

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Mr. Leslie Huckfield and

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardinganshire)

  Mr. James Wellbeloved.

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Question put accordingly and agreed to.

  Bill considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Bill set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour; and that the Motion relating to Local Employment may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

  CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Mr. Speaker: Before calling upon the Chairman of Ways and Means to move the consideration of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Bill, I wish to inform the House that I have not selected the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd), That the Bill be considered upon this day six months.
  10.3 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
  This Bill is of particular interest for a number of reasons. First, it is an attempt to legislate about a very topical problem, that of the environment. The Report of the Countryside Commission entitled "Planning the Coastline", published as recently as last November, referred specifically to Chichester Harbour as the first regional park.
  The proposals in the Bill extend beyond the scope which general legislation has hitherto involved, and it is, therefore, a project of a somewhat unique character, creating a local conservancy authority with a somewhat unique constitution in that it would comprise representatives of two county councils between whose areas the main Chichester Harbour has hitherto been divided.
  The Bill is promoted jointly by these two councils—namely, West Sussex and Hampshire County Councils—and would confer on the new authority powers designed to remove anomalies which have arisen from the divided administration of what is essentially one harbour and amenity area.
  1016
  The Bill is a direct attempt to further the interests of naturalists, sports councils, amateur and professional fishing interests and others, including particularly and specifically the interests of yachtsmen and sailing enthusiasts. What could be more topical—with a Prime Minister who adds yachting laurels each weekend to the political ones he gains through the week on the sea-green benches of this House?
  The history of the Bill's development is rather a long one and I will not bore the House with its details at this time of night. Suffice it to say that there have been very protracted negotiations. For many years there has been a pressing need to unify the administration of what have been two differently administered harbours and to deal with the problem of conservation in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area, which has been constituted an area of outstanding beauty.
  The Bill therefore has been promoted jointly by the two county councils, and the proposals have been worked out with the support of both the previous harbour authorities, which have had responsibility for the administration of the harbours, and the district councils bordering the harbour; that is to say, the Urban District Council of Havant and Waterloo, the Rural District Council of Chichester and Chichester City Council. Also party to the negotiations has been the Chichester Harbour Federation, which is representative of the users of the harbour. This federation represents both sailing and commercial interests. It includes among its membership some 16 clubs, all recognised by the Royal Yachting Association—and 10,000 individual members.
  The Bill has also been welcomed by the Nature Conservancy and by the Countryside Commission which, in its recent report, recommended that these regional parks should be established in appropriate areas, and specifically recommended that Chichester Harbour should be selected as the first area for the creation of such an authority.
  The House will understand that a very wide spectrum of users and different interests is involved, not only in, on and under the water but also on the shoreline and in the immediately surrounding

  1017
  countryside. As an indication of the large number of interests involved and the attempts made in the Bill to cater for all of them, I propose to read out the composition of the proposed conservancy.
  There would be 14 members, of which four each would be found by the county councils, one by the Council of the City of Chichester, two by the Urban District Council of Havant and Waterloo, one by Chichester R.D.C., and two by the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Advisory Committee, which is the next point I come to.
  There would be an advisory committee constituted by the Bill to advise and assist and to give all the help it could to this new Conservancy. This committee will be of not fewer than 14 and not more than 16 members, again with a very wide spectrum of interests: the Royal Yachting Association, of which I shall speak more in a moment, will nominate one member; the Chichester Harbour Federation, four members; the Sussex Sea Fisheries District Committee, one member; the Nature Conservancy, one member; the Countryside Commission, one member; the Greater London and South-East Sports Council, one member—this is an indication that people come from far and wide to enjoy themselves in this area at weekends and so on; the Chichester District Association of Parish Councils is not left out and gets one member; the Ship and Boat Builders National Federation, one member; amateur fishing interests, one member; naturalist interests one member; wild-fowlers, one member; and other persons interested in the harbour or the amenity area, if the conservancy think fit, another two members; totalling up to 16 members.
  The Bill's general concept was the subject of consideration at public inquiries as long ago as 1966, and again in 1968, into the revision of the Harbour Orders which were applied for by each of the existing harbour authorities, and it was approved at that time by the Minister as a desirable ultimate aim to achieve one unitary authority for the area.
  In addition, in 1968, the two county councils commisisoned a detailed report which was called the Chichester Harbour Study and was produced by the joint planning advisers of those two county
  1018
  councils. This admirable report confirmed the landscape value and the recreational potentialities of the amenity area bordering on the combined harbour, as well as the opportunities for the improvement of the recreational value of the harbour itself. The conclusion of this admirable and detailed report, as stated on page 61, is:
  "The main fact which has emerged from this Study is that all the various users of the harbour are inter-related and that development on the water is bound up with development on the land."
  At the next stage a steering committee composed of representatives of all the local authorities, the Chichester Harbour Federation as representing yachting interests, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy was established in November, 1969. This committee, which has taken a great deal of advice from outside interests, has been consulted fully in the detailed preparation of the Bill.
  Since the Bill has been published petitions have been lodged against it by three bodies. Two petitions have been withdrawn. The only petition which is still standing is that on behalf of the Royal Yachting Association.
  I must declare an interest, although not a financial one, because I have been a member of the Royal Yachting Association for many years. In fact, a little earlier I stumbled and referred to the "Yacht Racing Association" which is what it used to be called from 1875 when it was originally created—a little before my time.
  I joined the Starcross Sailing Club in Devonshire, and have a certificate to this effect, when I was one week old. So whoever else might denigrate or deny the yachting interests in a discussion of these matters, that man would certainly not be myself!
  The substance of the R.Y.A.'s petition is that as yachting and sailing activities form by far the greater part of the use of this combined harbour—there were estimated to be over 6,500 small boats in Emsworth and Chichester alone two years ago; the number has certainly not climinished—the R.Y.A. should have direct representation on the Conservancy Board itself rather than on the Advisory Committee.

  1019
  Although I am presenting the Bill, I have a great deal of sympathy with this point of view. It is true that sailing interests predominate. Chichester Harbour is a unique stretch of sheltered water, perhaps better for dinghy racing than any other centre in the United Kingdom. It is unquestionably true also that the sources of revenue available to the new Conservancy will arise largely from mooring charges and other fees derived from boat owners.
  The R.Y.A. makes the point that it has a personal membership exceeding 33,000, and also that over 1,500 affiliated clubs and sailing clubs are grouped under the overlordship, so to speak, of the R.Y.A.
  I can certainly vouch for the fact that the R.Y.A. is recognised as being the national authority for all sailing and boating matters—not only sailing, but motorboats as well, and all sizes and types of boat. The R.Y.A. is recognised as being a national authority, and it has a tremendous record, particularly in recent years, as an energetic and very responsible authority. Its position is not challenged by any other authority. It is accepted by all sailing and boating enthusiasts at all levels from 12 metres down to the smallest little pram dinghy that anybody could possibly be afloat in.
  The arguments for and against direct representation on this new Conservancy by the R.Y.A. could occupy us all night. I do not want to indulge in that exercise. We must face the fact that the petition of the R.Y.A. was very fully presented by parliamentary counsel in Committee on 5th and 6th April. The Committee's decision was against such direct representation by the R.Y.A. It seems a fairly narrow point. I can see what the R.Y.A. is driving at. I was not on the Committee but I have read all of its proceedings and I am bound to say that I wish I had been on the Committee because I would have had a lot of sympathy with the R.Y.A.
  But tonight we must face the constitutional position that the petition was rejected by the Committee. The R.Y.A. is not opposed to the principle of the Bill. Paragraph 1 of the petition specifically states that the R.Y.A. welcomes the general principle of the Bill for the unification of this vast harbour complex,
  1020
  almost totally concerned with yachting. The R.Y.A. likes the Bill, wants the Bill, and has only this one narrow objection.
  My judgment, which is why I agreed to put forward the Bill on behalf of its promoters, is that yachting interests as a whole would be better served by accepting the Bill as it stands and putting the new arrangements into effect as soon as possible than by reopening the whole question of the composition of the new Conservancy. To do the latter might be to defer for several years, or even indefinitely, the setting up of the new authority.
  There is a delicately balanced house of cards built up by the authorities concerned, and I fear that the insistence of the R.Y.A. on moving one crucial card might bring the whole edifice tumbling down. Queen Victoria's Lord Salisbury said that "the time comes when any decision, even the wrong decision, is better than no decision." I hope that the R.Y.A. will philosophically remember this dictum even if it cannot agree with it.
  The remainder of this long and complex Bill is not substantially opposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) has certain reservations. It is said that a miniature county council is being set up, remote from some of the people most affected by it. We are suffering from the inevitable consequences of the increased mobility of present-day sportsmen. They come with motor car and trailer, be it boat trailer or caravan, converging on this area of outstanding natural beauty, and it is difficult to produce any authority which can directly represent such a fluid population.
  The new Conservancy has the power to call for limited support from the county rate fund and to levy charges of all kinds throughout the area. There are appeal provisions against the charges, and checks and balances of all kinds. The accounts of the Conservancy will be published. We cannot have an authority set up to regulate as complex and crowded a recreational area as this without giving it the essential teeth with which to do its job.
  It is not specifically provided in the Bill that the Conservancy's meetings will be held in public, but I have been assured

  1021
  by the promoters that if this were an objection and it was not specifically covered they would be happy to support an Amendment in another place to cover the intention that the meetings should be held in public.
  The proposed Conservancy represents an experiment well worth making. It is a valuable experiment which may be very much the pattern of the future. I recommend the Bill to the House.
  10.20 p.m.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I am prompted to intervene very briefly for a special reason. Some time ago I was deputed by this honourable House to preside over the deliberations of the Committee on the Bill. I have no wish to detain the House by giving a detailed recital of the merits of the points in dispute, but, having heard all the arguments skilfully deployed by eminent parliamentary counsel on behalf of the petitioners, I am as familiar with the merits of the Bill as any hon. Member could hope to be.
  Having just sat through and taken part in another debate on a Private Bill, my simple plea is that the House should consider it a duty, not necessarily to agree with everything which the Committee entrusted with special powers did, but to accept that the hon. Members over whom I had the honour to preside and myself diligently and conscientiously considered all the arguments presented to us by the parliamentary counsel in charge of the petitioners' case and the promoters' case. As long as we have this kind of procedure in the House—the facility for private authorities, be they county councils or other bodies, to provide finance to promote a Bill which has a desirable objective, as this Bill undoubtedly has—we should at least give them a fair crack of the whip and consider the merits of what they propose, regardless of where the Bill comes from in terms of party politics.
  Although there was rooted opposition from the Royal Yachting Association, I was fortified by the support of the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), with his nautical experience and personal contact with the yachting fraterniy. Throughout our debates in one of the Committee
  1022
  Rooms upstairs, which were freely and fairly deployed on many occasions, there was a rooted objection that Chichester Harbour, which is an amenity district of great natural beauty, should be developed under the terms of the Bill as a minor national park, fusing together and giving co-ordination to the amenity and recreational interests of the harbour, the ecological preservation of the wild life and natural life which abounds in the sea and on the land in that area, and the fishing interests and those who earn their living on the quayside at Chichester, Waterloo and Langstone.
  All those interests have been fully consulted. I am advised that the consultations about the merits of this very enlightened proposal have been going since about 1966. The two county councils which are the prime movers in this matter—the West Sussex County Council and the Hampshire County Council, whose county boundary runs through the middle of the area we are discussing in which the Conservancy is to operate—went to infinite trouble to get the local authority of Chichester and the urban district which adjoins it to ensure that all the interests were properly consulted. Two of the petitioners withdrew their petition before the Committee.
  We were then faced with this rather unfortunate sticking point, that the yachting interests said, "We ought to be given a special place on the authority itself", that is, the governing board to be entrusted with the administration of this undertaking. In its wisdom, the Committee rejected this. It rejected it after full consideration, regardless of any party issue. I say that because, as hon. Members know, these Committees are composed of hon. Members representing both sides of the House. The yachting interests thought—this was the basis of their case—that because they provided so many of those who visit the harbour and enjoy its amenities and sail in its waters and in the waters of the estuaries of the rivers, and because they were producing such a large amount of the revenue which comes from levies by the harbour authority, they were entitled to special representation. In fact, representation of all the yachting interests has been amply provided for in the advisory committee which is being set up and which has 14 members. There is no need for me to

  1023
  weary the House with the details of whom they represent.
  What this community desires is to merge together the many interests and functions which can affect the whole life of that area, the amenity and cultural welfare of the area, and to preserve what is well worth preserving, and could be destroyed by clumsy commercial development. The opposition is based upon the fact that those who supply a lot of the revenue wish to have special representation.
  I am speaking now from memory without reference to a lot of notes, but I understand that a great many of the people—90 per cent. of them—who go to the harbour every weekend or at such other times as they wish to sail their craft on the waters of this inland sea are commuters; they are not local ratepayers, nor members of the local community, but people who because of motor cars and other means of easy traction can go there from all the surrounding areas, and from London—from very far afield, indeed. That is all right; we have no objection to that; and, no doubt, we should do the same thing if we lived in that delectable part of the country. I am speaking as a Lancastrian, as a northern man—who has still some beautiful country left in his part of the world and who is far removed from the seat of this dispute which has arisen.
  I would simply say this. If I were buying goods made by I.C.I. or Lever Brothers, and were buying them at the market price, I would not demand a seat on the board of I.C.I. or of Lever Brothers merely because I bought their products. I would be content to pay the commercial price for their goods or services, as the case might be. Here we have the rather peculiar argument, which I think it difficult to sustain in logic or equity, "Because we are a numerous community and go to those waters and take part in the activities there and provide a lot of the revenue, we must be specially represented."
  In reply to that, the Committee on the Bill came to the view that the two county councils have financial commitments to meet any deficit, if there were to be one, in the financing of the Conservancy. We hope, of course, that there
  1024
  will not be any deficit, but in the formative stages the county councils would be legally obliged under the terms of the Bill to provide compensating revenue if there were to be a deficit, and we, as a Committee, thought that it would be constitutionally wrong to give to outside, individual people enjoying the services of the district a voice on the governing board directly, so long as they are given adequate consultation through the advisory committee, on which they will be strongly represented.
  Those who have investigated these matters, as I have with my three colleagues, are entitled to ask for the support of the House in endorsing what we have done and letting the Bill proceed on its normal course. There is sometimes prejudice in these matters. Private Bills which are opposed are sometimes debated by very few hon. Members, but when the Division bell rings hon. Members flock into the Lobbies on party lines, regardless of the merits of the Bill. Whilst I am a party politician, like any other, I would never be so narrow as to cast a blind vote on an issue concerned with the preservation and improvement of a special part of our country. The Bill is highly desirable, it is enlightened and liberal-minded, it has been soundly constructed and all interests have been consulted. If by some blind vote the House were ill-advised enough to reject the Bill, it would take many years to get it on its feet again. I commend the Bill to the House with the utmost confidence.
  10.31 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): This Bill is being promoted jointly by the West Sussex and Hampshire County Councils, and its purpose is to unify the ownership and management of the two harbours, Chichester and Emsworth, which are now run by Chichester Corporation and Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council. It is a Private Bill, and the Government's attitude towards it is one of strict, though benevolent, neutrality.
  The Bill touches on several aspects of the work of the Department of the Environment. There is, for example, the harbour. A general responsibility for harbour matters falls to my right hon. Friend, but the Bill for all that is essentially a local harbour measure to meet a

  1025
  local need, and my Department does not have, and would not wish to have, any special locus. We are, however, broadly content with the Bill as it stands and would not wish to dissent from anything that it says about the harbour.
  Secondly, in so far as the Bill touches on the management of the countryside, once again the Department of the Environment has an interest. It is very gratifying that the lovely countryside bordering on these waters should, as the Bill proposes, be taken under the wing of a body such as the Harbour Conservancy. I feel sure the House will agree that this is an appropriate response to the need to protect this beautiful amenity area and to manage it in the best interests both of the flora and fauna and of the many people keenly interested in rural pursuits who will take their enjoyment there.
  Thirdly, my Department has an interest in the sporting and recreational aspects that are touched upon in the Bill. I invariably welcome any prospect of sensible improved provision being made for sport and recreation, and in particular in this area for water sports. We are in the presence of a recreational explosion. More and more people with more leisure and more mobility are pressing to the shores and the countryside seeking their pleasure. In particular, there is an enormous upsurge in water sports of all kinds. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has here set a splendid example. But he is not alone. I understand that nearly 1½million people regularly turn to water sports, to sailing. There are, of course, anglers as well, and fishing is covered in some of the provisions of the Bill. On that count also I think I can rightly say that my right hon. Friend's approach is one of benevolent neutrality.
  As I understand it, the yachting interests do not oppose the Measure in principle. It would not be right for me to take up a view one way or another on the question of the numbers and representation of those yachting interests on either the Conservancy or the Advisory Committee. As I understand the situation, the Committee of the House was in favour of having a Conservancy Board composed of 12 local authority members and two Advisory Committee members as proposed in the Bill itself. I would
  1026
  have thought there would be a general measure of contentment with that.
  If, on the other hand, it should be the wish of the House that the yachting interests should have a stronger say one way or another in the affairs of the Board, then so far as my Department is concerned my right hon. Friend would not wish to dispute this point. From the Government's point of view we see the advantages of this Bill. We adopt a stance of benevolent neutrality.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: The House has had the interesting prospect of seeing in this debate benevolent neutrality displayed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, benevolent paternalism from the hon. Member who chaired the Private Bill Committee, and benevolent criticism from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). Within those three forms of benevolence, it would be difficult for me to make my points without exposing myself to a charge of arrogance.
  Clearly, what has been said about the functions and operations of Private Bill Committees is justified and hon. Members who sit on such Committees must be said to have considered this Bill and all other Bills that come before such Committees with care and patience. I do not think anybody would dispute that those hon. Members did so on this occasion.
  My point of view is not based on objection to the general objectives or principles of the Bill. I have made it clear that I do not propose to divide the House on this issue. I have, however, a number of serious reservations on the Bill and I would be failing in my duty if I did not express them, particularly in view of the many representations made to me by constituents and, of course, because this whole area falls virtually in the heart of my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway). The two of us may be said to have a much closer interest in everything the Bill is proposing than might be true of many other right hon. and hon. Members.
  My first objection, and it is a real one, is to the manner in which the Bill has been handled. This possibly is as much

  1027
  a criticism of Private Bill procedure as of the way in which this particular Bill has been handled.
  My second criticism is perhaps more fundamental, because it applies to the mechanism or mode of operation which will be employed by the Bill in the operation of the Conservancy Board. In principle we should never seek to end up, in this day and age, with anything that exposes us to the criticism of establishing a remote form of government—a form of government, whether central, local or specialist, as in this case, which can be seriously criticised as being unresponsive to the needs of those whom the particular administration affects.
  Thirdly, I am critical of the powers of the Conservancy. Those powers, though constrained, seem to me to be of a considerable and wide extent. Page 19 of the Bill sets out these powers in detail, and it would be of interest if I were to summarise them. They include the provision, erection and maintenance of all such accommodation, houses, buildings, structures, erections, vehicles, plant, machinery etc., the holding of exhibitions, shows, regattas, competitions and contests, the provision of hostels and caravan sites, the provision of accommodation for, and the provision of meals and freshments, the provision, improvement or maintenance of roads and parking places, the dissemination of all forms of publicity and the provision of information centres, and the levying of charges for admission to, or the use of, any of the facilities.
  Then, over the page, there comes a provision which has been criticised in representations made to me:
  "The Conservancy may for the purpose of or in connection with any of their functions acquire any land within the harbour or the amenity area by agreement, whether by way of purchase, exchage, lease or otherwise."
  The following subsection reads:
  "The Conservancy, by means of an order made by them and submitted to and confirmed by the Secretary of State may be authorised to purchase compulsorily any such land as aforesaid."
  These are very considerable powers.
  When I say that we are, by this Bill, creating a miniature county council, I accept what the Clerk of the West Sussex County Council said to me in a letter
  1028
  which I received this morning, which is to the effect that most of these powers are those of existing harbour boards or are subject to ratification or transfer by existing county councils. None the less, an authority of this kind is in a different relationship to county councils from the private individual. Theoretically, these powers may be circumscribed in this way. But when an authority is given the kinds of powers that are proposed in this Bill, the argument that we are establishing a minature county council can be maintained in substance.
  I turn to the manner in which the Bill has been handled. In essence, many representations were invited, and many may have been considered. During the long procedure of discussion, I have no doubt that that was the case. But it has been made clear to me in the past few weeks that numerous smaller organisations, unable to afford the very considerable costs of petitioning the Private Bill Committee which considered the Bill, have not had their case fully considered. We may think that that is not the case. The Committee may think that it is not the case. But certainly the smaller organisations believe it to be the case.
  To confirm it, I quote from a number of the representations which have been made to me. I begin with the Emsworth Business Association, which said in a recent letter:
  "There has been insufficient notification, public inquiry and public participation in the formulation of the Bill…its progress has been attended by undue haste."
  The Emsworth Harbour Fishermen's Federation has made the following point to me:
  "We encase a copy of our letter to you of 31st January submitting a list of suggested amendments. We notice with regret that not one of these has been met and would be grateful if you would take this up. We know you will appreciate the injustice of the ratepayer's position. His money is used to promote this sort of legislation, but neither individual ratepayers nor their associations have the immense sums of money required to back objections."
  These are serious points.
  The next one is particularly interesting. It is contained in what might be described as a public document. In the Report of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and

  1029
  Food on the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Bill, which is a document laid before the Committee, this occurs:
  "Nevertheless, the general functions of the Conservancy set out in this clause do not include any reference to fishing interests."
  In this part of the country, fishing interests are of a substantially lower order of magnitude or significance than any other. No one disputes that yachting is probably the predominant interest. But fishing interests are important. Men's livelihoods depend on them. It is of the utmost importance, when men's livelihoods are involved, that they should not end up feeling that their interests have not been considered adequately, even with a private Bill procedure of this kind.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that, in setting up an Advisory Committee of not less than 14 and not more than 16 members, specific provision is made that the Sussex Sea Fisheries District Committee shall be represented, after consultation with the Emsworth Harbour Fishermen's Federation. The fishing interest are represented. Furthermore, it is proposed that the Advisory Committee shall elect two members to the Conservancy itself. There is direct provision for them.
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said. The point is that, although this form of representation of fishing interests has been made, the Advisory Committee, knowing this, is still dissatisfied. Possibly the reason for dissatisfaction, to which I shall come later, is the relationship between the committee and the Conservancy Board itself.
  Mr. Harold Gurden: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the two previous letters which he read were laid before the Committee and taken into consideration, even though they were not represented by counsel?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is probably in a better position to answer. My impression is that these letters were not laid before the Committee. This again comes back to the Private Bill procedure.
  I should now like to refer to a letter from the Emsworth Sea Angling Club in which it says:
  "We accept that unification of control of Chichester Harbour has much to recommend it,
  1030
  but feel that many objectionable features have caused so much resentment over the whole area that, to get the Bill off to a good start and in a co-operative atmosphere, it should be completely redrafted on more democratic lines."
  This again may be exaggerated criticism, but it seems important that it is being made at this stage.
  I come to yet another totally different kind of interest, the Emsworth Business Association, representing 60 businesses and, therefore, a large proportion of the businesses in a relatively small coastal town. The association writes:
  "This Bill appears to erode the basic principles of democracy, in that it will transfer vast powers which are at present vested in several local authorities and controlled by our elected representatives, and place these powers in the hands of a far more remote body, which will be almost inaccessible to the local ratepayer."
  Yachtsmen are very much in the news. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester, who has certainly made some interesting observations on this point, speaks with considerable experience. The Royal Yachting Association certainly petitioned. It was one of the last surviving petitions which were aired and not withdrawn. However, it seems that the essence of the Royal Yachting Association's objection to the Bill comes down to the composition of the governing bodies. My hon. and gallant Friend has already given this information to the House. There is a condominium, in a sense, with the Conservancy Board consisting of 14 members exercising the real power and an Advisory Committee consisting of 14 to 16 members exercising what is I suppose a contradiction in terms, namely, advisory power.
  Concerning the mechanism, it seems, from my limited experience, that, generally speaking, advisory committees are ineffective bodies. Not only in this specific area of harbour authorities do they seem to have no power except that of talking and writing letters, but more generally in all kinds of organisations they appear mainly as a sop to Cerberus. I sit on one known as the Council of Europe. It has a tremendous name, but it is nothing more than an advisory committee to Governments which take no notice whatever of what is said.
  I turn to the Conservancy Board. The nomination principle by local authorities

  1031
  is very widely opposed in all the representations which have been made to me. This is to be met by including a Clause which provides that nominees should be confined to elected councillors. Many people have pressed for this, but I understand that the promoters have so far been unwilling to give anything more than assurances that naturally a substantial number of the elected members of the two counties will be nominated. This does not meet the criticism which has been made.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I think that we had better get the record straight. Since the question of democracy has been brought into the matter, may I point out that the members of the Conservancy Board are to consist of four members of the West Sussex County Council, four elected members of the Hampshire County Council, one elected member of the Chichester City Council, two elected members of the Urban District Council of Havant and Waterloo, which I think includes Emsworth, and one from the Chichester Rural District Council, in addition to which two members are to be nominated to the Conservancy Board itself from the Advisory Committee, on which the Royal Yachting Association will no doubt be represented. They have a channel of representation by the elected people in their respective county councils, urban district councils and city councils to extra seats on the Conservancy Board, through the agency of the Advisory Committee. That is the balanced view that the Committee took.
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member has probably misinterpreted me. I am not disputing his figures, but there has been considerable criticism about the fact that the county councils retain the power to nominate their representatives and that those representatives will not necessarily be—and according to the Bill do not have to be—elected councillors to counties.
  I do not altogether share this criticism, but many of those who have made representations are critical on that point, because they object to the principle of nomination. They feel that this places considerable power in the hands of county councils and keeps the Conservancy Board one stage further from the
  1032
  reach of those elected by the local electors—the citizens.
  The Royal Yachting Association has a very strong case, if only on the old—if not old-fashioned—principle of "No taxation without representation". Looking at the area comprised within the authority of the proposed Conservancy Board, it would not be difficult to make out a case that probably nine-tenths of the revenue of that authority, directly or indirectly, will be derived from the yachting interests. One can also make the case that the harbour of Chichester is unlike any other harbour, in that yachting is uniquely important, and that although other interests are rightly and properly represented in our discussions—wild life conservation, and recreation—in terms of revenue produced for those who have to govern this body they are relatively insignificant.
  The promoters' arguments are mainly that because there is a precepting power they must have not merely a majority but a substantial majority on the Conservancy Board. I fail to follow the logic of that argument. It seems to me that what is wrapped up in this elaborate term "precepting power" is that the Board has a delegated right to spend a stated sum of money between£20,000 and£30,000. It may spend up to that amount without going to anybody, or seeking any authority. Therefore, it is in a sense a budget provided by county councils in the first place, grants by the central Government—relatively minor, I understand—in the second place, and an unstated, unquantified and unlimited source of revenue from those who use the harbour in any sense whatsoever.
  I do not see the logic of the argument that because there is a budget from the county councils, the county councils and the other local authorities between them must have an overwhelming majority on the Conservancy Board.
  That brings me to the next point. The argument put forward in favour of not disturbing the situation is that there has been such a delicate balance, and that this has been so difficult to achieve, that we dare not alter it or ask anyone to upset it, because once it is upset we shall never be able to recover the situation. I do not altogether accept that.
  Then there is the argument that the local yachtsmen are taking a different

  1033
  view from that of the Royal Yachting Association. The Chichester Harbour Federation has settled for four seats on the Advisory Committee, and therefore the association, representing the national yachting interests, has no right to put forward a different point of view. This again is a difficult argument. It seems appropriate that the National Yachting Institution should have its point of view represented.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: A few moments ago my hon. Friend said that this Conservancy would have apparently unlimited powers to charge the yachting interests for the conservation provided to them. He is no doubt aware that, under Section 31 of the Harbours Act, 1964, there would be a right of objection to the National Ports Council about any harbour charges.
  Mr. Lloyd: I entirely accept that, but the National Ports Council is also an advisory body with no real powers. When I took a case from Langstone Harbour on appeal to the council, all that happened was that there was a series of polite and very interesting letters, but no material result, so far as my recollection goes. The council doubtless performs valuable work in other spheres but it is totally unsuited to appraise an appeal from an area such as Chichester.
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) said that payment of harbour dues did not bring entitlement to privileged treatment. He said that buying soap from Unilever's did not entitle him to sit on the Unilever board. I accept that, but there there is a very wide range of choice. A young man with a dinghy in Chichester may be able to move it five or 10 miles or further, but this will be a considerable expense to him. A man who is keeping a small cruising boat has a much more limited opportunity, and someone who has waited 10 years for a large mooring in Chichester has no opportunity at all, and is much more in the grasp of the authorities.
  I feel obliged to put some specific proposals before the House largely in the hope that, out of all this, the promoters will, in reviewing the next stage, which takes place in another place, see whether they can possibly meet the general range of criticism. I am arguing for a new balance between local authority interests
  1034
  and user interests. This is a matter of judgment and discretion and there can be many views about where the fulcrum of this balance should lie. My suggestion is only one possible version which may have weaknesses of its own, but it should be considered so that the promoters know exactly what is in my mind.
  I suggest that the proposed Conservancy Board should consist of eight authority nominees, comprising two from West Sussex, two from Hampshire County Council two from Havant and Waterloo, and one each from Chichester City and Chichester Rural District, the last two becoming two from one body when those two authorities are merged into one under the local government reorganisation.
  This opens the scope for user representation, the maximum being six, still leaving the local authority nominees with a significant and workable majority. The user interests should comprise two from the Royal Yachting Association representatives on the advisory committee, one from the Ship and Boat Builders' Federation, one from the Sussex Sea Fisheries and Emsworth Harbour Fishermen's Association and two from other interests.
  This group of six would be a significant counter-weight to the local authority users and would certainly give scope, in the two unnamed representatives, for moving the representation of common interests in Chichester Harbour to giving those who are likely to be there, and who are certainly economically, recreationally and socially of the greatest present significance, some direct say in what the Board is proposing to do.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I should like the hon. Member's proposition to be clearly understood. He is proposing, is he not, that six members should be added to the Conservancy, which is the central controlling body, and that they should not be elected members? He has been arguing to the House this is an undemocratic procedure. Is he suggesting that six people shall be appointed to a Conservancy which, in practice, would have the power to levy a rate on ratepayers living in the area; that six people who may not live in the area, who may be commuters from other parts of the country, should be invested with power to levy a rate payable by the county authorities and

  1035
  by those who subscribe to their funds? This is an important constitutional matter.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am not suggesting that, because the power to levy a rate, to the extent that a majority decision would be involved, would still be vested in the eight who would be a majority on the board. My suggestion concerning the number of places on the board is not that six be added, but that local authorities should give up a certain number and instead of there being merely two nominees from the advisory board, there should be six nominees from the advisory board. That is the essence of my proposal.
  This would result in a number of consequential changes to the advisory committee. There should be two—not one—Royal Yachting Association representatives on the advisory committee and three—not four—Chichester Harbour Federation representatives on the Advisory Committee.
  To sum up, I should like the promoters, if it is possible at this stage, before they present the Bill in another place, to reconsider the cases made by the smaller interests which have been unable to afford to present petitions before the Private Bill Committee. I should certainly be prepared to let them have all the documents which have been sent to me. If it were possible for them to receive representations directly, even at this late stage, I am sure that the interests of democracy would be served.
  Secondly, I admit that it is difficult and that the existing solution is the result of a wide attempt at compromise, but, nevertheless, I should like the promoters of the Bill to reconsider the composition of the boards. I should like them to reconsider the question of elected versus nominated members of their own group because, although I do not believe this to be vital, it is believed to be vital by many people who have written to me. It comes back to the question of no taxation without representation. If that seems to be rather too large a principle to apply to a very small organisation, perhaps we can call it no charging without some degree of representation.
  The promoters will have an opportunity to put forward Amendments in another
  1036
  place. I very much hope that they will do so. I think that Amendments are required. They are not voluminous, but they are important and significant.
  I have one other query, and I would willingly give away to the hon. Member for Westhoughton if he could answer it. It seems to me extraordinarily strange that in a Bill which is being put before the House to unify two harbour authorities, in a geographical area where there are already three harbour authorities, where, it seems to me, nothing is not in common between those three—they are all homogeneous—in the sense that there is a major yachting interest, there is a major wild life interest and the character of the harbours is the same, Langstone Harbour Board has not been included in the proposed Chichester Harbour Conservancy. All the logic which one commands seems to suggest that it should have been included.
  I wonder whether we are likely to find ourselves, in five or six years' time, presented with yet another Private Bill when someone wakes up to the fact that the situation demands even wider unification of the authority throughout the new Chichester Harbour Conservancy area and the existing Langstone Harbour Conservancy area. If the hon. Member for Westhoughton knows the answer, I will gladly give way to him.
  Mr. J. T. Price: As a matter of courtesy I will try to respond, although I can give no authoritative answer to that question. Having been presented with very extensive maps of the whole area and shown where the boundary lines operate, the red and green lines—I cannot describe this in the abstract without the maps before me—some of the coastal areas surrounding the harbour, certain peripheral area on the waterfront, on private land, are still outside the boundaries of the Conservancy. From my knowledge and what I have experienced in debate on these matters, I can only assume that many boundaries have been drawn as a result of long compromise and concessions made to various interests who had objections to particular sections originally mapped. This is a balance between different interests who have represented very liberal and generous compromises on one point or another. I would not venture beyond that.
  Mr. Lloyd: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting information. It confirms my suspicion that we have here a situation in which the basic, natural administrative and other requirements of the area are not applied to the whole area, as they should be, right to the eastern end of Portsmouth—at the other end obviously very different circumstances apply. The whole of the harbour is one from the practical point of view. However, this may stimulate those responsible for this question to think again if and when the matter again comes before the House.
  I am obliged to the House for the patience with which it has listened to me discussing a somewhat long but, I hope, an important interest.
  11.7 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bray: My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) has made many points, the majority of which were considered in depth by the Committee. My hon and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) gave an excellent resuméof the background leading to the Bill. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), as Chairman of the Select Committee, gave the impartial resume of the unanimous findings of the Committee.
  For the sake of good order, I suggest that we look at the following points. First and foremost, initially there were three objections to the Bill: one by the Havant and Waterloo Urban District Council, one by the Road Transport Association, and the third by the Royal Yachting Association. After discussion and negotiation with the promoters of the Bill, the first two objections were withdrawn. It was then resolved that the Committee appointed by the House should consider the objection raised by the Royal Yachting Association. No other objections whatsoever were raised before the Committee, from which it is fair to assume that the other objectors, by letter or other means, were reasonably satisfied with the assurance they had been given by their immediate local authorities.
  In this debate—perhaps I was at fault in Committee—I should declare an interest. For many years I have been a yachtsman. As a result, I know the
  1038
  views, habits and thoughts leading to decisions and activities among the yachting fraternity. I took these considerations into my thoughts and ultimate decision upon the Bill. For that reason I support the Bill, with its Amendments, as approved by the Committee.
  The Committee had looked at the fact that we had two small harbours, Chichester and Emsworth. Both were, perhaps, becoming overcrowded; both had scope for improvement; both needed a degree of regulation—much as I dislike the word—to ensure that, with the full use of the environment, they could give of their best not only to the boating fraternity but also to all those who wished to use the area to the full for pleasure and recreational purposes. I see no objection to that. The points made by the wild life and other organisations were catered for in the advisory committee.
  Then there is the financial aspect. There is hardly one active member of the Royal Yachting Association who lives in the immediate vicinity or in what can be termed the catchment area of the Bill—nor, for that matter, within a radius of 30 miles north, east or west. It would be difficult for them to live to the south unless they were mermaids. In other words, they are not ratepayers. Nor are they responsible for spending the county rate, or even a proportion of it, on this Conservancy Board. They therefore have no financial discipline thrust upon them.
  The two promoting authorities—the West Sussex and the Hampshire County Councils—have been wise in their assessment of the constitutions of the Board and of the advisory committee.
  It is easy for people to say that they like messing about in boats and that they spend a lot of money on their boats. However, is the money spent within the district? Does it involve the authority's rate account or revenue account in a profit or a loss? This point was debated in extenso in Committee. It was stated categorically that the rating interests would not show a profit in other words, the local authorities through the rates would subsidise the activities of yachtng authorities. I therefore think that the constitution of the main governing body and that of the Advisory Committee is reasonable.
  All these points were considered at great length by the Committee. It was the

  1039
  Committee's unanimous decision that the Royal Yachting Association had failed to make its case. Others Amendments which had been discussed between the promoters, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food were subsequently considered. It was the Committee's unanimous decision that the Bill, as amended, be recommended to the House.
  Since the Motion objecting to the Bill appeared on the Order Paper I have studied the Bill and the Committee's proceedings very carefully and I can see no reason for retracting my decision to give wholehearted support to the Bill as amended.
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: As a member of the Committee I wish to comment on a number of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd). As regards the point raised about the fisheries interests by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, at the end of Clause 21(2) the phrase
  "and of avoiding interference with fisheries"
  was written in expressly to safeguard the Conservancy's powers in respect of fisheries.
  The matter of the non-elected councillor or somebody nominated by the local authorities was discussed in Committee and we had the precedent of the Lea Valley Regional Park Act, 1967, where it was clearly stated that it was desirable that when the local authority felt it had a paucity of persons suitable to serve on this rather specialised Conservancy, it should have the right to nominate someone better suited. It was for this reason that we accepted this precedent as proper for permitting local authorities to put someone on a conservancy who was not necessarily a councillor.
  The Conservancy is still subject to planning control by the local planning authority on which elected representatives
  1040
  sit. Therefore, one has a double check on their activities, via the local planning authority. There is no sense, therefore, in which there is a non-elected person having planning control. He is still barred from total control in that he is still subject to the local authority.
  The powers of the advisory committee were clearly the major problem: whether the powers of the Advisory Committee were sufficient to ensure that it was not an empty talking shop, but a body with effective access to power. In Committee we carefully noted that the Advisory Committee had power both to examine all matters material to the affairs of the harbour referred to it from the Conservancy, and also to initiate matters itself and to bring them from the Advisory Committee to the Conservancy.
  I believe that was associated with the Medway Harbour Authority Act, and we came to the conclusion that the Advisory Committee had sufficient access to power to prevent the charge that it would be nothing more than a talking shop. We closely examined the points mentioned in the hon. Member's speech.
  11.19 p.m.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: By leave of the House, I should like to reply to one or two matters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, Langstone (Mr. Ian Lloyd) made an interesting and thoughtful speech. No doubt alternative compositions for the Conservancy Board can be suggested and discussed over and over again, but this process has already gone on for five years and we do not want to be like Aesop's dog which lost its bone in the hope of getting a better bone.
  The matter is urgent, because something like chaos prevails in Chichester Harbour at weekends, as anybody acquainted with those waters is aware. My hon. Friend's points will be noted no doubt in another place, but it may be difficult to go back to square one.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered accordingly; to be read the Third time.

  UNEMPLOYMENT (MANCHESTER AND DISTRICT)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill]
  11.20 p.m.
  Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: No doubt the Chichester Harbour Bill is vitally important for certain people, but I consider the problem of unemployment in Manchester to be even more important to the ordinary people. My hon. Friends and some hon. Members opposite are concerned about the seeming indifference of the Government's attitude towards unemployment in our area. We are concerned that the Government seem to be returning to a policy of laissez faire, to which my hon. Friends, and particularly those who represent Manchester, are completely opposed.
  There is deep concern, disquiet and a sense of insecurity because, whether they intend it or not, the Government seem to be deliberately creating and then sustaining a climate of despair. I was in my constituency last week and I want to mention the comments of three different people. The first I overheard in a barber's shop. A man was talking about the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his comment on the motor industry. This man asked:
  "Are the Government really determined to increase the pool of unemployment? If they are they going the right way about it, particularly in Manchester."
  The second person was a well-respected employer who said that he was concerned about the underlying trend of economic activity in the area. He said:
  "We are not employing our resources to the full."
  The third quotation comes from a councillor in my area, who is an efficient, skilful electrical worker, who is out of work. He uttered what I thought were the saddest words I have heard for a long time when he said:
  "It makes you afraid of growing old."
  It is rather sad to find people who spend a large part of their working lives in dedicated service to their country faced with unemployment in early middle age.
  This area was in the forefront of the Industrial Revolution. Already there has been a rundown in our three major
  1042
  industries of coal, cotton and now steel. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) in his place. He worked at Trafford Park and will share my anxieties at the lack of job opportunities in heavy engineering at Trafford Park.
  I have been assured in two letters from the Government that they cannot really help. The Minister of State at the Department of Employment said, when I wrote about the employment of older, highly skilled people:
  "I can assure you that our local officers are alive to the problem of the older age groups and will continue to do everything possible to help them in their search for employment."
  It is the word "search" that I want to stress. The fact that they are searching can be directly attributed to some of the acts of this Government.
  Secondly, I had a letter from the Department of Trade and Industry dealing with the closure of the Openshaw Works, the final paragraph of which said:
  "The Government Departments in the Regions will do everything they can to help mitigate the effects of the closure, but other than that it is not a situation in which the Government can intervene."
  The Government must bear the responsibility for much of the anxiety in the Manchester area.
  Let me illustrate in two ways. Openshaw has faced unemployment. At Irlam steel works the employment of 4,000 people is affected. If this cut-back has taken place, and if the Government were to wash their hands of responsibility, they ought not to have interfered in the capital investment programme of the British Steel Corporation. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot, on the one hand, say, "We are not responsible", and wash their hands of it, and then take action which creates a situation of difficulty. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the people of Openshaw and the steel works of Irlam are desperately anxious about this situation now. They are not lazy layabouts. They are people who want to work, and they feel that the Government's decision to interfere in the capital development programme of British Steel Corporation has affected their job prospects.
  There were great prospects of employment at Shell Carrington and the factory there. Again, it is action by the present

  1043
  Government which has caused a cut-back, because of the changing from cash grants to investment allowances, and so the whole of this process of development has been put in jeopardy. The fact that the activity at Shell Carrington is in jeopardy is due entirely to the policy of this Government. They cannot, on the one hand, write to me two separate letters and say they are not responsible when two cases I have quoted reveal that they, and they only, are responsible for the situation.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: What is so disturbing about what is happening at Shell Carrington is that it is that type of industry we want in the Greater Manchester area. We want modern, science-based, technological industry because of the decline in heavy engineering. We need that type of development or we shall have an increase in unemployment. Would not my hon. Friend agree?
  Mr. Carter-Jones: That was percipient of my hon. Friend. He has anticipated my next remarks.
  We all of us have read with considerable interest the representations we have had from the North-West Industrial Development Association, which has pinpointed the problem. We live in an area which is old in industrial development but is suffering from the obsolescence of industry and the difficulties of our environment. We need to improve the environment and we shall require a considerable amount of help from the Government, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman can at least give us some hope of some improvement, because the feeling of our constituents at present is one of black despair. If the hon. Gentleman can give us some hope tonight, at least this debate at this late hour will have been worth while.
  My hon. Friend just now anticipated my next point, which is to emphasise the lack of growth industries which we need to replace the sadly declining sectors of the older industries, which seem to be in need of rejuvenation and replacement. I wish to quote what was said by the deputation from S.E.L.N.E.C. which went to the Minister of Technology on 24th September. It states that
  "at present industry is being discouraged from moving to some parts of the conurbation
  1044
  through the restriction of the granting of industrial development certificates and there is some evidence that even the expansion or renewal of existing firms is also discouraged because of I.D.C. difficulties. This policy seems to be based simply on the fact that unemployment percentages are not shown as high."
  There is a clear case for the Department to be more generous in granting industrial development certificates in this area.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: I have been impressed by the logic of my hon. Friend's argument. Is he aware that, in view of the real concern and despondency in the City of Manchester about the problem of increasing unemployment and the diminishing job opportunities available for the unemployed people in Manchester, he will have the support of all reasonable people in Manchester in his demand, and the demand of the S.E.L.N.E.C. local authorities, for more industrial development certificates to allow firms to expand and develop in the area?
  Mr. Carter-Jones: I agree completely. However, I was hoping that a request for more industrial development certificates would be my minimum request.
  I turn to the possibilities of having our area treated more favourably not only from an I.D.C. point of view but as an intermediate area to stimulate the prospects of employment and expansion. The trouble is that employment in our area is frequently masked because large numbers of people tend to go to the South-East. The attractions of the South-East are very pleasant for people of an area which has not had as much capital injected into it as it should have had. In this connection we should consider the situation regarding industrial premises built before 1914 in the Manchester area. Sixty per cent. of the industrial premises in Salford were built before 1914. Ninety per cent. of them were built before 1939. This highlights the situation. Salford is in many ways typical of the area. Only vast injections of capital into the area can help.
  To sum up, I wish to quote the recommendations of the North-West Industrial Development Association to the Minister when its representatives called to see him. They made five points. First, there is a tremendous need for a drastic improvement in the investment of social and industrial capital in the region. Many of

  1045
  our schools are out of date. We have a large number of old properties. There is a great need to increase school building and road building and to stimulate industrial development.
  Secondly, at the meeting with the Minister the association pointed out by that industrial building grants of at least 35 per cent. should be made available throughout our region. This would be a positive injection of capital into our area.
  Thirdly, because of the past ravages of the Industrial Revolution, there is need for some of the old dereliction caused by past industrial activities to be swept away. This will require not less than a 100 per cent. grant. This sort of task cannot possibly be faced by a local authority tackling housing problems and other social and welfare problems. The Government must be very generous if they mean to sustain their argument about creating a better environment. We are the people who need their support.
  Fourthly, industrial development certificates must be made more readily available for factory building in all parts of the North-West, including Manchester and district.
  Finally, I urge the Minister to consider giving intermediate area status to the remainder of our region outside the present development areas. What worries us is that the growth in our area seems to be in unemployment, in squalor and in despair. Will the hon. Gentleman tonight give us some hope of growth in the economic sector?
  11.35 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I have listened with interest to the exposition of the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones), and although he will not expect me to agree with everything he said, he argued his case forcibly. I would be inclined to agree with what he said about a growth in squalor and unemployment, but it started many years before June of last year. If he accepts that, we are at one.
  I am particularly glad to have this opportunity of speaking tonight on the subject of unemployment in the Manchester district because I know that the hon. Member's concern about the position there is shared by several other hon. Members whose constituencies lie in and
  1046
  around Manchester. I need hardly assure hon. Members that Ministers, certainly myself, are well seized of the features that currently characterise the Manchester travel-to-work area. We fully recognise that the area has felt the impact of redundancies, closures, and general unemployment during the past 12 months; and I know that closures and cut-backs have resulted in major redundancies in a variety of industries.
  Notwithstanding the admitted problems of obsolescence in Manchester, I fully appreciate that the heavy loss of jobs in Trafford Park—12,000 during the past 4 years, largely due to G.E.C.-A.E.I. merger reorganisatoin—together with other major redundancies, and the recently announced B.S.C. closure at Irlam cause particular anxiety.
  Mr. Orme: What worries us is that Trafford Park is becoming a vast warehouse for storing stuff rather than a place for people to work.
  Mr. Grant: I will have another word about Trafford Park in a moment if I have time.
  Job losses have a direct impact on individual lives and the well-being of a community. However, the closures that have taken place in industries generally have been necessitated by the urgent need to rationalise production, and in some instances, for example, the aircraft industry, by a recession in world markets. Unfortunately, the necessity for rationalisation in many instances reflects the cost inflation which has been widespread throughout our economy, and is therefore not confined to the Manchester area. The previous Government said that there would be need for rationalisation.
  Regarding the B.S.C. closure at Irlam, I fully recognise the effect that this will have. However, it must be emphasised that closure of the Irlam plant will be in two stages, and that the second stage involving 2,392 workers is not planned to take place until 1973. No timing for the first stage, involving 1,961 workers, has been announced so that further discussion can take place with the trade unions. Furthermore, it should also be remembered that figures announced in connection with the steel closures relate to job losses. Actual redundancies are likely to be less, and will be spread over a period. There will also be natural wastage, and

  1047
  B.S.C. intends redeploying men wherever possible. The immediate effect on unemployment in the areas concerned will not perhaps be so serious as it appears at first sight, and I need hardly add that the full resources of the Department of Employment will be available to help those who will in due course have to seek other jobs. I mention this not to minimise the difficulties, but to tell people to cheer up a little bit and not to get too depressed.
  On the question of unemployment, it is true that the percentage rate for total registered unemployed in Manchester has risen this year from 2·3 per cent. in January to 3 per cent. in April; and the corresponding male percentage rate has risen from 3·5 per cent to 4·4 per cent. But I must point out that the current rate for Manchester is below that of the national average, 3·4 per cent., and well below that for the North-West Region of 3·8 per cent. So Manchester is not so badly off. Manchester must look at the situation in the light of the whole of the area and the whole of the country.
  What I find of greater significance, however, is that the trend for both the total and male percentage rates has risen steadily since April, 1966—which is hardly a tribute to the previous four years of the Labour Administration.
  A word about industrial development certificates. There appears to be considerable misunderstanding about the Government's policy in this field. We have repeatedly declared our belief that the needs of the assisted areas must remain paramount in regard to the siting of industry involving substantial numbers of new jobs. Within the requirements of this policy, however, my Department views as sympathetically as possible applications for rehousing and modernisation schemes, and normal expansion although it is sometimes necessary to look critically at applications in the Manchester area, where unemployment rates have been generally below the national average. But, as I said in my letter to the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Green) in recognition of the problems of the Trafford Park Industrial Estate, the I.D.C. control will continue to be used with a sensitivity to local needs. No application has in fact been refused there in recent years.
  1048
  This indicates the point that while the Government regard the I.D.C. weapon as an essential feature in the armoury of regional policy, nevertheless we intend to operate it as flexibly as possible.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: What about intermediate area status?
  Mr. Grant: I am coming to that point now. As hon. Members are aware the Government have carefully reviewed the coverage of the development and intermediate areas. Whilst we recognise the problems caused in parts of the North West, including Manchester, by the rundown of older industries, rationalisation and closures, the fact remains that other areas have much greater problems of heavy and persistent unemployment.
  I know that the area was disappointed with the previous Administration for not giving it intermediate area status, but our review has not indicated that we have to take a different view from that of the previous Administration for these reasons. Because the supply of mobile industry is limited at present it is our view that priority must be given to the areas of greatest employment need, for example, in West Scotland, 57,000 6·2 per cent.; Tyneside and Wearside 34,000, 5·9 per cent. It must be right to give priority to such areas. Whilst the Government do not intend to make frequent change in the boundaries of assisted areas, the situation will be kept under constant review so that areas no longer in need of assistance no longer benefit at the expense of those which do.
  What industry needs more than anything is a period of stability, where it can know exactly what the plans are for assisted areas, rather than to have a situation that is chopping and changing all the time. We have undertaken to keep this coverage under constant review.
  Mr. Carter-Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman answer the question about this particular area. It is the underlying trend in this area that is causing anxiety. Unless action is taken quickly, we will have an acceleration of this rate and will end up as a severely depressed area.
  Mr. Grant: I understand that. That is precisely why I said that we shall keep the position under constant review. But I cannot accept that the figures or the

  1049
  underlying trends at the moment justify a change of status. But we shall keep it under constant review for that very reason.
  As to the future, I do not share the pessimistic views which have been expressed in the House tonight. Certainly, the current unemployment situation gives no cause for complacency, but the position must be seen in perspective. The fact remains that, despite heavy job losses during the last few years, the unemployment figures for the area have demonstrated Manchester's considerable resilience in absorbing these problems, compared with some other areas. Manchester's industries are well diversified, and I know that retirement and migration outwards to some extent have eased some of the difficulties. There is, too, extensive travelling to work throughout the area, greatly assisted by good communications, and this fact alone should assist with the problems of Irlam as well.
  Whilst the questions of obsolescence and slum clearance are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, I think it right to emphasise that the Government are giving high priority to tackling these problems, and every encouragement is given to local authorities to avail themselves of Government grants for derelict land clearance. As hon. Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment visited the North-West Region on 7th May, and met representatives of all the local authorities, including Manchester, in order to consider their problems at first hand.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman had better come again. They are different.
  Mr. Grant: If they have changed in the last few days, undoubtedly we shall come again. However, that is not my evidence.
  It is the Government's firm view that the Manchester district, in common with other areas of the country, should benefit from our policies to restore stable growth to the national economy. The district
  1050
  has a wide diversification of industry and commerce, and a tradition of enterprise and sturdy self-help which will enable it to seize and develop the opportunities which will arise in the new atmosphere of business confidence which we are seeking to generate. Hon. Members opposite do no good by spreading tales of woe and misery. They do nothing to help their own constituents.
  We have heard a reference to one hon. Member's conversations in a barber's shop. I much prefer to study the April newsletter issued by the North-West Industrial Development Association. This indicated that industry had welcomed the Budget proposals together with the cut in the Bank Rate and the continued strength of the balance of payments. This, it felt, would all help business confidence. At the same time it rightly pointed out that the impact of the measures would take time to work through the economy, and this is the thought I would commend to hon. Members, who cannot expect miracles to be wrought overnight.
  Mr. Kaufman: At a stroke.
  Mr. Grant: I am glad that the hon. Member for Eccles raised this subject tonight. He has enabled me to make two points: that the problems of Manchester did not start in June of last year, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply, but a very long time ago; and, secondly, that the problems are by no means as bad as those of some other parts of the country.
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Minister come to Manchester to see the position for himself?
  Mr. Grant: I shall be only too delighted to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation. But my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at ten minutes to Twelve o'clock.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Computers
  Computers
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Commonwealth Sugar Producing Countries (Diversification)
  Commonwealth Sugar Producing Countries (Diversification)
  Security Council (Communist China)
  Security Council (Communist China)
  British Council (Chairman)
  British Council (Chairman)
  European Free Trade Association (Meeting)
  European Free Trade Association (Meeting)
  Commonwealth Countries (Visits)
  Commonwealth Countries (Visits)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  South Africa (Arms Supply)
  South Africa (Arms Supply)
  European Free Trade Association (Meeting)
  European Free Trade Association (Meeting)
  Aircraft Hijacking (Convention)
  Aircraft Hijacking (Convention)
  Hong Kong (Fire Outbreaks)
  Hong Kong (Fire Outbreaks)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Suez Canal
  Suez Canal
  Secretary of State (Official Engagements)
  Secretary of State (Official Engagements)
  Ceylon (British Subjects)
  Ceylon (British Subjects)
WALES
  A55, Sealand-Shotwick
  A55, Sealand-Shotwick
  A548, Connahs Quay
  A548, Connahs Quay
  Swansea (Gypsy Site)
  Swansea (Gypsy Site)
  Pupils and School Meals, West Glamorgan
  Pupils and School Meals, West Glamorgan
  Pontllanfraith (Road Junction)
  Pontllanfraith (Road Junction)
  Medical Practitioner—Patient Ratio
  Medical Practitioner—Patient Ratio
  Atmospheric Pollution (Heavy Metal)
  Atmospheric Pollution (Heavy Metal)
  Bronchitis (Children)
  Bronchitis (Children)
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Llantrisant New Town
  Llantrisant New Town
  Dereliction
  Dereliction
  Passenger Transport Authority, South-East Wales (Representations)
  Passenger Transport Authority, South-East Wales (Representations)
  Official Forms (Welsh Language)
  Official Forms (Welsh Language)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Hartlepool
  Hartlepool
  Scandinavian Pulp and Paper
  Scandinavian Pulp and Paper
  Paper Imports
  Paper Imports
  Commonwealth Cotton Textiles (Tariff)
  Commonwealth Cotton Textiles (Tariff)
  River Steamer "Gaiety" (Passenger Certificate)
  River Steamer "Gaiety" (Passenger Certificate)
  Measuring Systems
  Measuring Systems
  Short Brothers and Harland Limited (General Engineering Division)
  Short Brothers and Harland Limited (General Engineering Division)
  Intermediate Areas
  Intermediate Areas
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Fishing Vessels (Safety)
  Printing Industry (Foreign Trading Practices)
  Printing Industry (Foreign Trading Practices)
  Finished Paper (Price)
  Finished Paper (Price)
  Paper Mills (Closure)
  Paper Mills (Closure)
  Paper and Board Industry
  Paper and Board Industry
  Airships (Import Tariff)
  Airships (Import Tariff)
  Supersonic Flights
  Supersonic Flights
  Research and Development (Atomic Energy Authority Laboratories)
  Research and Development (Atomic Energy Authority Laboratories)
  Pleasure Boat Surveys and Licensing
  Pleasure Boat Surveys and Licensing
  Furniture (Wood Substitutes)
  Furniture (Wood Substitutes)
  Hartlepool (Industrial Development Inquiries)
  Hartlepool (Industrial Development Inquiries)
  Dollar Land Company Limited
  Dollar Land Company Limited
  Secretary of State (Official Engagements)
  Secretary of State (Official Engagements)
  Trade Missions
  Trade Missions
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Llantrisant, Pontypridd
  Llantrisant, Pontypridd
  Patent Law
  Patent Law
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  British Broadcasting Corporation (Programme Content)
  British Broadcasting Corporation (Programme Content)
  Local Radio Stations, Wales
  Local Radio Stations, Wales
  Post Office Board
  Post Office Board
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Maintenance Allowances
  Maintenance Allowances
  Sex Education
  Sex Education
  Illiteracy
  Illiteracy
  Remedial Teaching
  Remedial Teaching
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  National Collections (Display of Pictures)
  National Collections (Display of Pictures)
  School Pupils Over Compulsory School Age
  School Pupils Over Compulsory School Age
  Wootton Bassett and Bradon Forest Schools
  Wootton Bassett and Bradon Forest Schools
EMPLOYMENT
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Engineering Industry (Training)
  Engineering Industry (Training)
  North-East Derbyshire (Unemployment)
  North-East Derbyshire (Unemployment)
  North-East Derbyshire (Visit)
  North-East Derbyshire (Visit)
  Paper and Board Making Industry
  Paper and Board Making Industry
  Safety Provision
  Safety Provision
  Government Training Centres, West Riding
  Government Training Centres, West Riding
  Fife (Unemployment)
  Fife (Unemployment)
  Forestry (Training Board)
  Forestry (Training Board)
  Aliens (Work Permits)
  Aliens (Work Permits)
  Government Training Centre, Pontllanfraith
  Government Training Centre, Pontllanfraith
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Post-war Credits
  Post-war Credits
  House Purchase (Tax Relief)
  House Purchase (Tax Relief)
  Surtax
  Surtax
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Income Tax (Married Women)
  Income Tax (Married Women)
  PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT OF FRANCE (MEETING)
  PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT OF FRANCE (MEETING)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fur Breeders (Derating)
  Fur Breeders (Derating)
DEFENCE
  Equipment (Standardisation)
  Equipment (Standardisation)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Examination (Closure Date)
  Examination (Closure Date)
ENVIRONMENT
  Municipal Housing (Subsidies)
  Municipal Housing (Subsidies)
  National Sporting Organisations (Grant)
  National Sporting Organisations (Grant)
  Ministerial Journey (Hire of Helicopter)
  Ministerial Journey (Hire of Helicopter)
  Bus Services (Nottingham)
  Bus Services (Nottingham)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  "Worse Than Murder" (Film)
  "Worse Than Murder" (Film)
  Alien Work Permit Holders
  Alien Work Permit Holders
  Penal Institutions (Training with Firearms)
  Penal Institutions (Training with Firearms)
SCOTLAND
  General Medical Practitioners (Ratio of Patients)
  General Medical Practitioners (Ratio of Patients)
  South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board
  South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board
  Municipal Housing (Subsidies)
  Municipal Housing (Subsidies)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Census
  Census
  Invalid Cars
  Invalid Cars
  Stammering
  Stammering
  Huddersfield Royal Infirmary
  Huddersfield Royal Infirmary
  General Medical Practitioners (Patient Ratio)
  General Medical Practitioners (Patient Ratio)
  Tuberculosis (B.C.G. Inoculations)
  Tuberculosis (B.C.G. Inoculations)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)

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

METRICATION AND LINEAR MEASUREMENTS
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: 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 a decision has been taken to convert our linear measurements to a decimal system.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, metric units of linear measurement and of mass or weight have been lawful in the United Kingdom since 1897. The current legislation, the Weights and Measures Act 1963, provides that the yard and the metre shall be the units of measurement of length by reference to which any linear measurement shall be made in the United Kingdom. The Government have no proposals in mind to vary these provisions.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, while accepting the principle of decimalisation, would not the Government be wise to explain a little more fully its detailed application in certain cases? If I may take one small example, in the Monthly Statistical Digest rainfall is given in millimetres, but almost all public records of rainfall are in inches. Would it not be wise to keep the two standards of measure for rather longer?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, of course my right honourable friend will bear in mind what my noble friend has said. I should tell your Lordships that shortly a White Paper will be published which will set out Her Majesty's Government's future policy on metrication.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I may have missed this point. May I ask what the proposals are likely be with regard to geographical miles, which are an important device, as one geographical mile is roughly equivalent to one minute of latitude? This is a serious point for travellers and explorers, for hose who are accustomed to using maps and navigators. Do the Government intend to abolish knots as well?
VISCOUNT DAVENTRY: My Lords, does the noble Lord know it is a nautical mile he is talking about? Has he heard of a nautical mile?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, a geographical mile is in fact the same as a nautical mile, but it is known as a

3
geographical mile by most people. not a statutory mile.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, if I can set the mind of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition partially at rest over this point, it is expected that, with a very slight modification, nautical miles will continue to be used in countries that use the metric system.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that a knot is a unit of speed and not a unit of length?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it certainly is. But is the noble Lord aware that if you remove the unit of length you cannot, in fact, achieve a unit of speed? May I ask the noble Lord how he is going to modify a nautical, or geographical, mile " slightly "?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, by a very small amount.

EDUCATION AUTHORITIES AND SCHOOL GOVERNORS' POWERS
2.38 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to define the powers given to school governors and to explain how a local education authority can overrule a decision taken by the school governors as support for the action of the head-teacher.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, the respective functions of the local education authority, the governors of a secondary school maintained by an authority and the head teacher are defined in the articles of government made for each school under Section 17(3)(b) of the Education Act of 1944. The precise functions delegated to governors vary from one local education authority to another
4
and this also depends in some degree on whether the school is a country or voluntary school. In general, subject to the local education authority's power to determine the general educational character of the school, the governors of a country secondary school have the general direction of the conduct and curriculum of the school.
The question whether a local education authority acted properly in overruling a decision of the governors of a particular school could be determined only in the light of circumstances of the case.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that very full Answer, may I ask him whether this might be the moment to look again at the powers of the governors, if in fact we are to retain the high quality of people serving as governors?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I know that this is something which has exercised the minds of people in education, and I thank the noble Baroness for bringing it to my attention. I can assure her that I will convey her question to my right honourable friend.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, arising out of the Minister's Answer, may I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that it is very unfortunate for an educational authority not to support the governors when the governors are endeavouring to support their headmaster? If this sort of thing is going to happen, I think it will weaken the powers of the governors. which I know are already very limited. I think this is a very unfortunate situation.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, in general terms I think it is a valued right in the educational system of this country that the responsibility for the running of our county schools is firmly in the hands of the local education authorities, as my noble friend has made clear he realises by the terms of his question. May I just point out to the House that articles of government invariably assign the internal management and organisation of a school to the governors and the headmaster; but these functions cost money, and I think it is only natural that local education authorities should have some final power of responsibility.

BRITISH NATIONAL EXPORT COUNCIL
LORD BROWNhad given Notice of the following Question:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the closing down of the British National Export Council and the recent postponement of sixty-one export missions are part of a policy of withdrawing from British Industry, government financed services to support export activities.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is it in order for me to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making a Statement on the Common Market negotiations at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. It is also intended that the Committee stage of the Industrial Relations Bill shall be adjourned for a time at about 7 p.m. in order to take the Second Reading of the Welsh National Opera Company Bill.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he can make a statement as to whether we shall need breakfast in the morning because of the Industrial Relations Bill, or are the Government going to treat us a little more gently to-night?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I was not anticipating that breakfast would be required to-morrow morning.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it might be useful if the House were to know. I shall not press the noble Earl now, but I repeat what I said last week, that the pressure could become intolerable and I see no reason why, if necessary, we should not sit into August.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Listowel,
6
I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Conesford be added to the Select Committee.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
2.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD DERWENT in tie Chair.]
Clause 31 [Pressure on employer to infringe rights of workers]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 238:
Page 24, line 27, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to leave out paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of Clause 31. Here we are back again in the area of the closed shop agreement. One is at risk, in moving this Amendment, of going over again ground that has already been explored, so I shall do my best not to rehearse arguments to which your Lordships have already listened in previous discussions. The object of paragraph (c) is to make it an unfair industrial practice for a trade union to try to bring pressure on an employer, or on an employers' association, to make a joint application for an approved closed shop under the terms of Clause 16 and Schedule 1. I submit that that is really an unfortunate provision, for reasons which I shall seek to deploy rather more fully.
At the outset may I say that the basic reason which underlines all the considerations which I desire to advance is that, after all, the whole object of the legislation is to try to promote stable and peaceful industrial relations. In my submission, this provision is bound not only to be completely ineffective but, in so far

7
as it has any effect, to produce precisely the opposite result and exacerbate relationships and, indeed, to constitute a constantly present irritant between the two sides. I am quite certain that I shall be in agreement with the noble Lord who replies to the debate in saying that there should at least be certainty in the wording of the provision so that those who are concerned on both sides of the fence know precisely what their position is.
The first point which I should like to put before the Committee is that the wording of the provision introduces a very unfortunate degree of uncertainty, for the following reason. In this clause for the first time the expression, " irregular industrial action short of a strike " is defined. It is defined in subsection (4) which I shall not for the moment read, and that definition reappears in various contexts throughout the Bill. By this clause it is made an unfair industrial practice, with a view to inducing an employer to join in an application for an approved closed shop, first, to call, organise, procure or finance a strike or threaten so to do; and, secondly, to organise, procure or finance any irregular industrial action short of a strike or threaten so to do. I am sure that this at least must be achieved by whatever language ultimately appears in the Bill; that one must know what is,
" irregular industrial action short of a strike ".
If that definition is not a satisfactory and clear one, which gives an exact Yes or No in any given situation where pressure is exercised, it must necessarily result that uncertainty intervenes which will poison relationships and induce uncertainty in people's conduct.
The definition of, " irregular industrial action short of a strike ", as set out in subsection (4), is:
"…any concerted course of conduct (other than a strike) which, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute,—

"(a) is carried on by a group of workers with the intention of preventing, reducing or otherwise interfering with the production of goods or the provision of services, and

"(b) in the case of some or all of them, is carried on in breach of their contracts of employment or (where they are not employees) in breach of their terms and conditions of service ".

For there to be " irregular … action short of a strike ", two things are requi-
8
site. There must be an intention on the part of those who engage in that conduct to prevent, reduce or otherwise interfere with the production of goods or services. That, I should have thought, was simple enough. In a given situation the answer can be given, " Yes " or " No ", whether that is the broad intention of those who initiate the action in question. But the second requirement, I should have thought, really was very difficult to apply. What is requisite is that that action is action which in the case of sonic of them or all of them, to quote the actual words,
" is carried on in breach of their contracts "—
that is, their contracts of employment or their contracts of service, as the case may be.
The question I should like to put to the Government is this: How does that definition impinge upon, for example, a " work to rule "? How does it impinge upon a " go slow "? This is a field in which, as your Lordships will know, my experience is limited, although my interest is very great, and I should not have ventured upon it without asking advice from those who are very much better versed in these matters than I am. After receiving that advice, I think I may say, as I would have said before receiving it, with some degree of confidence, that the primal feature of a " work to rule " is that you do not break your contract. It is characterised, if anything, by a rather excessive adherence to rule; an excessive observance of the actual terms of a contract. In the various other forms of industrial pressure that one knows of. which generally and comprehensively one refers to as a " go slow ", the action of those who perform the work may be carried out so slowly as obviously to transgress what could be regarded as a reasonable degree of hesitancy and moderation in speed. But it may not be. The slowness may be great or it may be less. It may be such as to he no more than a rather unhurried execution of the duty of the person concerned which could not possibly be said to amount to a breach of contract on his part; and I am advised that under the term " go slow " there are varieties of different sorts of pressure which are in fact exercised from time to time in the furtherance of industrial disputes. In the mining industry, I think there is a restricted work concept which involves, again, the

9
same sort of thing but which could not possibly be said, as I understand it, to involve a breach of contract.
If I am right so far, it would mean that the definition of " irregular industrial action short of a strike " certainly would not apply to a " work to rule "; it would apply to some " go slows ", but it would not apply to others; and there are various other forms of pressure to which it would not apply. What is an unfair industrial practice in terms of this clause is either engaging upon that type of irregular industrial action, or even threatening so to do. When you make the threat you do not know even in advance whether a breach of contract is likely to result or will necessarily result or not. I frankly and at once concede that it is extraordinarily difficult to find in terms of legal language a satisfactory definition of the sort of thing which I believe those who are responsible for the Bill have in mind. I concede that it is difficult to do so, but surely it is highly unsatisfactory if the form of definition which is in fact employed, not only in this very crucial clause, but throughout the Bill, will leave it very uncertain how the question in any given situation ought to he answered: is it or is it not " irregular industrial action short of a strike "?
If one looks at the other provisions of the Bill to see what happens to you if you are found to have been guilty of irregular action short of a strike, or an unfair industrial practice of which that is part, the consequences, as your Lordships know, can be very serious indeed. The claim, as I believe, is brought under Clause 97 of the Bill, and if a claim is brought in respect of an unfair industrial practice within the meaning of Clause 31 of the Bill under the provisions of Clause 97 a court can in the first place make an order determining the rights of the complainant and the respondent; secondly, can award compensation; and, thirdly, can make an order directing the person responsible to refrain from continuing to take that action and to refrain from continuing any other action of a like nature in relation to the complaint. Deliberate disobedience would result, I suppose, in a motion for contempt, to attach the person of the defendant who was in contempt of the order of the court.
That is what can happen; and compensation, one knows, is also described in very broad terms. I think it is in Clause 110 of the Bill. Your Lordships know the limits set out in Clause 112 in the case of a union having a membership of £100.000 or more. It is £100,000. I am not suggesting for a moment that any reasonable court would in all cases determine the amount of compensation at £100,000, but you might well lave a case where there were five or six employers who joined in proceedings, and each of whom would be awarded compensation, and one does not know what that would amount to. Not only that, but each of the limbs of the unfair industrial action set out in Clause 31 is a separate one. If you call a strike you commit as act which is an unfair industrial practice; if you organise it, that is another ct; if you procure it, that is another; if you finance it, that is another; if you threaten to do so, that is another; if act engage in any of these uncertain forms of conduct which tire described as " irregular industrial action short of a strike ", that is another; if you threaten to do so, that is another. I suppose all of that could theoretically be taken into account in assessing what the compensation is to be; and all that is put into this Bill with a view to achieving a quiescent and friendly state of industrial relationships between the two sides in an area in which it is wildly optimistic to think that the most intense pressures will not from time to time certainly arise.
The approach of the two sides of the Committee as to the closed chop situation started out by being much wider than it is now because the Government have introduced Clause 16 and the approved closed shop procedure. They have made a substantial concession in that regard. But that has to be as a result, as your Lordships know very well, of a joint application, and if there will constantly be the situation open where there is no joint application; where there may be a closed shop when the Act came into force which, on the corning into force of the Act, becomes unlawful; where it may take months to get an approved closed shop into operation even if there is a joint application.
I am not one of those who thinks that the atmosphere is peopled wholly with

11
"sharks" who seek to take advantage of their fellow citizens. But now and again there will be the case of a union, well organised, doing its level best to introduce orderly relationships to try to promote stable negotiating procedures, on the one side, and an unco-operative difficult employer, on the other, who for one reason or another (whether to gain any advantage or to bring his own form of pressure) refuses to join in a joint application with the union. In that situation, months and months will go by with tempers growing heated, and ever in the background the threat that if the union does what it would be very sorely tempted to do to try to bring some pressure to bear more effective than merely polite words there is the threat of their being brought before the court and having the remedies awarded against them that I have described. I hope I am not repeating arguments, but with respect I submit that this is such an important crux in the framework of this agreement that it is justifiable to ask with some urgency that the situation should be looked at again. This sort of provision will have precisely the opposite result to that which everyone wants to achieve. I urge the Government to agree that it should be left out.
I may be asked, " What alternative do you propose?". At least this is worthy of consideration. From this side of the Committee the view has been expressed over and over again that the courts should not be brought into this field of human relationships. But the Committee have already approved clauses in the Bill, including in particular Clause 16, which involve the intervention of the courts. When we were considering Clause 16 it was suggested from this side that it was a great pity to enable the court to order an approved closed shop only after the making of a joint application by the trade union and the employer. It was urged that it would be better to equate the position of the application for an approved closed shop with the application for an agency shop; in other words, to enable the trade union, in spite of opposition from the employer, to make that application. If we are going to have the courts intervening in this field at all, is it not better to vest in them a function of this sort rather than to
12
leave it to fester as a source of dispute if the situation remains as it will be with this particular provision, paragraph (c), remaining in the Bill?
I ask the Government to give further thought to this point. I am not trying to be obstructive. I think that this is really a serious blemish on the Bill and I would urge on the Government at least to think whether it would not be better to go back to what was suggested and to say that at any rate an application for an approved closed shop can be made by the union of their own accord without the co-operation of the employer. The court can then decide that there should be a ballot and so on; that will obviate the situation at present incorporated into the Bill. I ask the Government to say that they will accept the Amendment as the first stage in a remodelling of this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
3.3 p.m.
LORD SLATER: I rise to support my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill. Noble Lords will remember that on a previous occasion I cited the mining industry, in which I spent over thirty years as an employee working down below. If we entered into negotiation with the management to arrive at an agreement for the production of coal, whether on piece rates or otherwise, and if we were not satisfied with the terms of a particular offer, we were entitled within the terms of our employment to carry out a form of restriction until we had reached agreement. That was nothing new so far as the face-workers on piece rate were concerned. They were entitled to do this provided that they were able to produce enough to achieve what was known in those days as the minimum wage rate. An Act dating as far back as 1911 fixed the minimum wage rate for those working at the coal face. Therefore the individual was able to restrict his labour to that extent and he did not have to work to his full capacity. A face-worker had two factors to consider. The first was " overdoing it ", which would be detrimental to his health; the second was that some people could not get themselves " linked up " because they had not the energy to keep up with their partners who were working as a team at the coal face. Therefore we had no particular action taken against us in

13
the matter of restricting our labour so long as we were able to clear the minimum wage rate under the 1911 Act.
I should like to ask a question of the Minister who is to reply. Before doing so, I might mention that in those days we were allowed 25 minutes travelling time per mile to our working place at the coal face. Someone of the team carried a watch and noted the time at which we first descended into the mine; and at the end of the shift this travelling time was taken into account before we left the coal face. Let us suppose that on the way out we meet an official who may stop the party and say, " You are two minutes before time according to my watch. I am going to take your names. You will report to the management at such-and-such a time." Shamefacedly, we had to report to the management—simply because an official had said that according to his watch we had left our work two minutes before time. This despite the fact that we had checked the time of starting and finishing by our own watch. What would happen in a case like this, where the management wanted to take action against miners because it was reported to them that the miners were two minutes early? I should like the Minister to give an answer because this is most important; for there must be a time fixed for travelling for these people underground. What should be done in these circumstances?—the workers are keeping to their code of conduct, yet the management say they are not and impose penalties. I should like the Minister to help me in this matter.
3.8 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: There is one case that I should like the Minister to deal with. I will put it in a hypothetical form, but it occurs in practice. The employers want to alter the conditions of work in some way or the other which is contrary to the previous practice. The workpeople may say, " We are prepared to look into this; but we are not going to do so under these conditions. However, if you are prepared to join in an application for a closed shop, we are prepared to consider this change in the nature of our work." Would that be an unfair practice? I can imagine that it could be argued that it is an unfair practice, that the workers could be considered to be
14
bringing pressure to bear. Or the other hand, the employers are bringing pressure to alter the existing practice, and they will use what methods are available to them. It seems to me that under his clause the workers may want to use this particular argument: to say, " Let us have a look at the possibility of a closed shop ", because they might agree to lo certain things within the ambit of a closed shop which they would be unwilling to do outside it. That is the important thing. I need not put it at any greater length. I should like to know precisely what the Minister means and whether he would say that this would be regarded as unfair practice on the part of the workpeople in asking an employer to join with them in an application for a closed shop.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: In this world of cybernetics, and this new living tool that can almost think—automation —conditions inside a shop cm change from time to time and within a matter of a few months new types of tools for doing a job can move a certain small number of people who have a skill. The Donovan Report was specific in saying that they did not like fragmentation of claims, sheltered claims aril so on—I am speaking from memory, of the Report. I think we are in deep water in trying to legislate for a moving civilisation and rapid movement inside industry when we try to categorise as tightly as Clause 31 has done. Consequently, I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will bear this in mind.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I do not want to follow my noble friend into the realm of cybernetics, I want to be more simple. We frequently read in the newspapers of groups of workers who decide to work to rule. That broadly interpreted means that they are putting aside their normal customs and tempo and are reducing the output of their labour to a scale laid down within certain laws and by-laws appropriate to their particular occupation. In the case of the railways, we know that the by-laws impose strict restrictions upon employees: they must see that every door of every carriage is properly fastened and so on. There are occasions when the workers, because of some grievance, decide that they will put aside their usual speed of practice and revert to the official requirements laid

15
down in the rules. Another case concerns buses. I presume, although I cannot produce the by-law, that there is a by-law in London which requires drivers to keep buses to a speed of 30 miles an hour in certain districts and perhaps 40 miles an hour in others. We know that there is sometimes a long jam on the bus routes, and drivers, knowing that an inspector is standing at a bus stop three miles away, decide, wickedly perhaps, to exceed the speed laid down in their working instructions for the next mile or so. Ship workers are certainly restricted, in the interests of public safety, in a good many ways. It may be that in an emergency, or because the ship is behind time, one or two of the usual precautions that are observed in normal circumstances are allowed to slip.
We know that stringent rules are laid down by the Factories Acts for places of manufacture. It may be because a rush job is being executed, probably for export, that one or two of those regulations are allowed to slip for a moment. If a worker deliberately slows down—let us put it as bad as that—in order to bring himself within the standards laid down by the law of the land or the bylaws of his public corporation, has he committed an irregular industrial practice which would make him liable under this Bill? Which Bill is the boss, this Bill or the existing Factory Act, the railway by-laws, the navigation by-laws, and so on? A man is going to find himself in serious difficulty if he has to decide between the two.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, really raised two separate issues, although they were inter-linked, as I am sure he realises. The first related to the Amendment in question, which is to leave out the words—
" to induce an employer or an employers' association to join in making an application under Part I of Schedule I to this Act."
That immediately raises the question which the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, raised regarding the meaning of " induce ". Within the context of this clause, what it means follows on from what has been said above—
" to induce an employer, or a person acting on behalf of an employer, to take any action which (whether by virtue of subsection (1) of
16
this section or otherwise) is or would be an unfair industrial practice…"
If you look back to subsection (1) you find out what is there covered, and that is the question of dismissal. In this particular paragraph (c) we are dealing with a different matter altogether; that is, with the closed shop. In this context " induce means what is laid down in subsection (2)—
"this Section applies to action of any of the following descriptions, that is to say—

(a) calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike. or threatening to do so

(b) organising, procuring or financing any irregular industrial action short of a strike, or threatening to do so."

I thought the point the noble Lord raised was more a question of negotiation than pressure, and it is pressure that we are dealing with here. I see the noble Lord, Lord Brown, indicating a little surprise. He may think it is difficult to sort this matter out. We are dealing with pressure of this particular kind: strike action and irregular industrial action. I think one can clearly distinguish that from argument and persuasion, and " inducing in this sense is related to this form of pressure. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, went on to deal with a particular form of pressure which is referred to in subsection (4) and which I thought would perhaps be debated on whether the clause shall stand part. But there seems no reason why we should not debate it at the present time.
LORD HOY: If I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I say that we do not differ from the words he has read out. Perhaps he would care to give your Lordships examples of what he means and against which he is going to take measures under this Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I apologise to the noble Lord, but I am not quite clear what he is asking me to do.
LORD HOY: The noble Lord read out five ways in which he said that action might be taken, and they are the words in the Bill. Would he give us examples of what he means?
LORD DRUMALBYN: In this Amendment we are talking about inducing an employer or an employers' association to join in making an application. The application is under Clause 16 and Schedule 1

17
—that is, for an approved close shop. There are many other applications that come into Part II, but then applications do not apply here. We are not talking about a dismissed employee's application. This is a fairly narrow matter and I hope I have made it clear to the noble Lord.
LORD PARGITER: I confined myself to a very narrow point on the Amendment. with a view to getting a fairly precise answer. If I understood the Minister aright, he would say that where an employer wants to change a practice in a workshop and the employees say, " We are prepared to consider this provided that you join with us in making joint application for a closed shop ", he would regard that as negotiation and not pressure. Now supposing the employer says, " I am not prepared to do that, but it is obvious that the practice ought to be changed " and the employee still remained obdurate, would that then become pressure " or would it still be negotiable?
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the pressure were directed towards persuading the employer to agree to make an application for an approved closed shop agreement, then in that case it would be caught under the Bill quite plainly. But it is very difficult to say in any given circumstances why an employer would agree to make an application, and all that the Bill says is that the employer and the employees, or the trade union, must agree together on making an application for an approved closed shop. I would myself have thought that an employer would not be very ready to barter away his particular responsibilities in this matter even although, taking the matter by and large, he might be persuaded in certain circumstances. I am afraid that that is the best answer I can give the noble Lord for, after all, it is not possible to pry into the minds of men as to why they agree to a particular thing. All I am saying is that in the light of the responsibilities that are placed upon the employer in regard to approved closed shop agreements, he will obviously need to have very special regard to the need to respect his duties under Clause 5 of the Bill, for example—the duties that are laid upon him not in any way to interfere with an employee's right to belong or not to belong to a union.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: How does that arise when it is a question of making an application under the appropriate clause of the Bill? Surely an employer cannot consent to a joint application under the first part of Schedule 1 of the Bill, unless he has taken it into account. It is quite automatic once he has agreed to this application that he is consenting to embark upon a course which limits some of the individual's entitlements under Clause 5.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is precisely w hat I am saying. He must have regard to the consequences of I is agreeing to make an application for an approved closed shop. and I was saying that I did not think—though I cannot pry into the minds of men—that employers would barter away these consequences for a very cheap price. I cannot take the matter further than that, quite obviously. The noble Lord knows better than. I do the facts of negotiations in industrial life.
I was just coming to the question of irregular industrial action short of a strike. The essence of this was quote clearly pointed to by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, when he pointed out that in the case of some or all of them this cleans any concerted course of conduct which is carried on in breach in their contracts of employment or in breach of t their terms and conditions of service. In the main, of course, in an industry where there is a rule book or anything comparable to it, it is part of the contract of service that the rules contained in that rule book should he observed. so that where there is a breach of the rule book it would follow there is also a breach o' the contract of employment. T think that on the whole question of working to rule, people have some vague idea that If e rule is also some other rule—possibly a rule of the trade union, or something of that kind. This is not so at all. We are purely concerned with the breach of rules contained in the rule book, and if the rule book is unnecessarily rests active, or indeed in some cases absurd, it is usually a matter for normal negotiation! between the employer and the trade union to get this situation sorted out. But so far as this provision is concerned, so long as the employees stuck to the rule book they would not be in breach of their terms and conditions of service and they would then not be guilty—I use this word Loosely—

19
of committing irregular industrial action short of a strike.
There are cases where there is no rule book, and in such a case one would have to take all the facts into account and make a judgment as to whether subsection (4)(a) was then being covered—a concerted course of conduct which is carried on by a group of workers with the intention of preventing or otherwise interfering with the production of goods or the provision of services. One would have to rely on that alone and not on both at the same time. Noble Lords may say, " Is this likely to be accepted. Will it work fairly in some cases?" In some cases it will work one way where there is a rule book, and in other cases it will work in another way where there is no rule book. But that is entirely to ignore the spirit of this provision, and of course this prohibition of irregular action in support of unfair industrial practices runs right through the Bill.
LORD BROWN: May I make a short remark? The noble Lord has made repeated references to the rule book. I now understand what he means because he has explained it, but I think it is likely to lead to misunderstanding because what he is referring to are in fact agreed policies between the employee and the management which form part of the contract of employment. Reference to the rule book inevitably means to some people reference to the union rule book.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have just said that people confuse the two. I am grateful to the noble Lord if he has made it clearer that I did.
LORD BROWN: Is there not another term that could be used?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The words " rule book " do not appear in the Bill, which relies entirely on breach of contract or terms of employment, or terms and conditions of employment. My argument was that this was often linked with the rule book.
LORD LEATHERLAND: If the noble Lord will pardon me, this is a point I raised. Let me put it quite simply in terms of one industry. In the railway world there is a rule, and in order to convenience the public railway men often
20
ignore that. Let us assume that the railway men cultivate a grievance. They will say: " We will work strictly in accordance with the rule book ". That means a slowing down of travel. By working strictly to the rule book, which has almost legislative authority, are they contravening the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: If they really stick closely to the rule book and carry out those rules with normal efficiency and without undue delay—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD DRUMALBYN: Certainly. The noble Lord must permit me not to give way. I am well aware that there are many peculiar provisions in the rule books. I remember being held up for one and a half hours at a station while successive trains went through because we happened to be in a position where the " up " trains had to go in on the " down " platform because the " up " platform was closed. That meant according, to the rule book—or so I was informed—that a man must go out with a lantern and lead each train in. This happened with one train after another. I should have thought that they might have had a man with a lantern posted ready in each place, but instead of that the same man came in and went out and came in and went back again, and the result was that the train was one and a half hours late. I quite agree that these things can happen, but this is a case for the alteration of the rules, if they are absurd and anachronistic. What the Bill seeks to do is to get proper procedural agreements so that this type of anachronism which is standing in the way of efficiency and progress in this country shall be removed. All I am saying is that we must deal with the situation as we see it. I am now being asked about conformity with the rule book. I am merely advising the Committee that as matters stand, if the rule book is part of the contract of service it is sufficient, so long as you can show that you are really conforming with the rule book; but in doing so you must not add additional rules or additional delaying action of your own.
LORD POPPLEWELL: The more the noble Lord speaks on the rule book the more he indicates his complete ignorance of what he is really talking about. As a railwayman of many years standing,

21
knowing the railway rule book and knowing the penalty that has been inflicted on me because I have broken the rules—for instance, one can be in the signal box in the marshalling yard, an engine comes along, it goes back shunting, you place the signals at danger and it stops out in the yard for 10 or 15 minutes without giving any indication; but if you move those signals you have broken the rules. That is the kind of thing that shows the total unreality of this line of approach.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to continue with my speech, because I think his intervention is beyond merely drawing attention to a particular point. I think I should be allowed to complete my speech.
I hope I have now left the Committee with the impression, which I believe to be the correct one, that irregular industrial action short of a strike must mean the preventing, reducing or otherwise interfering with production and must also be in breach of the contracts of employment—and this is where the two sides of the argument are linked. Where there is a practice which is unfair, it is unreasonable for anybody to act to achieve that purpose; and under the Bill that is an " unfair industrial practice ". These practices are all defined in the Bill. That unfair industrial practice will lay the person who indulges in it open to the action that is envisaged and which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, mentioned. There can be a complaint against the action and as a result of that there may be either a definition of rights or an order to stop doing what you are doing, or not to do again what you have done, or there may be compensation. I cannot believe that anybody really disagrees with that as a principle.
The question we now have to consider —and this is the point raised by the noble Lord—is whether to induce an employer or employers' association to join in making an application for an approved closed shop is or is not unfair. I believe that it is unfair, because the Government have made it clear throughout that what they are seeking to do is at the same time to preserve individual freedom and to get order in industry; and they do this by providing means of access to an agency shop agreement. We believe that it will he entirely exceptional to get
22
approval of a closed shop agreement. Indeed as those of your Lordships who were present during the debates will know, it is certainly not going to be easy, with the gateways that we have established, to get an approved closed shop agreement.
We also think that because of the need to preserve the rights of the individual in this regard it is right that both the employer and the union should agree that the closed shop is necessary in terms of Schedule 1 that we have discussed: that it is necessary, that it is to be desired and that it is in their joint interests. We believe that it would be most undesirable to provide for the establishment of a closed shop agreement against the wishes of the employer; in effect to allow industrial action to be taken to force an employer into a closed shop agreement. After all, the approval of a closed shop will impose on the employer a duty to deprive his workers of their livelihood if they refuse or are unable to join the trade union, and we believe that such a condition of employment can be approved only in the most exceptional circumstances. It is on these grounds that we have added paragraph (c), to make it an unfair industrial practice to induce an employer, by strike action or by irregular action short of a strike, to join with the union in an application for a closed shop. It for these reasons that we do that and lye believe that we are right in so doing. I hope the Committee will agree with me in that contention.
3.38 p.m.
LORD SHIN WELL: Never have I heard the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, less convincing. Frequently in the course of our debates I have thought that he was (if I may say so without any condescension) very effective, within the ambit of the proposed legislation, but he seems to be arguing with himself; trying to convince himself. Indeed he travels much wider than the clause requires. For example, he spoke about this being the essence of the provision now being debated; he spoke about a group of workers seeking to impede an employer making an application in relation to a closed shop. Then he referred to " strike action or irregular action short of a strike ". The words

23
"irregular action short of a strike", not only apply to this clause but are related to many other items in the proposed legislation.
When the noble Lord sought to define what " irregular action short of a strike " meant he said" concerted action ", and if there was any doubt about whether it was concerted action then those who were responsible for exercising their judgment must rely on the facts. But he did not state what the facts are, except to furnish an illustration out of his own experience. Of course, it must have been a great nuisance to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to find a number of trains passing through the station and that he was left in the lurch; but what he has failed to recognise throughout the whole of this debate, despite all the questions that have been asked by my noble friends, is whether it was desirable, in the interests of safety and in order to protect the travelling public, to have a book of rules that have been in operation for many years.
In effect, what he said—and I do not know whether my noble friends noted it —was that if there is an operation that appears to be unfair (for example, if it is unfair to the travelling public) and it happens to impede an employer in making an application for a closed shop, then we want to alter the rule. That is what he said. There is no provision in this legislation for altering the safety rules which relate to the railway service. By what authority did he say what he said? If there is such an intention, may we have it disclosed? From whence does it derive? Is it the intention of the Government to go further than what is contained in this legislation and to make some rearrangement about the safety rules affecting the railway service; or to alter the Factories Acts or anything of that sort?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has misunderstood what I said. I was talking about the rule book, the rules that apply. I said this was a matter for negotiation. The rules have to he laid down by the employer. He cannot change them—and I think it undesirable that they should be changed—without consultation with the employees. I was talking about that
24
being linked with the contract of service. I said nothing whatever about the desirability of altering a particular rule. I merely quoted an example of what happens when a particular rule of this kind is applied; I made no comment on whether or not it should be altered.
LORD SHINWELL: With respect, the noble Lord did not reply to the pointed and pertinent question put by my noble friend Lord Leatherland. He gave an illustration of the rules which operate in the railway service and asked what would be the position of the worker who continued to operate the rule. I am not saying it is a good rule: most of us have been inconvenienced by it at some time or other. I am inclined to repeat what I said about the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. It is a fearful nuisance, when one is seeking to reach one's destination, to discover that a particular rule is being operated. It may have been in operation since the beginning of the railway system; but the point is that it exists. Now we have discovered that in the exercise of judgment on whether a group of workers or a particular worker have sought to impede an application by an employer in relation to the closed shop, and this rule operates, it will be regarded as an irregular action—is the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, saying that it is not irregular? Will the noble Lord say it is a regular action?
LORD DRUMALBYN: What I have said is that if there is something in the rules, and the rules are part of the contract of employment, any action in accordance with those rules will not be an irregular action. I went on to say that of course not all the rules are perfect; some are anachronistic, and they ought to be brought up to date. I am trying to explain to noble Lords that this paragraph is not so terrifying as it looks, but is intended to have a psychological effect, and to show that action which is irregular and reduces production, and is outside the contract of employment, ought not to be permitted; and to take such action for unfair purposes is an unfair industrial practice.
LORD SHINWELL: I am sorry to pursue the matter, but the noble Lord has delivered himself into my hands, lock, stock and barrel. He says that if the rule is a bit of a nuisance what ought to

25
happen is that it ought to be brought up to date. Who is going to bring it up to date? When what is regarded as unfair industrial practice comes up for judgment, who is to be responsible for exercising the judgment? This is all left in the air. It is not good enough. There ought to be precision about this legislation. Workers ought to know where they stand and what is going to happen to them. It ought not to be left subsequent to an action taken by a group of workers.
I come back to the point that we have still not had a definition of what is an irregular industrial practice. What is it? The noble Lord has talked about concerted action. What does he mean by "concerted action "? It is a very vague, ambiguous and nebulous term. Is concerted action an irregular industrial practice of which a man may be found guilty? Will the noble Lord say whether that is what it means? I am bound to say that this is the least convincing reply from the Government that I have heard during the whole of this debate, and this is a very important matter.
As my noble friend Lord Stow Hill brought out so vividly, under a subsequent provision of the Bill, a union could be liable to pay £100,000 compensation if not only one employer but also a group of employers had been impeded in their desire to have a closed shop. The employers could be awarded £100,000 each. That is what is proposed in the Bill, and the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was only too right when he said that, instead of trying to promote industrial relations of an orderly and constitutional character, we shall he in for more trouble. Is this what the Government are driving at? Sometimes I think they are; that they are out for a row. Have they not enough rows on their plate already, with what is happening in Europe—about which we are to hear this afternoon—and elsewhere, and with 800,000 unemployed, without trying to drive the workers of this country into more turbulence? If that is what they want, they are going to get it.
LORD SLATER: I posed a particular question because the matter comes under two measures. What is going to happen when this Bill becomes an Act? Provision is made for travelling time for a miner of 25 minutes to the mile when travelling underground. My noble friend Lord Shinwell referred to irregular
26
industrial action. If men are caught coming out of a mine two minutes before their time, under what legislation would the management have power to take action against them? Would it be under the provisions of this Bill or under the 1958 legislation?
LORD DRUMALBYN: As I tried to explain to the noble Lord, whether an action has been an unfair industrial practice depends on the purpose of the action. I did not understand from the noble Lord that these men had started early. But even if they had, it was because they had a purpose: to establish a closed shop or anything else branded as an unfair industrial practice. I thought that the noble Lord was slightly "off beam " in his example, although I quite understand that he has had a traumatic experience.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, a very short general question? It is very difficult for me, not being a lawyer or a trade unionist, to follow this very crucial clause. May I ask whether the Government regard all concerted actions as irregular?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, but they do regard all irregular actions as concerted where they are agreed upon by several people to achieve 2 certain purpose.
3.49 p.m.
LORD BROWN: I find myself in some disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who is seeking more detail. I suggest that this sort or argument will come up many times in the discussions on future Amendments. The real cause of the argument is that the proposed legislation delves very deeply into very important things and deals with them at too superficial a level. Here we are concerned with three things: persuasion, use of authority and power. We understand what persuasion means. Authority ought to be defined somewhere in this Bill as being the right to act on the basis of policy and rules which have been agreed. Power is the right, unilaterally, to cause disruption in support of some activity which you want. If these conceptions had been understood and defined, one could deal with clauses and subsections such as this very much more simply. The argument that has been

27
going on for the last half-hour is really about the authority which arises through agreed procedures. If those agreed procedures exist then the authority exists; but if they are not agreed, power must not be used in their place. That is what the Bill is trying to say. I agree with what the Bill is trying to say, but it has been said in a way which is on too high a level of superficiality.
3.50 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: The whole essence of this argument once more highlights how impossible it will be for this legislation to work unless lawyers are brought in to interpret it. There has been much talk about rule books and suchlike, but what are those rule books for? Particularly on the railways they are to ensure the safety of the public. When a body of railwaymen decide, because they are arguing for a given action, that they will work to rule, what is to be done about it? This just indicates how difficult it will be to define " an irregular industrial action." Of course the Government will not move on this matter. One can understand that; but it once more highlights how ridiculous the Bill is and the impossibility of working it.
LORD ARWYN: In addition to the reference to railways and their main problem, I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to the Mines and Quarries Act. If a mine or a quarry is run in accordance with the Act, production is bound to be decreased. Is that an " irregular " practice? I have been in mining and quarrying all my life and I know that if any manager sticks to the rules and enforces them the output from the quarry is diminished. I should like to have some enlightenment about this question, especially on this clause. The Bill is already known as a personnel manager's nightmare.
3.52 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is getting into some deep water, although it is nothing like so deep as the water will prove to be if the Bill in its present form becomes an Act and anyone actually attempts to apply the subsection to which some of my noble friends have directed particular attention, and to which perhaps we shall return on the
28
Question, Whether the clause stand part of the Bill.
I wish to focus attention for a moment on the purpose for which these formidable penalties are being threatened. They are threatened against anyone who seeks by action specified in this clause
" to induce an employer or an employers' association to join in making an application under Part I of Schedule 1."
I want to press the noble Lord on the point I raised earlier and with which I am bound to say I do not feel he dealt very satisfactorily or convincingly. That is the question of whether or not the delays which it will be possible for reluctant employers to impose are likely to be such as to cause very considerable frustration, which might well express itself in action or the possibility of action which would be caught under some subsections of this clause.
Is the Minister satisfied that the arrangements envisaged in the Bill are not such as to enable delayed action to be taken, even when there is a very clear case for a closed shop to be established and even when a substantial number of responsible employers are concerned and would like to see such a closed shop established? If, for example, on the employing side there is an organisation and not a single employer, are not the possibilities of delay greatly extended? Is the Minister satisfied that there is anything reasonably fair in threatening working people or their representatives with the draconic penalties under the Bill? Unless he is absolutely satisfied that there are no possibilities by which delays can be imposed on the procedures in the Bill—and those procedures are not very satisfactory; in fact, they are very unsatisfactory in any case—if they are to be subject to substantial delay, the position will be come intolerable and patience will reach breaking point. Has this factor been considered, and are the Government satisfied that there are not possibilities of delay on the part of employers in seeing the procedure carried out expeditiously if it is likely to lead to a result about which they are not very keen?
Secondly—and this, I think, is the last point on which we shall concentrate attention particularly on the closed shop, at any rate for some time—it is necessary for the Government, now that we have gone through this examination of all the

29
various aspects of the closed shop provisions, to give us an answer to the question why they have chosen so flagrantly to disregard the advice of the Donovan Commission. The Donovan Commission examined this matter very carefully, more carefully than I think the Government have examined it. They examined it very judicially, more judicially than I suspect the Government have ever examined it. The Donovan Commission made it very clear that they did not recommend the imposition of enormous difficulties such as the Government envisage, and such as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has envisaged, before a closed shop can be brought into being. If my memory serves me aright, they mentioned five points which they thought needed attention concerning the relationship between the closed shop and training arrangements. They thought that sometimes there were out-of-date training arrangements. I should have thought that one of the most important factors in industry to-day is training, I think it should play a more substantial part in the code of practice.
Then the Donovan Commission, I believe in paragraph 603, set out four sets of circumstances in which they thought the possibility of injustice could arise for individuals as a result of the operation of a closed shop. The first was where a man has a conscientious objection. That case has been dealt with, perhaps not in a very satisfactory way or in the most satisfactory way but it has been suggested that it could possibly lead to a widening of the conscience provision to cover many cases not normally thought of as coming within that term.
Secondly, the Commission thought that there could be a danger of individuals being unreasonably excluded from a trade union which operated a closed shop, and thus be disadvantaged. They went on to say that in their judgment if there were, as exists in the vast majority of cases, a proper appeal procedure within the union, this difficulty would largely disappear, but in cases which arose despite that fact the matter could be dealt with, if my memory serves me aright, by the review body mentioned in discussion on an earlier clause which was to operate in conjunction with the Registrar and which of course has no place whatever in the Government's plan. But at any rate I
30
think it is reasonable to say that in one way or another this problem will be dealt with.
Thirdly, they thought there were possibilities, that there might arise cases of a union engaged in malpractice in a way which would prejudice the position of individuals. They were I think looking at very exceptional circumstances here, and certainly there is nothing in whatsoever in that proviso in the Donovan Report which justifies the elaborate paraphernalia which the Government are envisaging before a closed shop can be brought into being.
Fourthly, they thought then; was the possibility that an individual, a non-unionist, already employed in a concern. might be in danger of unfair treatment if a closed shop were introduced, and he was unwilling to join, having already had some years of service.
These were the four sets of circumstances which the Donovan Commission believed needed to be examined and dealt with. I hope the noble Lord will not misunderstand me. I am not for one moment suggesting that those four sets of circumstances cannot be described as being dealt with in the Bill. What I am saying is that the Government are going infinitely beyond what the Donovan Commission regarded as necessary to safeguard the position of individuals in relation to the closed shop. It really is not good enough for the Government to ride away again on one of their easy generalities, in the way in which they are placing obstacle after obstacle in the way of the achievement of a closed shop, even where employers and trade unionists want it. They really are going far beyond anything that the Donovan Commission regarded as necessary in dealing with the limitations of the closed shop and the criticisms which could legitimately be made of it.
The noble Lord ought to gave us a more convincing explanation, since we are now at the end of the Part of the Bill dealing particularly with this matter. about why the Government have chosen to disregard the implications of the Donovan Report, and have gone far far beyond steps which the Donovan Report recommended as necessary.
4.2 p.m.
LORD IDRUNIALBYN: I think it would be a mistake to go all over the

31
arguments that we have gone over before. The Committee will be well aware that we have regarded the agency shop as the means by which the freedom of the individual and the needs of collective bargaining can be reconciled. We attach great importance to both of them. We have regarded the closed shop, particularly the pre-entry closed shop, as something which is in itself undesirable. We have in another place introduced provisions whereby a post-entry closed shop can be introduced in circumstances where this is approved after examination by the Commission for Industrial Relations. We have attached great importance to the need for agreement between the employer and the trade union in such an application for an approved closed shop.
The noble Lord expressed doubts about the delays which could ensue, but the circumstances here are quite different from those in the previous case in which he inquired about delays. There we were concerned with the agency shop, where the union itself could make an application, or for that matter the employer could make an application, for an agency shop to be introduced, subject to the approval of the workers themselves. As the Committee will now of course know, the agency shop can be agreed upon by the employer and the union together. But here we are dealing with something quite different, and that is where there is to be a closed shop, and here we think it is highly desirable that there should be this agreement as a precondition between the employer and the union. I did make some references earlier to the difficulty of seeing into the minds of people, and of the employer in particular, and in what circumstances he might agree, and what inducement would amount to. But I tried to make it clear that there should be real agreement between the employer and the unions on the necessity and the desirability of the closed shop. This is very likely to be the case, and we would not expect in these circumstances that unfair pressure should be exercised upon the employer to do something that he does not wish to do, or does not think it right to do.
If the employer thinks it necessary—and this is the operative word in the case of a closed shop—for the well-being of the industry as a whole, or of his own
32
particular industry, as the case may be, then of course an application can be made by agreement. The noble Lord says it may take a long time to get all employers to come into line. This would be to look into the ways in which employers' associations reach agreement, but I would not have thought that employers' associations would necessarily have waited until all agreed on a particular action before they decided that they were in favour of a closed shop, and were prepared to join with an application for it. But if the employer really believes that a closed shop is not in the interests of the industry, or of his own industry as the case may be, then we think it would be wrong to let such an application go forward. I recognize—
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I think the noble Lord is about to go on to another point, but before he does so, can he give us an assurance that the circumstance will not arise in which, in an employers' association, one or two recalcitrant employers, constituting a minority, and perhaps employing a minority of the workers concerned, will be able to hold up action which is desired by the generality of the employers?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I could not give such an assurance, because I do not know how the affairs of individual employers' associations work. Of course I could not give such an assurance. But I think the noble Lord will agree with me that there are certain fields in which there is already evidence. and quite strong evidence, that both employers and unions are likely to make applications for an approved closed shop agreement. The difference is simply that the noble Lord, and noble Lords opposite, would like to see far more examples of applications for such closed shop agreements, and we believe that they should be limited to places where they are absolutely necessary, and where there is agreement between the two sides.
The noble Lord made reference to what the Donovan Commission said on this matter, and I think it is perhaps worth while to refer to what they actually did say. In paragraph 594 they said:
" It must not be supposed, however, that good industrial relations are the invariable accompaniment of the closed shop. On the contrary, the closed shop is widespread in motor manufacturing, shipbuilding. coal-mining and the docks, the four industries in

33
which strikes in breach of agreement have been most common in recent years."
They went on, in paragraph 598, to say:
" In our view the closed shop as it operates at present is not always in the best interests either of workers or of the community as a whole. It is liable from time to time to cause substantial injustice to individuals from which they have no effective means of redress. It also contributes to the maintenance of a system of training which is out of date and inadequate to the country's needs."
Perhaps I might mention in passing that the Bill is by no means silent on training—
LORD LEATHERLAND: May I—
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I please deal with this point before I leave it? If the noble Lords will look at Clause 46(7) of the Bill they will see that in applications for sole bargaining agencies the Commission may attach such conditions as they think fit, and-—
"(a) may require an organisation of workers recommended for recognition as sole bargaining agent for a bargaining unit, or for inclusion in a joint negotiating panel so recommended, to make sufficient trained officials available for purposes of collective bargaining."
This is one of the points the Donovan Commission also laid stress upon. Perhaps 1 may finish my quotations from the Donovan Commission Report by quoting from paragraph 602:
" We have also borne in mind that throughout this Report we advanced a number of proposals to assist trade unions to organise effectively and to reduce the incidence of strikes. The effect of our proposals should be to extend to more industries the conditions which now permit many trade unions to organise and bargain without need for the closed shop, and we believe, therefore, that in many cases unions should in time feel able to dispense with its aid."
Many of those proposals are included in the Bill. In other cases we do things in a rather different way, but the Bill makes substantial provision to assist us to organise effectively. I believe that it would do it much quicker than was envisaged by the Donovan Commission, through the agency shop provisions. For example, there is the right to obtain recognition and bargaining rights, and information for bargaining purposes, to form agency shops, and the protection of the trade union member in exercising his right of membership.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Would the noble Lord not agree that his quotations from the Donovan Report have been quite strikingly selective? I trust he is not going to suggest that the: Donovan Commission gives the impression that the closed shop is in general accompanied by bad industrial relations. Nor, hope, will he omit to take note of the fact that I listed in some detail, and I think with complete accuracy, the four points which the Donovan Commission thought ought to be attended to in order to remove the criticism and objections to which they drew attention. Will he further agree that I was quite right in saying that the Government's proposals go far, far, further to make the closed shop difficult to bring into existence than the Donovan Commission recommended?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I agree that the proposals in the Bill go further to make the closed shop difficult to bring about, but what I have said is that the points to which the Donovan Commission attach importance are either net in the Bill in the same way as the Donovan Commission recommended, or are met in a different way. Above all, there is this device of the agency shop agreement which should bring about, over a wide area of industry, the benefits at present enjoyed by the closed shop, without: the striking disadvantage that it has for the individual. That is what we have sought to achieve, and I believe that the Bill will achieve it.
LORD STOW HILL: Before the noble Lord sits down, I want to intervene on precisely this same point. The noble Lord read from the third sentence of paragraph 602 of the Donovan Report. Would it not have been a little more satisfactory also to have read the first two sentences of that paragraph, which read as follows:
" In our view prohibition of the closed shop must be rejected. It is better to recognise that under proper safeguards a closed shop can serve a useful purpose and to devise alternative means of overcoming the disadvantages which accompany it "?
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

E.E.C. NEGOTIATIONS: BRUSSELS TALKS
4.15 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement that was made by the right honourable gentleman, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in another place a little earlier this afternoon. This is the Statement:
"With your permission Mr. Speaker and that of the House I should like to make a Statement about the meetings I attended in Brussels and Reykjavik last week. I am sure the House will forgive me if I go into some detail.
"At the meeting with the Community in Brussels in the early part of the week we reached agreement on a number of important points. For convenience I will deal with the matters in the order in which they arose.
"First there was a satisfactory measure of agreement on Euratom. When this subject was first broached, the Community asked the candidate countries for compensation for access to the assets of Euratom. We said we did not think this request was justified, and I am glad to say that it was withdrawn. We have now agreed in principle to an exchange of knowledge of equivalent value, to take place immediately after our entry. We have also settled a number of legal issues arising out of our acceptance of the Euratom Treaty, including its application to our dependent territories, with the exception of Hong Kong.
"Next, tariff quotas. We reached agreement on arrangements for twelve industrial products which we at present import wholly or mainly duty free, and where it appeared that the imposition of the Common External Tariff would have meant a new charge on supplies to British industry. The products in question are phosphorus, silicone carbide, wattle extract, plywood, wood pulp, newsprint, ferro chrome, ferro silicone, aluminium, lead and zinc. The only product on which we have yet to settle is alumina.
36
"The effect of the arrangements we have made is that around 90 per cent. of our imports of these commodities from outside the enlarged Community would continue to be imported duty-free.
"The Community also agreed to an indefinite suspension of the Common External Tariff on tea. With permission I will circulate details of these inevitably complicated arrangements in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"We then dealt with the important issue of agricultural transition and Community preference. Here we were able to settle the main problems, and agree on a basis on which the remaining points of detail can be worked out.
"Briefly, we would adopt the mechanism of the Common Agricultural Policy at the beginning of the transitional period, but our transition to Community prices would be achieved by six even steps spread over five years. The deficiency payments system would be phased out gradually during that period. British producers and consumers and third countries should thus have time enough to make the adjustments which in many cases would be necessary.
"On trade with third countries, we have secured explicit recognition by the Community that if circumstances arose during the transitional period in which significant volumes of trade risked serious disruption, then the enlarged Community would deal with the position.
"The Community would likewise take rapid and effective action to deal with any difficulties which might arise in the operation of the transitional mechanisms.
"The Community recognised that we had a special problem over horticulture. Here it was agreed first that tariff adjustment for horticultural products should proceed at a slower rate; secondly that no move on horticultural tariffs should take place until a year after our accession; thirdly that there would be provision for flexibility in the adjustment of horticultural tariffs to permit some modifications of the process if necessary; and finally that for apples and pears, where there is a special problem arising from surpluses

37
in the Community, we should replace our quota arrangements at the beginning of transition by a system of compensatory levies, off-setting the difference between British and Community prices. These levies would be gradually phased out during the transition period as British and Community prices come into line.
"Taken together, these measures should ensure that British horticulture gets the exceptional treatment which it needs.
"I now turn to the question of our contribution to the Community budget. As the House will know, there are several ways of approaching this difficult and important problem.
"The Community has now suggested an entirely new approach, based on certain initial principles.
"The idea is that a percentage—or key—would be set, which would vary by small amounts anually, and would represent the proportion of the Community budget which we would notionally be expected to pay in each of the years of the transitional period. But the sums actually payable in each year would be reduced by a large amount at the start of the transitional period and by a progressively smaller amount as time went on until we arrived at full acceptance of the Community's direct income system.
"An important and favourable development is that the Community admits the possibility of a further period of correctives after the end of the transitional period.
"While welcoming this new approach, I made it clear that its usefulness could only be assessed when precise figures were attached to the formula to enable us to see what we would actually be paying. But if the figures were fair and reasonable. I see no reason why the present proposal should not provide the means of arriving at a solution satisfactory to all concerned.
"Finally I come to two related questions: that of the association with the Community of the developing Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean and Indian and Pacific Oceans; and that of future imports of sugar from the developing Commonwealth countries.
38
"The Community have row agreed that they are prepared to reaffirm the 1963 Declaration of Intent in respect of the independent Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean, Mauritius, Fiji, Western Samoa and Tonga. This declaration offered a choice, between two forms of association and a trading agreement. I warmly welcomed its reaffirmation, which would give the countries concerned complete and wide protection and freedom of chose. They would have up to 1975 to negotiate these arrangements with the enlarged Community, of which we should of course then be a member. Until then our existing pattern of trade with them would remain unchanged.
"As regards sugar, the Community on the 11th of May undertook to bear in mind the importance of sugar for the economies of the developing Commonwealth countries concerned after 1974, and suggested that the question should be settled within the framework of negotiations on whatever form of association or trading agreement these countries wanted.
"I replied that this approach was helpful but needed clarification. I did not think that the undertaking, so far as sugar was concerned, was sufficiently firm to provide the sort of assurance which the Caribbean countries and other sugar producers had always needed
"In the early hours of the 13th May after further contacts, the Community put an additional text to us. They now said that it would be the firm purpose of the enlarged Community to safeguard the interests of the countries in question whose economies depended to a considerable degree on the export of primary products, in particular sugar.
"This text amounts to more than a declaration of intention. It is both a specific and a moral commitment.
"I can now say this to the developing sugar producing countries of the Commonwealth.
"There would be room in the enlarged Community, of which Britain would be part, both for present quantities of sugar from these countries at remunerative prices and for the development of sugar beet production.

39
"With the safeguards now promised I believe that the House can be satisfied that these countries will not suffer from our entry into the Community. The assurances which successive British Governments have given to these developing countries have now been double-banked by the Community's commitment.
"I thanked the Community for their declaration but made it clear that before accepting it, I must consult the Commonwealth countries concerned. I am hoping to arrange these consultations in the very near future.
"I believe that the progress on all these points which was made in Brussels last week is a clear demonstration of the Community's desire to carry the negotiations rapidly forward to a successful conclusion. We shall be meeting again at an additional Ministerial meeting in Luxembourg on the 7th June.
"At the end of the week I was in Reykjavik for discussions with my Ministerial colleagues of the European Free Trade Association.
"My colleagues unanimously expressed satisfaction at the progress made in the Brussels negotiations and in the discussions the European Free Trade Association countries were having with the Community. They expressed their confidence that all European Free Trade Association countries would be able to participate in the progress of European integration in a way acceptable to the Community and to themselves."
4.25 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, for repeating that long Statement. Of course it will be necessary for us to examine it with very great care—with more care than we have had time for at the moment. However, it is a very important Statement and I hope the House will bear with me if I make certain brief comments and ask a number of specific questions on it.
I note that the proposed Agreement with regard to Euratom and I confess I am slightly puzzled by the phrase " the exchange of knowledge of equivalent
40
value". I wonder what sort of value is meant there—because these are un-quantifiable matters affecting the technology of nuclear physics. I am not sure who is going to decide what information is of " equivalent value ". I put a specific question to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian: will he assure the House that the decision about " equivalent value " will be a political one and not one that is left to the officials of the European Atomic Community?
With regard to industrial products and tea, as the noble Marquess said, these are complicated matters and we shall await the opportunity to study the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
On the question of the transitional period for agriculture, the Statement indicates that the main problems have been settled. That seems to me to be rather optimistic. Six steps over five years seem to be rather less than might have been hoped for in terms of the transition for agriculture. I recognise that in negotiations certain concessions are inevitable, and it may be that this is one of the concessions that was forced upon the Government in the course of negotiations so all I can say to-day is that we shall have to wait and see how this fits into the total package. We shall have to see what concessions the Government have extracted from the Six in exchange for this important concession on their part.
On the question of horticulture, we must adopt a similar wait-and-see attitude until we see what the full package comprises. However, there is one aspect of the Statement that interests me in particular, and I should like to ask what is meant by " a slower rate " for horticulture? Does that mean that the transitional period for horticulture is to be greater than five years? If not, what is the significance of those words?
On the question of the contribution to the Community's budget, I think that the situation is still, to say the least, obscure. The formula put forward in the Statement seems to be nothing more than a face-saving version of the precise point which has been put forward from the British side for many years; that is, that the contribution should begin with a very small one and increase gradually over the transitional period. If the statement's formula means anything other

41
than that, I shall be interested to know what it is. I should also be interested to know what is meant by the corrective after the transitional period. Does that mean that the percentages of the Community's budget are to be altered? It seems to me here that if the United Kingdom is going to pay less others will have to pay more.
The question of the Commonwealth seems to be by far the most important and significant part of the Statement. I am sorry to say that for me it contains absolutely nothing new at all. There is much talk of " firm purpose " and of " a moral commitment " to the countries of the Commonwealth. If the reports in the Press are true, there was at one time talk of " bankable guarantees ". In the kinds of banks with which I am familiar, moral commitments are certainly not bankable—indeed, it would be surprising if they were. The important matter is that the Government have undertaken that there will be consultation with the Commonwealth before this agreement is arrived at. I am sure that one of the questions that will be asked of the Government by the Commonwealth countries is who will decide what the interests of the Commonwealth are after these negotiations are complete. It is all very well to say that the Community will " safeguard the interests " of the Commonwealth: I ask; who is going to decide those interests once the negotiations are complete and the Treaty of Rome is signed.
I hope that I may still have the indulgence of the House in asking a specific and important question of the noble Marquess. Will he seek an assurance, and will the Government give the assurance, that after consultation with the Commonwealth about these proposed arrangements, there will he a report to Parliament before any further negotiations begin on June 7? I was going to ask for reassurance about the kind of things that his right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be seeking to discuss in Paris, but I recognise that he can give no assurances about those matters—I doubt whether anybody in the Government can. But will the noble Marquess accept that we on this side hope that the Prime Minister, in his talks with the French President, will not make any concessions of a political or military kind outside the package of agreement
42
that his right honourable friend is trying to achieve in Brussels?
Finally, will the noble Marquess accept, that whatever may he our personal views about these negotiations, and about the whole question of European unity and the enlargement of the Common Market, there is now grave disquiet in mar y parts of this country about the way these negotiations are proceeding? And will he also accept that the Statement we have had this afternoon, on its own, will do very little to remove that disquiet?
4.32 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, unlike the Labour Opposition, we on these Benches have taken note of the Statement with great satisfaction. We can all regard as satisfactory—even the noble Lord who has just sat down:an regard as satisfactory—the arrangements now made regarding Euratom, raw materials and tea. The arrangements in the transitional periods for agricultural are also good so far as they go. All these arrangements, generally speaking, are acceptable as such to anybody who really wants the present negotiations to succeed. Horticulture is a difficult point. It seems, however, to us to have been satisfactorily dealt with. I agree that in any case horticulture under this arrangement gets the necessary and exceptional treatment which it must get.
As for our contribution to tie Central Agricultural Fund. this is extremely important owing to its direct effect on our balance of payments. We must clearly await the precise figures before making up our minds. On the face of it. it looks as if this point will not in itself present much further difficulty. There remain the problems affecting our tropical ex-dependencies. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said, the great thing is that the Declaration of Intent now includes all the so-called sugar islands. They will now have no difficulty about exporting their bananas, and so on. which was the subject of concern in the debate which we recently had on this -matter. I suggest that this in itself is a matter for congratulation. It may be that the proposed undertaking on sugar it still not quite firm enough, although I should have thought that all concerned might find it, on consideration, to be so. What is undeniable is that the recent agreement in

43
Brussels has been great evidence of good will on the part of our opposite numbers.
All things considered, I repeat that anybody who wants the negotiations to succeed must congratulate the Government warmly on the progress made. We hope and believe that equally satisfactory conditions will soon be worked out as regards New Zealand's exports of dairy products. This indeed seems to be the only really serious outstanding point.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Marquess replies, may I ask one simple and brief question? Was the question of fisheries policy raised, either in Brussels or Reykjavik? If not, will it be raised at the forthcoming meeting in Luxembourg?
4.36 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, if I may answer one or two of the points that have already been raised—
LORD SHEPHERD: All of them.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I was thinking that others may be raised. May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for his thoughtful remarks about the Statement. He gave it a qualified welcome, having his doubts about certain matters. I am not going to make a speech, but I will try to answer as many questions as I can. The noble Lord made the point (which, I must say, had struck me when I first read the Statement) about Euratom and the question of knowledge " of equivalent value ". This is an extremely hard factor to quantify. I will give him the undertaking that the decision concerning this matter would be a political one. He also asked a question about horticulture and the concept of a slower rate. This derives from the fact that the process is going to start a year later than for the normal agricultural products; therefore, it will take a year longer. My understanding is that for matters concerning horticulture the arrangements will tend to be a great deal more flexible.
The noble Lord also talked about the financial contribution to the Community. It is in a sense true that the position has not changed greatly, in that we shall be paying a smaller amount to start with and increasing our contribution over the years.
44
As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has said, until we know what figures are proposed, it is impossible to say whether or not we shall be in a position to agree with it.
So far as the Commonwealth is concerned, and the question of the sugar arrangements, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, expressed great reservations about this, that the moral commitment could not be a bankable assurance. After a great deal of negotiation, my right honourable friend—who I think the House will agree is extremely astute, competent and very firm in sticking up for the interests of this country and our dependents—came to the conclusion that this was a very firm commitment. At the same time, he said that he would not agree to it until he had consulted with his friends, the sugar-producing countries in the Commonwealth. He is hoping to do that at very short notice now. The noble Lord also asked whether I can give an assurance that the results of these contacts with the sugar-producing countries could be communicated to Parliament before the next meeting of the Six. The House will realise that I personally cannot give that assurance to-day. I will undertake to pass that message on to my right honourable friend, but I should not like to give a categorical assurance this afternoon.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for his kind and friendly reception of the Statement. He asked one question with regard to New Zealand, which is not mentioned in the Statement. The reason for this is that, apart from the fact that my right honourable friend repeated our position over New Zealand, and emphasised again the continuing and vital interest in that country, the matter was not discussed at this meeting; nor, I think, was the question of fish.
LORD CAMPBELL OF ESKAN: My Lords, while recognising and appreciating the Government's constructive intentions for sugar, as expressed in the Statement, is the noble Marquess aware that, unless beet production is effectively controlled between now and 1975, and special access arrangements settled for Commonwealth cane sugar, moral commitments and good intentions are simply not susceptible of fulfilment? The whole direction of the sugar regulations seems to ensure that

45
European beet, already in considerable surplus, will be available to supply the British market at the expense of sugar from developing countries. Would the noble Marquess agree that, whatever Britain's intentions may he to maintain room for Commonwealth cane sugar exports in an enlarged Europe, they would only be able to do so by a unanimous agreement of the enlarged Community at the expense of beet sugar, which hardly seems to me a bankable proposition—more likely" bankruptable".
Finally, bearing in mind that consultation means more than informing or explaining" After the dossier has been closed ", to quote M. Schumann, would not the noble Marquess agree that the dossier is by no means closed?
LORD AYLESTONE: My Lords, on the same point, may I ask the noble Marquess whether the proposed arrangements for Commonwealth sugar include, or exclude, sugar from Australia to the United Kingdom?
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I follow up the point with regard to sugar, adding to what my noble friends Lord Chalfont and Lord Campbell have tried to elicit from the Minister. Does this Statement actually mean that the situation as it is at the moment, and the system in operation at the moment with regard to guaranteed prices and guaranteed sale and purchase, will continue without interference?
4.43 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I realise of course the genuine worry that is felt in all parts of the House on the question of sugar. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Eskan, is making, regarding the possibility of flooding the market with beet sugar over the next few years. I suspect that it is not the case that the French, for example, can increase their beet production very much under their present Market rules. At the same time, of course, if they had anything in mind, it would in my opinion—and I think in the opinion of the Government—be a direct breach of the firm commitment which was given to my right honourable friend in Brussels last week.
I can only say that my right honourable friend is convinced that the assur-
46
ance and the commitment teat he got from the Community really is a firm one, and it means what it says: that the Commonwealth exporting sugar countries should not suffer in any way under the arrangements that are proposed. At the same time, he is going to consult with them, and have, I should tell the House, very deep consultations with them before agreeing to this proposal. On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, I should like to have notice of that point because I am really not aware of the answer.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it not a fact that from time to time countries within the Common Market have themselves broken their rules under the Treaty of Rome? May I ask, in view of the assurances that the noble Marquess believes have been obtained from the countries of the Common Market, whether one country would have a right of veto on any continuation of this agreement when perhaps the other five, or other members of the Community, were prepared to go along with it? This question was asked of the Prime Minister in another place on Thursday, and I wonder whether the noble Marquess can answer it now.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHAN: My Lords, one would hope it would never come to any question of a veto. My understanding is that it would be extremely difficult for five countries out of the Six to go ahead if one—at any rate of the major countries concerned—expressed disapproval.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, so there is a veto.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, will the noble Marquess not agree that the ex-British Caribbean countries have received very different treatment indeed from the French Caribbean countries, which are able to sell unlimited quantities of cane sugar at £90 a ton in the European Community? The very great victory and concession does not seem to quite so glorious as it seems to be to the noble Marquess. I would like also to ask him whether he would not agree that the Statement ought to be published in the original French, because in the translation there are many slips between the intention and the performance?

47
Would he not agree also that in that Statement it is not simply the quantity and the proceeds that have to be guaranteed? It is very possible that words, which I remember the noble Marquess used, on " safeguarding the general interest of these countries " can well mean that, instead of the sugar, a subsidy will be offered to the Commonwealth countries, in which case some of those countries which cannot switch from sugar—such as Mauritius and Fiji—would really be condemned to a slow death?
Will he finally not agree with me that, to say the least, my interpretation of this assurance is very much more in common with an advertisement of the French beet sugar producers, which I can let the noble Marquess have if he so desires? He does not seem to be very well informed on what is going on in France. It says precisely that there will be no guarantee for the sugar proceeds.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, is it not true that there are already 18 or 19 ex-Colonial developing countries which get special trading agreements under the Yaounde Agreement? If we enter the Common Market would we not be able to negotiate quite as favourable terms for our ex-Colonial and developing countries in respect of sugar and every other commodity? Is it not also true—the question of veto arose—that if we are inside the Common Market we would be able to exercise a veto just as well as anyone else?
LORD BOOTHBY: Hear, hear, on fish!
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, if I might reply first of all to my noble friend, it is perfectly true as he says about our 19 Commonwealth countries who are associated under the Yaounde Agreement. It is also perfectly true that the countries that are not at the moment associated with the Common Market—the countries we have been talking about this afternoon—can negotiate a similar type of agreement if they should wish to do so. That will certainly protect their interests very greatly. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, really drew attention to the same point when he pointed out that the French-associated
48
countries under the Yaounde Agreement do appear to have great advantages at the moment.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, with due respect, the noble Marquess misinterprets my words. On the contrary, I said that the French Caribbean islands, which are not in the Yaounde Agreement—if I may correct the noble Marquess with great humility and respect—have received a completely different settlement. So far as the Yaounde Agreement is concerned (and I have just been to Madagascar on United Nations business), they have not got safeguards on sugar. On the contrary, they have been left in the most miserable condition so far as sugar is concerned, and they are now trying to negotiate with one another to substitute for the original sugar situation.
4.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, my noble friend talked about legal arrangements with dependent territories except Hong Kong. Are we excluding Hong Kong from any part of these negotiations or considerations?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the question of Hong Kong has been left at the moment, because both Hong Kong and ourselves have agreed that this matter should be left open for the time being. I cannot remember exactly whose questions I am meant to be answering. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, suggested that the Statement—I do not know whether he meant this Statement—ought to be in French. I agree with him that some of the difficulties facing negotiations of this type—and this is why it is so important to go slowly—arise precisely because of difficulties of translation from French into English and vice-versa.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, when the noble Marquess referred to Euratom at the beginning of the Statement, he said that exchange of information of equivalent value would have to be discussed immediately after our entry. Does that not imply that decision to enter has already been made.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, my Lords; it does not imply that at all. All the remarks which I have made on this Statement and elsewhere are remarks

49
contingent on the possibility of our entering. Obviously, this is another difficulty of verbiage, but in this case I think English is quite satisfactory to make our meaning clear.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask one further question about the fishing industry? We find it extremely difficult to understand how a meeting of E.F.T.A. could be held in Reykjavik, of all places, without the position of the fishing industry arising. Fishing is of absolutely paramount importance to Iceland, as well as being of importance to this country. Can the noble Marquess tell us whether, if they have not already discussed it, it is the intention to discuss this subject at the next meeting of Ministers in Luxembourg?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, to be absolutely frank, I do not know whether or not this matter was discussed at Reykjavik. I should think it very probably was. My feeling is—and I speak subject to correction—that this is one of the subjects which will be discussed at the next meeting. But this is really a matter for my right honourable friend and I shall certainly pass on to him what the noble Lord has said.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not obvious that these provisional agreements and alleged concessions mean only that the Government are getting ready for the " sell out "? Is not that what they really mean? There is really nothing substantial in any of the concessions. I should like to ask the noble Marquess about the proposed meeting between the Prime Minister and the French President. Can we have some assurance, following what my noble friend Lord Chalfont said on another point, that the Prime Minister, in his subterranean undercover fashion, is not going to agree to some political alignment which would be unacceptable to the majority of people in this country? In particular, can we have an assurance that there will be no understanding about providing the French Government with any atomic know-how which has hitherto been desired by the French, but which has been prevented from getting to them?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I fancy that no agreement to which my right honourable friend could
50
come in Brussels would satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I cannot agree with him that this is in any way a " sell out ". As to what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is going to discuss with the French President later this week, I am sure that he will take note of what the noble Lord has said. I have no doubt that the talks will be very wide-ranging indeed.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, refraining at this moment from political argument, may I ask one incidental question? I he Statement named the sugar countries in considerable detail—the Caribbean islands, Mauritius, Fiji. Tonga and others. Was the exclusion of Swaziland deliberate? Was it because it has associations with the South African agreement regarding sugar? I should like an answer to that question.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am sure that there is no hidden, sinister reason for the non-mention of Swaziland in the Statement. I think the noble Lord is quire wrong about that.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask a question as a man who provides the housekeeping money each week? My question concerns the noble Marquess's statement on the agricultural transitional arrangements. He said that our six years' transition to Community prices will give us time enough to make adjustments. Will he tell us whether the word " adjustments" means increases in food prices?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, " adjustments " means going through the process, which in fact has already begun in this country, of changing over from one system to another.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, the noble Marquess is a mister of language, but there are words such as Yes and No. Will this mean an increase in food prices?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: As the noble Lord knows, food prices have been increasing in this country for very many years past.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, the noble Marquess has not answered the question. Has he something to hide? Can he answer it?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lord, I have nothing whatsoever to hide on this point.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, at the risk of boring the House about sugar, it seems that the operative word in the sugar problem is "safeguards". I should like the Minister to elaborate on the word "safeguards", because I have not heard anything about them. I may be hard of hearing. Will he take into account the different conditions in various countries? As the noble Marquess knows, the cane sugar countries have to plan ahead, but the sugar beet countries need only a year.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. Of course this is something which my right honourable friend is going to take into account, and it will no doubt be one of the matters which he will be discussing with the countries concerned.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think the House will probably agree that we have had a very good innings on this long and important Statement. If the House agrees, perhaps I can bring it to a close by asking one final question which leads from something that my noble friend Lord Shinwell asked. My noble friend asked about the exchange of nuclear military information with the
French, to which the noble Marquess returned a suitable Parliamentary answer. I should like to put it in this form. The Government have already given assurances that this subject will not he discussed in the context of the Common Market negotiations. Has the Government's position changed.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, my Lords; it has not changed.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
4.58 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD STOW HILL: I do not wish to prolong the discussion on the Amendment before the Committee, but, if I may say so with respect to the noble Lord who answered on behalf of the Government, I do not think his answer was really satisfactory. So unless other noble Lords wish to prolong the discussion by further contributions, I very much hope that the matter may be decided in the Division Lobby.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 238) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 117.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Faringdon, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Arwyn, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Balogh, L.

Gardiner, L.

Royle, L.

Bernstein, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Samuel, V.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

Serota, Bs.

Birk, Bs.

Henderson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Bowden, L.

Hoy, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Silkin, L.

Brown, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Kennet, L.

Sorensen, L.

Chalfont, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

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

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McLeavy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crook, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Moyle, L.

White, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Pargiter, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ailwyn, L.

Balfour, E.

Blackford, L.

Albemarle, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Barnby, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Allerton, L.

Barrington, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Alport, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Burgh, L.

Amory, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Carrington, L.

Amulree, L.

Belstead, L.

Clwyd, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hankey, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Colgrain, L.

Harlech, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Conesford, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rea, L.

Courtown, E.

Hawke, L.

Rennell, L.

Coventry, Bp.

Hood, V.

Rockley, L.

Cowley, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Rothermere, V.

Craigavon, V.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Crawshaw, L.

Ilford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Daventry, V.

Inchyra, L.

St. Helens, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Just, L.

Derwent, L.

Jessel, L.

Sandford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kemsley, V.

Savile, L.

Dudley, E.

Killearn, L.

Selkirk, E.

Eccles, V.

Lansdowne, M.

Semphill, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood. Bs.

Latymer, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lothian, M.

Somers, L.

Essex, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Exeter, M.

Lyell, L.

Strang, L.

Ferrers, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Strange, L.

Fortescue, E.

MacFadzean, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Margadale, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Merrivale, L.

Swansea, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Meston, L.

Swaythling, L.

Grantchester, L.

Milverton, L.

Tangley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Monck, V.

Tenby, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Morrison, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Hacking, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Hailes, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Willingdon, M.

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

Northchurch, Bs.

Windlesham, L.

Oakshott, L.

Wolverton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD STOW HILL: This clause really serves two separate purposes, one of which we have not yet considered, and that is the purpose which is set out in subsection (1). That subsection, as I understand it, really has this effect. Where an employee complains that he has been unfairly dismissed, or he complains of action taken against him under Clause 5 of the Bill, it shall not lie in the mouth of the employer to plead in mitigation, as it were, that he was under pressure from the union. Under Clause 22(4), an employer, even if he can show that the dismissal of an employee had nothing to do with his taking part in any of the conduct which is described earlier in the clause, must nevertheless go on to show that the dismissal was for good reason anyhow. As I understand the first subsection of Clause 31, in endeavouring to show that there was that good reason he cannot pray in aid the fact that he was put under pressure from the union to dismiss that man. If I have correctly understood that as being the effect of subsection (1)
54
of Clause 31, personally I have no quarrel with it. It may pro Rice odd results in some rare cases, but I should have thought that in the great majority of cases it would constitute a safeguard to the employee who is comply ping that he is being unfairly dismissed, and upon that assumption I make no, further comment on it. My observations on the Question whether the clause shall stand part will be concentrated entirely on that which is set out in subsections (2), (3) and (4) of the clause.
Inevitably, when we were discussing the Amendment which was before the Committee a number of things were said on each side of the Committee which, in a sense, fall more into their place on the Question whether the clause shall stand part. and I hope that in dealing with the general question I shall be able, so far as I possibly can, to avoid mere repetition of what we have already said. One thing which is certainly not mere repetition is that I should like to say most sincerely to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that I think his endeavour to justify this clause was extremely helpful and very painstaking, and showed that he had given it a lot of thought. Indeed, throughout the whole of our debates he carried a massive burden, for which we are all grateful to him. If a

55
Minister who has at his disposal such expertise and acuteness of mind as has the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, could not produce better justification of this clause, then we on this side of the Committee are justified in retaining some of the suspicions that we had when we first saw it. I, for my part, confess that I do.
May I put the point in the form of an imaginary dialogue to see how the clause emerges in my view, after hearing criticisms of it from this side and justification of it by the noble Lord. Let us assume that the participants in the dialogue are the trade unions, through their representative, and the employers, through their representative. A situation has arisen in which the trade union want there to be a closed shop:
The employer: "I do not want it and I do not propose to take any steps towards it."
The trade union: " Will you join in a joint application? "
"No."
The trade union, beginning to rise a few degrees in temperature of feeling: "If you will not join, then I think that is unreasonable and I shall begin to bring some pressure to bear."
"What pressure?"
"I shall not strike, I shall not bring any industrial action short of a strike; but I shall start to work to rule."
"If you do that I shall take you before the court and seek compensation and an injunction against you."
"You could have done that if I threatened to strike or if I organised or financed a strike or threatened to do so. But the Conservative Government, in their wisdom, in disposing of these particular problems have so enacted their legislation that I am perfectly entitled to threaten you in the most violent language—as I do now—that I will start a work to rule '."
The employer scratches his head and says: "I cannot think that the clause is so worded that although you cannot threaten to strike you can threaten to work to rule."
That is precisely what the position is; and if they have doubts about it and try to resolve the position, all they need to do is to read Lord Drumalbyn's speech in Hansard where they will see that the noble Lord agreed that that was so. He agreed in terms that so long as the trade union does not threaten to do anything which involves a breach of the contract of employment, they can do what they like; they can threaten and embark upon that type of industrial action. I do not know that that is the way in which the Government want to leave this clause. I
56
do not want to use hyperbolic terms, but I cannot conceive any situation more absurd. If the Government want to prevent pressure from being brought, then they are not achieving their object here, or going anywhere near it, when they say, through the avowal of the Minister who considered it, " You can bring as much pressure by way of work-to-rule arrangements as you wish, but you must not strike or finance a strike".
I dislike this clause because I think it would be simply a source of dissension between both sides. It will never produce any advantage; it will never conduce in the slightest towards a pacific relationship between the two sides. It will simply mean that the two sides will dislike each other and that a state of anomosity will prevail; whereas if the alternative procedure had been available, application by the trade union in spite of the employers, they would have got the matter resolved by some sort of judicial process. Noble Lords on this side do not like the intervention of the courts; but if the courts are there—and the Committee have approved that—let there be some sensible use made of the court procedure; which is better than leaving the two sides at arms' length, gazing at each other with no possible way out of the dilemma.
I venture to remind the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, in his Report did not say that a closed shop should be forbidden: he said that they perform useful functions. But he made certain reservations. In a sense, the Government have gone towards some of them, though not far enough, by producing Clause 16. But they have left this sore place which will fester and which will remain for years (until it is altered by a new Government) and which will perpetuate dissension between both sides of industry. I think it an intolerable arrangement, and still more so when it is completely upside down and inside out; when it leaves out, because of a quirk in drafting, pressure which can be just as effective by working to rule. That you can always do; but you must not strike. What could be more absolutely topsy-turvy or less likely to produce amicable relationships between the two sides?
LORD BROWN: The whole of the discussion about working to rule is postulated in the idea that the rules are

57
absurd: otherwise, working to rule is precisely what the employer wants. We all know that there are certain industries like the railways and others where the safety of the public is concerned and where the rules which are worked out are sometimes archaic and sometimes so detailed as to allow a " go slow " within the ambit of the rules. But looking over industry in general, this rule book which keeps on being referred to does not really exist. That is why I repeatedly question the use of the term by noble Lords. In an engineering factory, if you say What is the rule book?" they will gaze at you in bewilderment. There are lots of policies, either written or unwritten which ought to be agreed to and committed to writing. If one refers to the policy book on conditions, that does not open up the possibilities of " going slow " under the terms of the agreements that have been come to between employers and trade unions. It seems to me that all the comments are directed at particular industries where a large safety factor is involved; although they are being talked about as though they apply to all forms of employment.
I am not taking sides in this issue. I have already stated that I think the Government have been crazy not simply to take the whole question of the closed shop and say that it shall he subject to the scrutiny of the Industrial Relations Commission. Some then would be given a certificate of health and others would be abolished according to whether they infringed too deeply the rights of the individuals. By doing that, we could have avoided the terribly complicated legislation which is now before us. Having taken that stand. I view this complication with some despair. I do not think we ought to make it look more complicated than it is or we shall be here until 8 a.m. every morning until the end of July.
5.20 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I can understand my noble friend saying that he does not want it to be more complicated than it is, but the fact is that it is complicated, and once again the only persons who will benefit are those in the legal profession. The wording of this clause is so ambiguous to the ordinary men in industry that it will be difficult to assess whether they are working in accordance
58
with the Act, as it then will be, or whether they are deviating from the Act and making themselves ultimately liable to legal discipline. Clause 31(2) states:
" It shall be an unfair industrial practice for any person (including any trade union or other organisation of workers or my official of a trade union or of such an organisation) to take any action to which this sect on applies, if the purpose or principal purpose for which that action is taken is—"
What does that mean? Does it mean any discussion that might take place amongst a group of workers regarding any difficulties they are encountering, which ultimately leads to a request for a closed shop? Is that officially are irregular practice or not? It may be that a group of "nons" within the industry are a bit cheeky—they act in that way from time to time—and this stirs a body of men to say, " It is time they joined up ". These men then commence organising a movement towards that end. Is that an irregular practice or not?
On the question of working to rule, my noble friend Lord Brown indicates that the rule hooks are there chiefly for the safety of the travelling public and people engaged in industry, and I hat the employer wants workpeople to work to rule. I suggest that my noble friend knows nothing about transport when he talks like that. In the engineering world certain codes of practice have been developed; there are very few written rules. That is the case in many other industries. These codes of practice are accepted by both sides and are talked about loosely as " working to rule ". If, in an engineering shop, there is difficulty regarding establishing and settling a grievance, imaginary or otherwise, there is possibly a code of negotiating machinery laid down which is honoured very of en more in the breach, because in mar y shops instead of taking quick action there is delayed action and the men start saying, " Look, there are quite a number of nons ' in here. We have not got this tied up as quickly as we might have done; we have approached our employer from time to time and he has refused the idea of a closed shop. So now is the time to take action ". These are the realities of life.
With the clause as it is now worded an irregular practice may take place; but although the machinery might be established it has not gone through its full course. Often, this not the responsibility

59
of one side only. Instead of commonsense prevailing, the management or the foreman may say, " This is what we will do and get on with it ". But the men may have rather a different point of view. Ultimately, these things lead to a clamour for a closed shop in order to bring more pressure to bear. Is this going to be an irregular practice or not? I suggest that quite a lot of time will be occupied by the tribunals, the courts and possibly the High Court in order to settle these matters which could have been settled by common sense if the system were allowed to operate as it does now.
There has been a great growth in industry over the last few years of the closed shop. Possibly 3 million or 4 million people are now working under the auspices of the closed shop. Instead of attempting to make a definition, I think that the ordinary free play of bargaining and counter bargaining within industry ought to prevail. I do not think the Government are going to withdraw this clause, but I suggest that good industrial relations are likely to be bedevilled and, instead of the harmony in industry that we all want, this is another little wedge to create disharmony.
LORD SLATER: As I mentioned during the debate on the previous Amendment under the law, the miner is working with a time provision of 25 minutes to the mile. I said that when six men come out two minutes early, in effect that means 12 minutes, and the management in its judgment imposes a penalty on these miners. If these miners had stayed at the coal face they would have been able to produce one or two tons more of coal. Action by the management could lead to action being taken by the men. They may say to the management " If this is what you are going to do your colliery will stop ". The noble Lord has never attempted to answer my question. We are going to be governed in this industry by two Acts. Which one is the miner to keep to? One provides for 25 minutes to the mile, and now this one imposes penalties from the employer.
5.30 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I am against this clause standing part, on general grounds. As I have said, I am not a lawyer and I am not a trade unionist. This
60
is a crucial clause but I think it is very hard to follow. I am particularly opposed to subsection (4) because I think this takes away the fundamental human right of a man to withdrawn his labour. The Government seem to me not to recognise that there are concerted actions which can be regular and legitimate. If they do not recognise that fact and there is a case of concerted action which is regular, this means that there is a strike and that this strike can reduce or interfere with the production of goods. Therefore, this clause seems to me to go altogether too far and too wide, and it evades the real problem of what the Government calls irregular industrial action.
LORD BROWN: I should like to make it clear that there is at least one person on these Benches who understands that this clause is concerned solely with the case where someone puts pressure on an employer to deprive other workers, as individuals, of their rights. It is very trying to hear this clause discussed in terms regarding matters to which it has no relationship whatever.
5.31 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: I will not detain your Lordships for long. I think that any sympathy which the general public had with the Tory Party and the Tory Government has rapidly evaporated; and the way in which this matter has been presented, both to the Commons and to this House, is indicative of that. We started off with a very simple project, agreed very largely by all parties and all concerned, that there was a need to curb wildcat strikes. That was the premise from which we started. There was no particular quarrel about that: we were all agreed that some regulation was necessary to prevent people from striking just for the sake of striking and throwing thousands of other people out of work.
The attitude of the Labour Party was that this could best be done by voluntary means; and the Labour Party still stand by that. The Tory Party, having started off on this particular line, and having decided to give it certain legal backing, find themselves in increasing difficulty because they find they now have to give a legal interpretation to everything that is done; every agreement has to be legally agreed. Also, this particular clause has its legal enforcement which is designed, or

61
said to be designed, to protect the rights of individual workers. But the rights of individual workers are already well protected because, as I understand it, in a closed shop the conscience clause applies to an individual worker in the same way as it applies to a worker in an agency shop. In other words, the worker can still exercise his individual right if he wishes. There is no question of curtailing the rights of the individual. There may be some question of curtailing rights of the employer.
LORD BROWN: May I interrupt? The noble Lord is looking at me. Of course the individual rights of the worker are protected so long as this does not allow his fellows to threaten an employer, by strike action, to sack him. That is what this clause is about.
LORD PARGITER: The fact is that it is already established that a person who complies with the necessary clauses that have been passed is already protected. There is no question that the employer can sack a person, or that the men with him can require a man to be sacked. The fact of the matter is that there is a dislike of the closed shop—and I gather that my noble friend Lord Brown equally dislikes it. I should like to refer to the many branches of the engineering industry. My argument is that the closed shop generally is very beneficial in the engineering industry as a whole. My noble friend said there was no such thing as a rule book in the engineering industry.
LORD BROWN: I must interrupt my noble friend again. I never said that I disliked the closed shop indeed, I think it is necessary and a good institution, in proper circumstances. My noble friend misquoted me.
LORD PARGITER: I am sorry if I misquoted my noble friend. But the whole of his arguments appear to be directed to making it as difficult as possible to get a closed shop. I should have thought that if he liked it he would wish his arguments to be rather more simple ones so that they could be applied. What I am concerned about is that everything done here makes the closed shop more difficult and applies penalties. If anything could be construed in any way as pressure on an employer, it should be construed in the simplest way. Let me give an example.
62
Take a machine shop in which piecework is the general practice. I know employers who always used to extol piecework, but they have now moved away from it and want measured day work, because they have found that the idea of setting one worker against another is not satisfactory. However, let us take the argument that a group of workpeople decide that they want a closed shop and the employer does not agree. They say, All right, the piece rate is so much: we are guaranteed minimum earnings anyway, and a guaranteed day rate. We will work for the guaranteed day rate." This is a form of " going slow ". Just precisely what would happen?—because the worker is corn-pelted to work piecework, but the employer is compelled to pay him a minimum day rate. That would presumably be construed by the Court as an unfair industrial practice, and this would lead to all kinds of trouble because the men might decide to work just part of the way between getting the minimum day rate and as much as they could. There are all sorts of points in various industries which could create difficulties. It would be infinitely better to get away from it altogether and leave it to the good sense of the workpeople and the employers concerned to agree or disagree on whether they want a closed shop. If the employer agrees to certain conditions demanded by the work-people to get the closed shop. even if he wants something out of it—and let us face it: the employer usually wants something out of it when he is prepared to agree to a closed shop and to negotiate for satisfactory conditions—under present conditions this would be construed as pressure.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Your Lordships have probably been bored by my comments about the legalistic clauses in this Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, about lawyers. A new situation has now arisen which I think your Lordships should seriously consider. Lord Drumalbyn said (I think I have his words right) that one of the merits of the clause was its psychological effect. Are we now introducing an additional professional group of psychologists into this Bill? If so, that opens up, as one might say, a new '' can of peas ", and I do not know where that leads us. We have had great confusion

63
here this afternoon on the question of the rule book and the closed shop. In the company with which I am involved, the rule book is the union rules as agreed with management. That is what it is called. This rule book does not in any way override the Factories Act, Fire Precautions Regulations or any other orders, municipal or national.
It seems to me that everybody has been talking this afternoon as if they do not understand Clause 31. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said he did not understand it, and he raised a great many points, and so have other of my noble friends. I do not believe it can be understood in any way without taking account of Clauses 114, 110 and 115, and you have to be a pretty good lawyer to keep all those in your head and then say to workpeople how those clauses will operate, so far as their livelihood and freedom are concerned. Clause 31 was not in the Bill which was originally introduced into the House of Commons: it came later at the Report stage, with what is now Clause 114; and perhaps not enough time has been given to this Clause 31. Have the Government really appreciated that people on this side of the House can take seriously the implications of the Clause? If the Government could satisfy us by taking the clause away and, in Lord Jellicoe's words, giving sympathetic consideration to it, that would give clarity at least to a layman like myself.
5.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Brown, is of course quite right in this matter. He at any rate has shown that he understands this clause. The clause starts off by seeking to add a protection to the employee against dismissal by saying that no account is to be taken of any pressure exercised by a union on an employer. In other words the employer cannot say, " Well, it is not my fault. I was forced to dismiss this man and therefore I should not have to compensate him ". I think the noble Lord understood that. But, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, is quite right in saying that under Clause 114 it is possible for the employer then to say, " I was brought under pressure. I have to pay this compensation, but the union
64
must make a contribution because they made me do it "—and that is right, too. That is the way in which the clauses are linked. I was trying to explain to noble Lords that it is intended as a protection for the individual that in the same way it should be an unfair industrial practice for an employer to be pressurised by a union to join in making an application for an approved closed shop agreement. I think I must have another brief attempt to make clear exactly what is involved as to irregular industrial action. I should say first that where something is recognised as being unfair and it is provided that it is therefore an unfair industrial practice to strike to achieve it, it would be absurd then to allow that same unfair objection to be achieved by irregular actions. That is obvious and I need not develop it.
Secondly, what is the "irregular practice"? The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, seemed to think that calling a strike was in itself an irregular industrial practice. It is not, of course. The irregular practice is intended to cover such concerted action, as I have already explained, as a refusal to work overtime, a "go slow" or other methods aimed at reducing normal production where such action is in breach of contract of employment. That is the point I have been trying to make the whole time. Noble Lords must now let me make it quite clear what this will mean—where it is in breach of terms and conditions of service. As I made clear, the rules may be linked to the contract of employment. The " work to rule ", which by definition would not be a breach of the contract of employment or any terms and conditions of service, would not normally come within the scope of the definition. Again the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is quite right in saying that there are some rules which are worked to every day in the week. This is the general procedure. There are other rule books which may have grown up over a long period and some of the rules, though not normally used or being somewhat anachronistic are obsolete, and in the normal way are disregarded. In some cases it might be possible to revise those. That is all I was arguing. That is not the normal position. It may be the position in some

65
industries but it is not the normal position. A " work to rule ", which by definition would not be a breach of contract of employment or any terms and conditions of service, would not normally come within the scope of this definition; but any departure from the work to rule or any exaggeration of the work to rule would come under the definition.
LORD STONHAM: If men are engaged and have a rule book, it does not matter whether or not the rules are observed constantly, the rule book or the rules are part of their contract of employment. If the men are observing those rules and carrying them out, how can they be guilty of an unfair industrial practice or indeed even of an irregular practice? If the noble Lord will look at the words of the Bill, he will see that paragraph (b) of subsection (4) says:
" in the case of some or all of them, is carried on in breach of their contracts of employment or (where they are not employees) in breach of their terms and conditions of service."
How on earth can a railwayman, working by the rules on which he was engaged, be in breach of his contract, or guilty of an irregular practice? That is the point that has to be made all the time throughout the debate from this side of the Committee. It has not been answered because it cannot be answered.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I thought I had made the position quite clear, and I hope noble Lords will accept that the object of this clause is to ensure that where there is an unfair purpose to be achieved it should be an unfair industrial practice either to strike or to do something short of striking which also serves very much the same purpose. That is the purpose here, and it seems to me to be an entirely reasonable purpose.
LORD POPPLEWELL: Surely the noble Lord made a slip when he stated —and I quote him—" Refusal to work overtime would be an irregular practice ". In fairness to the noble Lord, surely that is not to be taken as the opinion of the Government? All overtime work is voluntary. There is a stated number of hours per week in which people in industry will work, and anything over and above that time is classed as overtime and is not compulsory. Surely the noble Lord would like to correct that statement.
66
I feel it was a slip of the tongue, but if it goes uncorrected it will have very serious consequences.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I must try to say once again that everything depends on the contracts of employment. If it is written into the contracts of employment that overtime will be worked when called for, then concerted action—and those are the words " concerted action " —not to do overtime could be an irregular industrial practice.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but.hat is an unrealistic statement. Overtime is voluntary: it always has been and it should remain so. If it is not in the contract but people have done it, either to earn extra money or to get products out of the way for export, they have done it on a voluntary basis and with no obligation to continue. If they decide not to do that and do not state any reason, would that be an unfair industrial practice? The Government are stretching this very much.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The reason is referred to in the clause. The reason is the purpose to compel the employer to join with the union in making an application for an approved closed shop. if that is the purpose it is an unfair purpose and it is unfair to concert together to achieve that purpose.
LORD STOWHILL: The sense of the Committee, as I gather it, is that we are now fairly close to the end of this particular debate, and I would not desire to prolong it. I do not want to enter into the discussion as to who understood what, but perhaps I may modestly say on my own behalf that I still feel that I do understand the clause and I do not want to go into its aspects further. May I repeat what I was trying to put to the noble Lord, and what he quite clearly understood? First, it is illogical, and rather absurd, to say that it is an unfair industrial practice to organise or call a strike, or organise a go slow, but it is not an unfair industrial practice to threaten or organise a work to rule. A work to rule can be just as effective a means of bringing industrial pressure as other forms of industrial action. One constantly sees in the Press that it is resorted to. All I was putting

67
to the noble Lord was that it was really rather an absurd clause in that it permitted one but forbade the other. That is simple, and I gather the noble Lord agrees that that is what the clause does. I simply put it before the Committee as a reason for not approving the scope, shape and objective of this clause, and I do not resile from that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I intervene to ask the noble Lord whether he is really arguing that because one cannot do all the good one wants one should not do any of the good, and should not do it where one can?
LORD STOW HILL: The proposition from which I am arguing is that it is not desirable to put before Parliament, and ask Parliament to approve, something which is utterly absurd and preposterous. That is what this is. To say people must not strike but that they may do other things which are just as effective as a strike, and to say that solemnly in the words of an Act of Parliament, is not conducive to common sense or to achieving any useful purpose. That is the point, and I will not go back on it.
Secondly, my next point, to which I still adhere, is that this arrangement will not introduce industrial peace; it will produce the reverse. Again, I do not go back on that. The third point I made was that the first subsection is an arrangement with which I personally would not wish to quarrel. It is conducive to the better safeguarding of the rights of the individual.
It was for those reasons that I submitted that this was a bad clause. It is not the slightest use hoping the Government will abandon the clause; they quite obviously will not. They have the majority. This is a democracy. We on this side of the Committee must put up with that. We accept that. But in an endeavour to produce what I hope would be not a wholly unfruitful result to this debate I would, before I sit down, ask the noble Lord, who is very reasonable, very accommodating, and does try to see the point of view of the Opposition in these matters, just to give further thought to what I have adumbrated, both on this occasion and on previous occasions when we were discussing a similar topic, when I suggested that he might alter the form of Schedule 1.
68
A good deal of the difficulty could be obviated if Schedule I were altered. Its present form requires an application for an approved closed shop to be made jointly, by both the trade union and the employer. That Schedule is obviously going to stay in the Bill. The court's intervention is obviously going to stay in the Bill, whether we on this side of the Committee approve it or not. So it is no good arguing about that. What I would suggest is that, once it is there, much more effective use can be made of it if it is altered so as to accord with the provisions which are in the Bill with regard to the initiation of an agency shop. An agency shop—and this I have said before, and I apologise for repeating it—can be made as the result of a unilateral application by the trade union, despite the employer and against the resistance of the employer. if there is such an application, the court, the Commission and, if necessary, a ballot have to process it.
I respectfully ask the noble Lord to think about this again. Perhaps he can come back with something approaching it on Report, to say that there is not really an adequate distinction between the agency shop and the closed shop to justify that very radical difference in the form of the application—a unilateral application for an agency shop, but only a joint application for a closed shop. I know the noble Lord has answered this before, and he gave us a careful and reasoned answer which was to the effect that, in the view of the Government, the closed shop should be allowed much more sparingly than the agency shop. I would hope that the noble Lord might be able to say that he thinks there is weight in what has been said from this side of the Committee; that he understands the anxieties of noble Lords on this side of the Committee; and, taking that into account, and weighing it in the scales, he will look again at what I suggest as a way round this difficulty.
If there can be a unilateral application by a trade union for an approved closed shop, what happens as the clause is drafted and as the Schedule is drafted? The court, if it thinks it appropriate, has to refer it to the Commission. The Commission then embarks upon extensive inquiries. Then there is an opportunity given for a ballot. There is no approved

69
closed shop unless there is a ballot in favour of it. That lasts for two years before it pan be challenged by a further ballot.
I respectfully submit to the noble Lord—and ask him really to take this into account, so that we can get as much out of this debate as we possibly can—whether there should not be some rapprochement between those two forms. I do not think the Government realise sufficiently the force of the feelings of noble Lords on this side of the Committee on this business of the closed shop. There are things to be said for it and against it. They have been said in the Donovan Commission Report very fully, and we have discussed them and considered them. Whatever else can be said, it promotes stable relationships and enables a well-organised union, which is disciplined and devoted to the public purpose, to spread its influence and control what otherwise might be wild, ill-considered actions by small factions. That is the general case for it. I simply conclude my observations on this Question, That the clause stand part, by making an earnest appeal to the noble Lord. According to his custom of treating us with courtesy and consideration, and really taking into account what we feel on this side of the House, I ask him at least to say that he will look at it again.
BARONESS WHITE: If the noble Lord is not proposing to respond to my noble friend, I can only say that I must advise my noble friends to vote against this clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the noble Baroness was only going to say that—I do not mean to be discourteous to her—I would just like to say to the noble and learned Lord that I fully understand his arguments, but he must appreciate that if we were to leave the impression that the gateway to the approved closed shop was wide open, or even that one just had to push it and it would open, the effect would be to weaken enormously the widespread acceptance of the agency shop, which we believe is the right answer at present.
I would add one further point, and that is that it would be a mistake to leave the impression that an application by one side, which would be the union side in almost every case, would be a
70
good thing. All it would really do would be to hold out hopes to unions that they might get through these very narrow gateways, when, indeed, it is extremely unlikely that they would. The mere fact of the employer and the union joining together, and both thinking that this is necessary, will have a great effect as far as the examination is concerned, otherwise one is merely cluttering up the industrial courts with a number o applications, none of which would have a chance of getting through. I always hate to say that f will not look at things again. I shall certainly be looking at it again, and thinking about it, but I do not hold out much hope on this occasion.
BARONESS WHITE: Nothing has made me change the advice I was proposing to give to my noble friends, because although I was not able to listen to the first part of the debate on this clause I have listened very carefully to all the speeches made on this Question. I must say that I think there will be endless trouble arising from this clause. The kind of discussion we have had in this Committee is indicative of that; and when one hears the noble Lord talking about the possibility of exaggerating a work to rule, surely that is very loose phraseology. Either you are working to rule, which is perfectly legitimate, as he said, or you are not. The effect of working to rule varies from one industry to another. There are some industries. as my noble friend Lord Champion reminded us—for example, take the case of a railway signalman—where you are obliged to work to rule for reasons of safety. There are other industries in which if the rule books were completely observed it would, not bring things to a standstill, but slow them down very much. I might remind your Lordships that whet. we had candles in this House that was owing to people working to rule. So it varies very much.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have tried to avoid committing myself to particular propositions and I think that the noble Baroness is perhaps a little unsafe in making that presumption.
BARONESS WHITE: I think here was an element of working to rule in it. In any case, it varies from one industry to another. It is clear to me that this sort of legislation is going to lead to

71
a great deal of trouble. My noble friend Lord Bernstein properly reminded us that we have not yet reached Clause 114 or the other parts of the Bill which are all linked up with the provisions of this clause. This will just exacerbate people. I have not had as much experience in industry as some of my noble friends, but I have had some, and I can only say that this kind of legislation is some-
thing which will exacerbate ill-relations where they exist and it will not help good relations. For these reasons I hope that we shall vote against the clause.
6.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 31 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 51.

CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Ailwyn, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Norwich, V.

Airlie, E.

Gisborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Allerton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Oakshott, L.

Alport, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Amory, V.

Grenfell, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Amulree, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hacking, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Auckland, L.

Hailes, L.

Rea, L.

Balfour, E.

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

Reading, M.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Remnant, L.

Barnby, L.

Hankey, L.

Rhyl, L.

Barrington, V.

Hanworth, V.

Rockley, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Harlech, L.

Rothermere, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Rothes, E.

Belstead, L.

Hatherton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland Ly.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Bridgeman, V.

Hood, V.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hurcomb, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Burgh, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sandford, L.

Chelmer, L.

Ilford, L.

Savile, L.

Clwyd, L.

Inchyra, L.

Selkirk, E.

Coleraine, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sempill, Ly.

Colgrain, L.

Jessel, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Conesford, L.

Kemsley, V.

Somers, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Killearn, L.

Stamp, L.

Courtown, E.

Kilmany, L.

Strang, L.

Coventry, L. Bp.

Lansdowne, M.

Strange, L.

Cowley, E.

Latymer, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigavon. V.

Lothian, M.

Sudeley, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swaythling, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lyell, L.

Tangley, L.

Daventry, V.

MacAndrew, L.

Tenby, V.

Denham, L.

McFadzean, L.

Teviot, L.

Derwent, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teynham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, E.

Dudley. E.

Merrivale, L.

Verulam, E.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monck, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Monckton of Brenchley, V/

Willingdon, M.

Essex, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Exeter. M.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wolverton, L.

Ferrers, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Champion, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Balogh, L.

Collison, L.

Hall, V.

Bernstein, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Henderson, L.

Beswick, L.

Crook, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Birk, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hoy, L.

Blyton, L.

Diamond, L.

Jacques, L.

Bowden, L.

Faringdon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Brockway, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

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

Burntwood, L.

Gardiner, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

McLeavy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Stonham, L.

Maelor, L.

Serota, Bs.

Stow Hill, L.

Moyle, L.

Shackleton, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Shepherd, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Pargiter, L.

Shinwell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Slater, L.

White, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Sorensen, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Royle, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 31 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 32 [Presumptions relating to collective agreements]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD AILWYN): I should advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 238A is agreed to I cannot call Amendments 238B and 238DD.
6.10 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 238A:
Page 25, line 4, leave out subsection (1) and insert
" () Every collective agreement which is made in writing after the commencement of this Act shall be conclusively presumed not to be intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract unless the agreement contains a provision which states that it is the intention of the parties that the agreement should be a legally enforceable contract ".
I was afraid that the " double Ds " might have it. I propose and perhaps this course will be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—to discuss Amendments Nos. 238A and 238B together. They are rather linked, and I think it better that we should discuss them together. We are trying, by Amendment 238A to change the whole emphasis of the presumption of legal enforceability from an automatic presumption that any written agreement shall be regarded as legally enforceable unless expressly excepted, to one in which no agreement shall be so regarded unless the parties to it have expressly said so in the wording of the agreement itself. I am sure it will be quite clear to the Committee that that is to change the whole presumption of the first subsection of this clause. The wording of subsection (2) makes clear that there will be attached to any written agreement a presumption of legal enforceability unless both—I stress the word " both "—parties agree and it is otherwise stated in the
74
agreement itself. This clause introduces a novel and undesirable principle into our law. The rule of the common law is that no agreement is legally enforceable unless both parties intend it to be legally enforceable.
This clause provides that if one party does nor want the agreement to be legally enforceable and the other does, and the first party—normally the union, I should think in this case—cannot persuade the other to put a non-enforceable clause into the agreement, the first party, namely the trade union, will be legally bound against its intention, against its will and against its desire in this matter. As I understand, this is totally at variance with the principles of our law. As I understand, this clause would apply to every written agreement from the major national agreements down to works committee decisions. No wonder this has been described by people who have looked at it with a knowledge of collective agreements and all that goes into them as " legalism run mad! " In this extremely difficult field of industrial relations and collective bargaining the Government are not, we are not and the country is not starting from the beginning to work out a system and code to apply to those activities. The Government are seeking to coerce into a new legal framework something which has been going on for at least a century and a half. That is a long time. Systems of negotiation have grown up. The idea that we shall enter into agreements voluntarily and that they shall be honourably kept is established and the cases where they have not been honourably upheld are so few flat there is not the slightest justification for bringing the law to bear in this way upon them.
What has been the accepted practice and basis of industrial negotiations and agreements in this country? It has been throughout the period of a century and a half that I have mentioned almost entirely one of voluntary discussion and agreement

75
on the basis (to quote the words of Clause 1) of,
" the principle of free association of workers in independent trade unions, and of employers in employers' associations, so organised as to be representative, responsible and effective bodies for regulating relations between employers and workers."
This principle, mentioned in the Bill itself as a principle of the Bill, is deeply rooted in our past. The principle of voluntary discussion, the principle of agreement, where it is possible to achieve agreement —and they do try hard, as I know, having myself engaged in negotiations to try to reach agreement—this desire, this attempt, is evidenced in the whole of our industrial history. When I use the word " voluntary " in this connection that is not to pretend that power, which has swung like a pendulum from employers to workers and back again from time to time, does not enter in the matter at all, but in the main we have managed to avoid the worst aspect of either Nazi or Communist regimes; namely, that of too great and too much interference by the Government in matters of industrial relations. I am not going to drag these system, these ideologies, in too much. I am not going to suggest that the Government are embarking on something similar. But there are dangers about introducing too much legalism into something which has for so long been of a voluntary character and has worked extraordinarily well in this country.
The discussion I am talking about takes place at many levels in industry and, as the Donovan Report says of it,
"It is in fact a continuous process in which differences concerning the interpretation of an agreement merge imperceptably into differences concerning claims to change its effect."
In the same context the Report said that at workshop or plant level discussion is fragmented and informal. I use the words of the Report because they express succinctly the experience of almost all of us who have been engaged in collective bargaining, whether as trade unionists or as employers. The very fact that much of it is fragmented and informal results in agreements and decisions understood by both sides. They understand the agreements; they know how to interpret them in the light of custom and practice which has grown up over very many years. I quote again from Donovan:
76
"No court, asked to ' enforce' a collective agreement, could disentangle the agreement' from the inarticulate practices which are its background."
If no court could disentangle the agreement from the inarticulate practices which are its background, how will it be possible, in many cases, for the labour relations officer or the employer or the trade union official to put certain agreements into written legal language? Even to attempt it would necessitate every employer's representative or trade union representative being at every stage of the negotiations from shop floor level up through every intermediate stage to the top national level. Can you picture this piece of nonsense; trying to get the shop stewards, who are negotiating on behalf of a trade union, to ensure that what they are agreeing to is put into such language that it could be interpreted in the courts? This is absolute nonsense, and I am amazed that it should find its way into a Bill.
Acting on the assumption that this Bill would become an Act, the General Council of the Trades Union Congress has recommended its affiliated unions to include a clause in every agreement they negotiate, specifying that no part of it is legally binding. I would not go as far as that, for there are always circumstances in which the acceptance by both sides of a legally binding agreement may very well be advantageous to both sides, always provided that it can be made clear and understandable, and expressed in terms the interpretation of which would cause no difficulty if by any chance they had to be taken to court. In such a case the parties concerned will be bound to take into consideration the fact that they will have to police the agreement under the terms of Clause 34, which we shall come to I suppose some time this evening—I would hope not, but I rather fear that that might be the case, because I think the House ought to go up at 10 o'clock and not a moment later.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD CHAMPION: Another effect of this clause in its existing form is that we shall see fewer written agreements and more oral agreements, which I would not regard as helpful to industrial relations generally. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, or whoever is to answer this Amendment of

77
mine, will use the argument that there is no reason for the Opposition to make a fuss about subsections (1) and (2) because any agreement will be rebuttable in the simplest possible form. Just in case the noble Lord feels like saying that, I must forestall him by saying: if it is going to be so easily rebuttable, why put it in at all? Why include it in the clause? The whole thing is nonsensical. I am bound to say that it seems to me that this clause appears in its present form to please, even if it merely deceives, Tory supporters who might have been led to think that it has some importance in relation to unofficial strikes. It has not. To some of the arguments against this clause as a whole we shall have to return when we discuss the Question, Whether Clause 32 shall stand part of the Bill.
There is nothing I would wish to add about the Amendment to delete subsection (2), which seems to me merely to cover an agreement by the parties that only a part should be regarded as being a legally enforceable contract. If I am right about that, then that subsection will fall if the Government show good sense and accept Amendment No. 238, and add the words that I am now proposing. I beg to move.
6.23 p.m.
LORD BROWN:I am sorry to disagree so profoundly with my noble friend Lord Champion, who is a man of great good common sense, but I am going to cite a little experience first. I was chief executive of a company for 25 years, and in conjunction with the trade union representatives of that company and other members of our staff we made a practice over many years of jointly working out in agreed form a whole series of policies, governing lists of work and the way that the firm operated. It was arduous, but nevertheless everybody agreed that it was necessary, and eventually there emerged a whole series of what we used to refer to, perhaps inappropriately, as standing orders, which were agreed by the representatives of everybody. What was the result of this? Over a period of 25 years there was one strike in one factory, which lasted for five days—and that was due to a misunderstanding of one of the rules, anyhow.
I submit that in the small firms of this country there may be no necessity for written agreements. This clause of the
78
Bill might have put a de minimis provision on this matter, which would have been helpful, because in s nail firms people are closer to each other than in large firms, for obvious reasons, and informal agreements are in fact often quite formal, because people completely understand them. But when you get companies of the size which are emerging in this country today, informal agreements are about as inappropriate as informal law would be in society, and there is no possibility of interpreting them consistently if they are informal and not written and agreed. If they are not enforceable at law, then, when a dispute breaks out as to their proper interpretation, they have to be settled in some way. I think we are all fully aware in this Committee of what happens: if the unions or the employees interpret agreements in one particular way, or want to ignore them, they can do so, because the employer really has no remedy: he is threatened with a strike acid, rather than face the possibility of huge losses and stoppage or the plant, he will give way. If, on the other hand, the employer seeks to cheat or to misinterpret or ignore agreements arrived at which are not legally enforceable, then people in the factory can go on strike and force him properly to observe the agreements; so the thing is somewhat lopsided. But let me draw attention to the fact that often the absence of enforceable agreements means the use by employees of strike action. This is extremely unpleasant for them as well as for everybody else; it means days or weeks of lost wages, and loss to the country as a whole.
This series of clauses is meant to protect not only the employment, but employees as well. There are plenty of wily employers in this country—I know some of them—who will consistently try to work their way round informal agreements, and to interpret them in a way in which they were never intended to be interpreted. Many strikes occur simply because of this; whereas, if they were legally enforceable, unions could have warned that they would lake these agreements to law and the strike need never have taken place. No doubt under these circumstances of exposure a good many wily managers of firms would not continue to hold the posts they hold now. I know quite a number of these people. Therefore, these clauses about collective agreements and their enforceability are

79
not so lopsided as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, at any rate, seeks to imply.
The noble Lord Lord Champion has also said that a lawyer will be needed at everybody's elbow. I have been in charge of a firm which now employs about 6,000 people, and we have never on any occasion over a period of 25 years employed a lawyer to draft any agreement. These things are not difficult to draft, and the sooner the managers, personnel officers and shop stewards become acquainted with the task of drafting agreements, the better. I have found that shop stewards rapidly become extremely skilled in the interpretation of the English language and proper phraseology for getting agreements into an enforceable condition. I have no doubt about the necessary intelligence being available at the place of employment, as between management and shop stewards. I think it is an injustice to suggest that every time somebody wants to come to agreement over all these matters it should be inferred that people are not capable of doing so.
This whole question of collective agreements and their enforceability has some bearing on the debate we had on Clause 31, when one noble Lord raised the question of withdrawal of overtime and whether this would be a practice which could be taken to the courts, if it were used to try to force the employer to apply for a closed shop agreement. But in my view, what was missed out in the whole debate on that clause was, that if the firm is properly run, then there is in force a policy regarding overtime, which would properly indicate to somebody joining that company that, if he joined he would be expected, with due notice and as long as he was in good health, to work so many hours per month overtime under given circumstances. That would become part of the conditions of employment. If a series of people decided that they were not going to work overtime in the presence of a policy of that sort they would not be infringing the law; and if a firm were so unwise as to have no policy agreed with the trade unions represented, then the union could withdraw their labour without breaking the law.
The fact is that industry remains to some extent a primitive jungle in that re-
80
spect. We are employing huge numbers of people in these industrial societies. As a society, we have learnt through the years the necessity of having legally enforceable laws for the citizen. It is the basis of security for individuals and of the rights of the British people to have enforceable laws. We have not got them in industry. Because they are not enforceable, employers are not given to wishing to put them right and the unions apparently in many cases do not want them, although there would be much more protection of their individual members in companies. We should overcome a great deal of the strife, heat, insecurity and strikes in industry if we were to advance in that direction. Of course these rules will have to be agreed upon and will have to be enforceable, but if they were enforceable at law outside the firm I do not think many people would go to law. Once it is possible to interpret something at law, common-sense interpretations and agreement are reached inside the company. As long as people are aware that rules are not enforceable at law then wiles or planning on the part of the managers or force on the part of workers will be employed in the company. It is for those reasons that I believe we must establish a sophisticated society inside each industry with its own series of laws which are enforceable in the last analysis. That will cause people inside to act with the same reasoned logic towards each other as we are wont to use in society as citizens.
6.33 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It has been said that many strikes take place consequent upon the interpretation of an agreement. Before he resumes his seat would the noble Lord kindly give some statistics to support his case that many strikes are taking place because of the interpretation of agreements? That is most important.
LORD BROWN: I cannot give statistics; I do not believe that they exist, because to produce them an analysis of each strike would have to be made to find out the reason behind it. But if anyone doubts that many strikes take place because of quarrels over the interpretation of agreements made inside industry, then I leave it to them. I do not agree with that view, and I am sure that most Members of the Committee

81
would agree with me that such strikes do take place.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I am one of those persons who definitely does not agree. I should be extremely interested if the Government could help us on this matter. How many strikes really take place because of interpretations of agreements? I suggest that the number is quite negligible. Strikes take place when agreements have to be altered, which is an entirely different situation. My noble friend speaks with vast experience, particularly with regard to industry: some 25 years with only one minor strike. From what I know of the records of some people in industry, I should like to see an extension of the principles in that particular industry advocated and applied generally. That would be much better than the type of Bill that is now before us.
The question of written agreements creates a presumption that any written collective agreement entered into should be legally binding and enforceable unless there is an expressly written provision to the contrary. That is an entirely new departure in our industrial relations, which I do not think will be welcomed by either side of industry. In addition, it allows employers' associations, on the same basis as a single employer, to make legally binding agreements. That again embraces a written agreement and constitutes a major change.
These particular clauses also demand that the trade unions must, to the best of their ability, see that agreements are enforced. Normally the trade unions do that; but this is something that will be capable of many interpretations. Has the trade union done its best? Has it taken every measure possible at its disposal? What is going to be the legal definition of what it has done? Will it mean that ultimately, if difficulties are encountered and if the trade unions do not withdraw membership of the individual, that that will be included and they must use their best endeavours to secure that type of agreement? It is all embraced in the written undertaking—having to contract in, as it were, and not to contract out. Here it is a question of contracting out and if the union so decide, again the dice is loaded against them because it will be possible for art employer who has not been able to pre-
82
vail upon a union to accept -.his idea, or the Minister, to ask this quest: on to be referred to the C.I.R. It could be sent to the Commission on Industrital Relations and difficulties arising from heir decision eventually could reach the lower courts. That is what is embraced in these written agreements. Surely that is not in the best interests of everyone concerned.
If the unions fail in the criterion of using their best endeavours, what will then be their position? I suggest that they could be sued for damages by an employer if they broke this legal and binding agreement. In my view that criterion was drafted by someone who has not taken into account the vital statistics within the industrial world, to see how many strikes have been caused deliberately consequent upon the breaking of an agreement. For a considerable number of years before I altered this House I was occupied with the type of machinery that was established within the industry to interpret agreements that had been entered into. Differences of opinion about agreements are bound to arise within industry, but those differences of opinion are distinct from breaking an agreement. Industry as a whole has established a type of Whitley Council machinery that is capable of enabling both sides to obtain a correct interpretation of what an agreement entails. Surely that is much better than having the threat of the law and all of the legal paraphernalia attached to it. This is not conducive to good relations. One can visualise that a number of individuals, if they feel they are going to be Persecuted in this way, it will really only result in martyrdom. Once the final eflects take place, an adverse decision may be given and a certain sense of martyrdom will arise. There will be the unity of his workmates behind him, and once that type of principle becomes involved in this type of agreement machinery it is disastrous, to say the least. It is much better to allow the normal type of negotiating machinery, which has been built up on a voluntary scale over so many years, to apply. I suggest that the noble Lord ought to have another look at this particular clause.
6.41 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: The preposition advanced by my noble friend about the desirability of enforcing in legal terms,

83
and possibly by legal enactments, agreements entered into between employers on the one hand and trade unions on the other, is intensely interesting, but it is hardly relevant to the Amendment under review. If we were discussing the philosophical aspects of legal enactments related to industry, a matter of wages and labour conditions, I should be inclined, to some extent, to support the proposition advanced by my noble friend. In a previous debate some time ago I mentioned that aspect under the Trade Boards Act many years ago, when those who were described as the "sweated workers " were awarded an increase in their hourly rates of pay. That was made subject to legal enforcement under a Bill which became an Act of Parliament. There is nothing inherently wrong, improper or mischievous in legal enforcement. That is not the issue which is before us in this Amendment. This Amendment is related not only to the remainder of the clause but also to subsequent clauses, in particular the one which refers to unfair industrial practices. We cannot divorce the two items. These are closely related, and must be kept in mind in the course of this debate.
Unless I completely misunderstand the purpose of the clause and, in particular, this subsection, and the following subsection, I can only describe the purpose as an irrelevant absurdity. What we are asked to accept from the Government is that if there is the presumption of an agreement, whether written or oral—and it seems to me that an oral agreement has been overlooked—then it becomes legally enforceable. Let me furnish an illustration. A trade union makes a claim for an increase in rates of pay and enters into negotiations with employers. They have a written agreement and that becomes legally enforceable; there is no presumption—that is if this clause is accepted. In the case of an oral agreement we are placed in considerable difficulty. Any kind of an agreement must be either written or oral. There cannot be an agreement unless there is—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): The noble Lord is wrong. There are three or four types of agreement. An agreement may be wholly in writing; wholly oral; partly in writing and partly oral,
84
or may be implied from a course of conduct.
LORD SHINWELL: Part of it can be in writing, part of it can be oral. It must be clear to noble Lords on both sides of the Committee—and I am surprised that the mind of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is not clarified on this matter—if a body of people meets another, engages in negotiations, and comes to an agreement of some kind, that is an agreement. A trade union might say that it wants another ten shillings an hour; the employers reply that they cannot give ten shillings, and offer five shillings. The trade union accepts that, and that is an agreement; it is not written, but it is an oral agreement. If I talk to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about something, and we both agree, then that is an oral agreement. Unless I am misunderstanding the semantics of this, I understand by " oral agreement " that somebody says to somebody else, " Would you not agree? " The other person responds and says, " I agree ". That is an oral agreement.
If the agreement is a written agreement it can become enforceable under the clause. This is rejected by my noble friends, but I understand it. But surely there must be something in the nature of an agreement other than in writing, and that is an oral agreement. If there is an oral agreement the presumption is that it is enforceable by law. Shall I read it? Perhaps I had better read this. Unless I am misinformed, I cannot understand the relevance of this, but I will read from the subsection.
"(2) Where a collective agreement made in writing after the commencement of this Act contains a provision which (however expressed) states that…the agreement…shall be conclusively presumed to have been intended by the parties to it to be a legally enforceable contract."
What is the definition of a " collective agreement "? That is what we are discussing. I will give the definition:
"In this Act ' collective agreement' means any agreement or arrangement (whether written or oral) …"
If it happens to be an oral one the presumption is that it becomes legally enforceable. Shall I read the whole of it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: However much the noble Lord reads it he will

85
still not have read subsection (1), which clearly states that for the presumption to apply the agreement must be in writing. An oral agreement, or any agreement other than one in writing, is not an agreement to which the presumption applies, although it may be a collective agreement within the definition of the clause.
LORD SHINWELL: I will read subsection (1), if it will satisfy the noble and learned Lord. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee, but I think this is important. It says:
"Every collective agreement which—

(a) is made in writing after the commencement of this Act, and

(b) does not contain a provision which (however expressed) states that the agreement or part of it is intended not to be legally enforceable, shall be conclusively presumed to be intended by the parties to it to be a legally enforceable contract."

This refers to a collective agreement in writing. But when we come to the definition of "collective agreement ", we find that it says:
" In this Act "—
and subsection (1) is part of this Act; you cannot exclude it-—
"'collective agreement' means any agreement or arrangement (whether written or oral)".
LORD BROWN: May I interrupt, just to save time? I understand this to mean —and I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will confirm it—that collective agreements are not enforceable at law, but written collective agreements are enforceable at law. It is as simple as that.
LORD SHINWELL: I wish it could be as simple as that.
LORD BROWN: May I ask the noble and learned Lord if I am right?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer is that that is right.
LORD SHINWELL: It is quite impossible to understand the meaning of this subsection. I understand the position to be that a written agreement under this subsection, unless otherwise expressed, is enforceable by law. That refers to a collective agreement. But, similarly, an oral agreement can be a collective agreement. Am I right? Does the oral agreement also refer to a collective agreement? If not, what is the purpose of the definition?
VISCOUNT AMORY: Usually the noble Lord is a model of lucidity and capable of understanding the most intricate question. Surely in this case the noble Lord is completely wrong. As I understand it, subsection (1) limits the kind of collective agreement, to which this clause refers, to the written collective agreement.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: In this Bill "collective agreement" means any agreement, whether written or oral.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may intervene, as being perhaps the senior on this Bench, I think we must recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is trying to make a speech. There are interruptions on interruptions, which are really rat her disorderly.
LORD BERNSTEIN: May we ask questions, if we cannot make speeches?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Committee has its Rules of Order, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is at the moment trying to make a speech. There will be a time for the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, to make his intervention or contribution after the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has finished.
LORD SHINWELL: I understand that the function of the noble and. learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is usually on the Woolsack. When he sits on the Government Front Bench he becomes didactic. He wants 'to provide guidelines for noble Lords. He can try that on those who sit behind him, but lei him not try that on us. With the utmost respect, I do not want any guidance in any way from him. I think I am on a fundamental point—and a good point, too. If there are any further interruptions I do not mind in the least; they will not do me any harm at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord is very good in saying that he does not mind another interruption. Because of the misunderstanding that has arisen about the nature of collective agreements, and whether they are to be enforceable or not, may I say that if the noble Lord looks at his Order Paper he will see t lat it is proposed to leave out subsections (3) and (4) by an Amendment, and to define " collective agreement " in a definition which will come in after Clause 157, and which he will find in the Order Paper as

87
Amendment No. 287B. This will remove any possibility of misunderstanding that any collective agreement is enforceable.
LORD SHINWELL: Do I understand that the noble Lord is referring to a subsequent Amendment to be introduced by him? Are we to understand that we are discussing an Amendment on the Order Paper relating to a particular clause, but that there is a misunderstanding and the noble Lord says that we had better wait until his Amendment comes? Did I understand him to say that just now?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Amendment will not affect the subsection we are now discussing.
LORD SHINWELL: If it does not affect the subsection, why did the noble Lord have to interrupt? I have a feeling that this is becoming even more nonsensical. Let us assume that an application is made to a body of employers for an increase in the rate of pay, and that the matter is referred to arbitration. Those who are responsible for exercising that judgment decide to take a certain course, but it is rejected by, say, the union side —or it may be rejected by the employers' side. Do we understand that a decision by a board of arbitration becomes legally enforceable? May I have an answer to that question? I will put it again: if the matter is referred to arbitration and a decision is given, or recommended, does it become legally enforceable under this provision? It is very important that we should understand that.
Finally, the real trouble about this Bill—and I have expressed it many times—is that there is so much language in it; so many adjectives capable of misunderstanding; definitions which we discover, on meticulous examination, are not clearly expressed at all. Indeed, it is an example of the kind of nonsense that the Government are trying to put across, with the aid of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who offers legal opinions which only lead to further misunderstandings. It is about time these matters were clearly stated and expressed, so that there will be no further misunderstanding. In any event, I dislike the clause entirely. I think the Amendment is one which should be accepted. I dislike the Bill entirely; and in fact I dislike the Government entirely.
6.58 p.m.
LORD SLATER: I rise to support the Amendment so ably moved by my noble friend Lord Champion. It may be true that my noble friend Lord Brown—an ex-Minister attached to the Board of Trade, and an industrialist—may be a good employer of labour. One gets that impression from his observations and his interjections of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, who also has experience in the political field and arena, and at Ministerial rank.
As I have examined it, the Government's purpose in regard to all agreements is that they are to be legally binding unless otherwise specified. On the other hand, we say from this side of the Committee that agreements should not be legally enforceable unless the parties concerned clearly specify. If it is the case that a trade union official and the employers are not prepared to have their hands tied, what can the results be? If the Government persist in their approach, instead of promoting the written agreement at the level where power lies—which may be at factory or plant level, where agreements have been made and are still being made—I am convinced in my own mind that such agreements could come to a halt. After weeks of negotiation, an employer may say, " We agree that there shall be written into the agreement a provision stating that it shall not be legally enforceable ", which is what the trade union will insist upon. The Government arc seeking to ensure that any employer who really wants an agreement has to be party to a statement which detracts from the commitment to that agreement. In other words, before an employer commences his negotiations he will find that he will be so fastened down by enforceability that he will know there is very little hope of reaching a settlement.
I have always been led to believe that the Government were concerned about unofficial strikes, but how can they expect them to stop when the Government put forward proposals which will mean that we are unlikely to get agreement inside industry? The purpose of the Government seems to be not to get up-to-date agreements, but to get agreements that are totally out of date. They must realise that we are living in a difficult period, in which parties undertake bargaining aft national level, and in which

89
there is the strongest opposition by the Trades Union Congress and by executives of trade unions against making contracts legally binding. It appears to me that even employers' associations are becoming less enamoured of the Bill's contents; it is by no means clear that the opposition to legally binding contracts comes only from the trade union side. Factory agreements—and my noble friend Lord Brown has plenty of experience of how negotiations take place—are more widely indulged in than once was the case. The vast majority of trade unions do not permit the coming into force of factory agreements until the unions have ratified those agreements. But for many years national executives have not insisted upon the vetting of factory agreements, and many in my own industry have concluded agreements at local level without any trouble at all.
En conclusion, may I say that if this legislation is enacted we shall probably see more unofficial strikes taking place. I support the appeal made by my noble friends Lord Shinwell, Lord Champion and Lord Popplewell, who have made their contributions to the discussion on this Amendment. I ask the Government to think again, and to agree to the Amendment.
LORD BERNSTEIN: May I ask this simple question? Paragraph (b) of subsection (1) uses the words " however expressed ". Later on, there are the words "written or oral ". We have had a great deal of discussion about agreements being in writing, and what is the benefit of an oral agreement in this matter? Would anybody be worse off if the words " or oral " were deleted?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only assume that the noble Lord is looking again at the definition subsection. I do not understand the question. What I say is that all we are discussing now is the presumption to which subsection (1) gives rise, and the Amendment to subsection (2) which is really consequent on subsection (1) If the noble Lord will look at subsection (1) and read it quietly to himself, he will see that, for the presumption of enforceability to apply, an agreement must have two characteristics. In the first place it must be a collective agreement; and, in the second place, it must be in writing.
LORD BERNSTEIN: The noble and learned Lord has not answered my question. Why use the words "or oral"?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They are not in subsection (1), which is what we are discussing. I hope to explain to the noble Lord why those words are there when we come to the definition subsection.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I probably do not understand English. Subsection (3) then states:
" In this Act ' collective agreement' means any agreement or arrangement (whether written or oral)…".
Heaven knows how that can refer to anything ether than what we have been discussing!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I can try once more. We are talking about subsection (1) where these words do not apply. The presumption is not contained in subsection (3), and therefore it has nothing whatever to do with what we are talking about now.
LORD SHINWELL: I follow the point of the noble and learned Lord, that we are discussing an Amendment related to a certain subsection, but how can we ignore a definition? After all, we must have regard to the definition and to the meaning of terms. That is why directed attention to the subsection, and the definition refers not only to written but to oral agreements. Can the noble and learned Lord answer that?
THE LORD CHANCELLCR: The answer is a very simple one, because there are collective agreements to which the presumption does not apply.
LORD BROWN: May I suggest a way of reading this in order to make it clear? If one reads first subsection (3), which states:
" In this Act ' collective agreement' means any agreement or arrangement (whether written or oral"
and then goes back to read subsection (1), which states:
"Every collective agreement which—
(a) is made in writing…."
is subject to legal enforcement, one then has the real meaning. It is the juxtaposition of these two subsections which makes the Bill confusing. May I make

91
one more point, because the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, asked a question to which he did not get a very clear answer. The word "oral" is used in reference to collective agreements simply because it is advisable to allow for the existence of collective oral agreements. Certainly, oral collective agreements are sometimes a necessity, particularly in small industries.
LORD SHINWELL: Are we to understand, now that one of the players on the Government Front Bench has been injured, that we may expect my noble friend Lord Brown to be a substitute?
LORD DRUMALBYN: It may be convenient if we now resume in order to take the other business, and noble Lords interested in the present Bill get a short interval during that other business.
House resumed.

WELSH NATIONAL OPERA COMPANY BILL
7.9 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The object of the measure, which is confined to local authorities in Wales—which of course includes Monmouthshire—is to make it possible for such local authorities, if they so desire, to contribute towards the resources of the Welsh National Opera Company. Legislation to this end is required because the powers under Section 132 of the Local Government Act 1948, which enables local authorities to make payments towards the provision of entertainment, restrict their ability in this direction and confine their benevolence to such entertainment as is convenient for residents in the area of the contributing authority.
We have a very good precedent for the Bill which I have the honour to place before your Lordships to-night in that the present Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. Peter Thomas, some years ago introduced a similar measure, which passed into law, to enable the Welsh local authorities to contribute towards the Royal National Eisteddfod of Wales although it might not be held within their own confines; and a little later Mr. Idwal Jones, who was
92
at that time the Member of Parliament for Wrexham, introduced another measure allowing the Welsh local authorities to contribute towards the Llangollen International Eisteddfod even though they might themselves be some distance from Llangollen—and, knowing the difficulty of transport in general in Wales, I do not think one could truthfully say that Llangollen was altogether convenient to the inhabitants of all Welsh local authorities. But that does not in the least diminish their enthusiasm for it.
What we are seeking to do to-night—and it will be in agreement with another place, through which this Bill has already passed—is to extend this principle to the Welsh National Opera Company. We feel that it is most desirable that any local authority in the Principality, if it so wishes, should contribute to what has become over the past 25 years one of our most distinctive and distinguished national institutions. I am quite sure that all of your Lordships who have had the pleasure of listening to a performance by the Welsh National Opera Company will agree that they maintain an extremely high standard. They became known in London, of course, first of all, by their performance of Verdi's opera Nabucco, when the choral singing made quite an impact. But in the intervening years since then they have, of course, very much widened their repertoire. At the moment, in the current season, there are eight operas in their repertoire, of which I think the production of Boris Godounov is perhaps the most distinguished. The repertoire for this season includes Falstaff, Aida, The Magic Flute, Die Fledermaus and so on.
As I am sure some of your Lordships here know, although the Company started largely as an amateur company, at tremendous sacrifice of time and leisure on the part of those who took part in the performances and in the rehearsals which were requisite thereto, in more recent years they have made the most gallant efforts to turn themselves into a professional company, or basically a professional company, and to extend both their repertoire and the range of their performances. It is quite plain that in a country with the population of Wales it is not easy to sustain a company performing grand opera if it is confined to the Principality itself, and therefore in the most

93
recent period the Company has gone beyond the confines of Wales and are performing also in England. The spring season, which is at present on, involves two weeks' performance in Cardiff, one in Swansea, one in Bristol and two in Llandudno, with rather briefer visits for rather circumscribed performances in Haverfordwest and Aberystwyth, where the facilities, of course, are not suitable for a full-scale grand opera performance. But in the autumn after the opening season of three weeks in Cardiff, the Company are proposing to tour to Southampton, Oxford, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Sunderland; and I am sure your Lordships will agree that if they can take their quite admirable Company to these places, they will add very much to the enjoyment of the citizens in these other towns.
We all know, of course, that opera is one of the most expensive forms of entertainment. One cannot reach really high standards in opera without considerable expense. Nowhere in the world can grand opera be performed cheaply; it simply cannot be done. In all countries of the world, therefore, opera on this scale must have a subsidy of some kind. So it is in no way derogatory of the Welsh National Opera Company to make it plain that, although they play very frequently to capacity houses, nevertheless they still cannot make ends meet just on the takings of the performances, however well supported they are. If your Lordships believe, as I do very strongly, that the Welsh National Opera Company are a popular opera company, in the sense that their performances should be available to all people who enjoy and appreciate opera, then you will also understand that one cannot follow (at least I think it would be very undesirable to try to follow) the situation which we find in, for instance, Glyndebourne, where one is appealing to a relatively small number of people who pay very high prices indeed for their seats—so much so that now, I think, a great many of the seats in Glyndebourne are paid for by companies rather than by individuals. I do not think that that would be at all a suitable way to deal with the position in Wales. We want to keep the opera available, as I have said, to as many people as possible who can enjoy it.
94
Now the Government have not been ungenerous, and I want to make this quite clear. We appreciate the contributions from Government sources through the Arts Council. My noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge will, I hope, support us with a few words in this debate, because when she was Minister she showed very great interest in this matter. We are very appreciative of the fact that when the opera company was in financial difficulties owing to an accumulated deficit, the Arts Council stepped in to meet the situation. But the Welsh Opera Company is still facing very considerable difficulties, although the proposed grant from the Arts Council has been slightly increased—not very much, but slightly —and there will be, we understand, a guarantee, an underwriting, of the expenses of the English tour that I mentioned. Nevertheless, there is a gap between what the opera Company has estimated to he its necessary expenses for the corning year and the—
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but may I ask the noble Baroness this question? She referred to a gap and to underwriting. By whom is that being underwritten?
BARONESS WHITE: For the English tour, I assume that the money comes from the Arts Council but it would be administered by what is ca led DALTA, which I think stands for Dramatic and Lyric Theatre Arts Association, which acts as an agent for the Arts Council in organising tours of this nature. The tour that I have referred to—the seven-week tour which will follow the Cardiff season in the autumn—is being organised in association with DALTA and, as I understand it. it has been suggested. that they would underwrite this tour to the extent of, I think I am right in saying, £60,000. That is a guarantee; it is not a grant. I think we must make this clear: that they will guarantee the costs (or the deficit, rather) on this tour to that extent.
But even with that very welcome guarantee there is still a gap which the Welsh National Opera Company are trying very hard indeed to eliminate. That is the gap between their estimate of what they really need and the offer which is being made by the Arts Council plus the guarantee for this particular tour. They have already done a great

95
deal to narrow the gap: by making certain economies, by cutting down new productions that they would have liked to undertake. They have therefore cut down to two the additions to their repertoire. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that if you are based in a relatively small community, as in Wales, you have to have a fairly extensive repertoire, otherwise people will not come; for once they have seen one production they naturally want something fresh. So one is placed in this difficult position. The fact that you are playing to a public which is relatively restricted numerically means that you need more productions than if you are in a high populated area. That is one of the things that the Company have felt obliged to do. They have also decided to postpone certain salary adjustments that they had hoped to make and to reduce some of the costs of the orchestra; but that cannot be done to any great extent without impairing the quality of performance.
One further matter worries me. The company has felt impelled under the financial stress to cut down its training scheme. I think this is most regrettable, and I hope that the Welsh local authorities, who know of the matter, will wish to contribute towards the training scheme. One of the greatest benefactions of the Welsh National Opera Company has been the way in which it has reared good young operatic singers in Wales, given them professional training with the company, after which, as we all know, they go on to Sadlers Wells and Covent Garden. Some of the most distinguished singers who perform regularly at Sadlers Wells and Covent Garden have come from the Welsh National Opera Company. I am speaking of both principals and chorus. I think that it would be most regrettable if anything were done to limit the opportunities for our very fine young Welsh singers, men and women, to obtain from the Welsh National Opera Company the kind of experience and training in a professional atmosphere which is invaluable for someone who hopes to sing in grand opera. We cannot truthfully claim that Sir Geraint Evans, although he has sung with them, owed his entire experience to the company; but Gwyneth Jones, Margaret Price, Elizabeth
96
Vaughan and Stuart Burrows, to name a few, have really owed their professional start to the Welsh National Opera Company.
I am sure that all of us who have had the pleasure of listening to this excellent company feel that it is something that we in Wales can be proud of. It is something distinctive. I think it would be tragic for Wales—and not only tragic for Wales but detrimental to the cultural standards of the United Kingdom—if anything were done to lower the standards and impair the qualities of the work done by the Company. Therefore, I hope very much that what we are asked to do in this very modest but important Bill will appeal to your Lordships. It is really no more than to enable the local authorities in Wales to contribute if they wish, to the opera company. I hope that this expression of good will in Parliament will draw to the notice of the local authorities their opportunity to do something to support a very fine Welsh national institution. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Baroness White.)
7.25 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady White, for the very clear exposition that she gave of the reasons for the introduction of this Bill. The Bill is a very short one but that does not mean to say that the noble Baroness could not have made a lengthy speech. I am glad that she did not; she covered the whole subject in a very short space of time. I welcome the Bill. The prestige of the Company is very high. Those who have seen it from its beginnings will realise how remarkable an institution it is. It is largely the creation of one man. It started near Cardiff as a purely amateur company in a small way and, as the noble Baroness said, it has grown into a great national institution which now appears in a number of centres—not only in Wales but also in England. No doubt in time it will go further still. Grand opera is an extremely expensive form of entertainment. This is particularly so in the case of this Company for one of its objects, unlike that of some commercial companies, is to stage new operas which the public have not had an opportunity of hearing at all—for example,

97
Italian operas which have not been presented in this country for many years. So the losses are great.
For the year ending March 31, 1970, the Company's accounts showed a deficit of £56,280. It is a fact in opera that even if every seat were sold for every performance there is still a loss. You cannot get enough money out of box office receipts to cover the expenses. Although it is delightful to know that the English will have the opportunity of witnessing this example of Welsh culture, of hearing Welsh people sing Italian opera, it is a fact that most of the £56,000 loss was occasioned by the Company's performances in England. That is my information. I have no doubt that this year, the extended scope of the company, to which the noble Baroness referred, will mean that the losses will be greater; and again they will be largely brought about by their appearances in England.
The results of this great loss would be most unfortunate. In the first place, you cannot send a telegram to first-class opera singers, particularly soloists, saying, " Be in Cardiff next Thursday " or, "Be in Bristol next Wednesday week." They book their engagements two or three years ahead. You cannot get men and women of the calibre of Geraint Evans, Gwyneth Jones and the like at the last moment. If they are not assured of the financial stability of Welsh National Opera they will not book up. The same thing is true of many devoted people in the chorus, among the administrative staff and among those handling the scenery. All of them tend to get worried about their future. It is essential that the opera should be put on to a sound financial basis. I regard it as one of the three great cultural institutions of Wales—not the only ones but the three great cultural institutions—the Royal National Eisteddfod, the International Eisteddfod of Llangollen, and the Welsh National Opera Company. These are three tremendously important institutions in Welsh life. It would be a tragedy if they went.
I wonder whether it is not possible for the Arts Council itself to make a contribution. I appreciate that it would be widening the scope of the Bill far too much to put down an Amendment conferring on English local authorities
98
the powers which the Bill seeks to confer on Welsh local authorities. But I wonder whether—having heard of the possibility, or having read of it, perhaps in Hansard, especially as supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge—it would be possible for the Arts Council itself to make a grant in view of the great losses sustained by the Company when it appears in England.
I have only one further point to make. One sometimes sees in the Tress (I am glad to say one never hears it in your Lordships' House) letters to the effect: Why should we spend money on opera when we could spend it on whatever the particular object the person who writes wants to spend it on—a vast number of other things—because opera, it is said, appeals to only a minority. Even if this is so, that is no reason not to support it. All developments in art probably at first appeal only to minorities; and even arts which appeal to a small minority in the beginning eventually redound to the enjoyment of the majority. One can take the position of the stage, for example, where developments, say, ten years ago in the theatre were seen by only a very few people, and understood h y only a very few people, but now are seen and enjoyed by many more. They have spilled over on to television and the films, and thus the majority get the benefit of what in the beginning appealed to only a small minority. So I hope, if there is any feeling in that way by some ratepayers, that the local authorities will resist it and will realise that they are sustaining a most important art form which is giving enjoyment to very many people, both in their own local area and n other areas; and it is, as I say, one of the three greatest glories of Welsh culture.
7.33 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, my only reason for taking part in this debate is to underline all that has been said by my noble friend Lady White a; to the purpose of this Bill. I do so with a sense of gratitude to your Lordships, as I had the pleasure some three years ago to support in this House a similar Bill which was introduced in the other place by my brother, Idwal Jones, in support of the Llangollen International That Bill passed through all it; stages in your Lordships' House without the slightest opposition, and I am confident

99
that that will be the fate of the Bill we are discussing this evening.
Having mentioned the Llangollen International Festival, I cannot resist the temptation to attempt a " commercial " and to remind noble Lords that the Festival will be held in seven weeks' time. Those of you who have never attended that Festival have missed an unforgettable experience. The Musical Director, Mr. Gwynn Williams, told me the other day that on this occasion no fewer than thirty-three nations will be taking part in the Festival. If noble Lords want to forget the drudgeries of the Division Lobbies and the all-night Sittings, well, my advice is: Go to Llangollen!
The Bill which we are now discussing was introduced in the other place by an ardent Welshman, Ifor Davies, the Member of Parliament for Gower and an enthusiastic supporter of the Welsh National Opera Company. He received the full support of the other place. As he explained when presenting his Bill, and as reiterated this evening by my noble friend Lady White, the object of the Bill is to make it possible for local authorities in Wales to contribute out of the rates, if they so desire, towards the expenses of the Welsh National Opera Company. Unless financial assistance is forthcoming, the Company is doomed to extinction, which would be a great tragedy. The Company was formed in 1946, and later registered under the Companies Act 1948 as a non-profit-making, sharing company, limited by guarantee for the—and I quote:
"promotion and presentation of grand opera in Wales and elsewhere and to contribute to the musical educational life of the community."
It started its career, as Lady White reminded us, as an amateur company, but soon developed into a professional status. Its new status demanded an extension in its playing weeks, an extension of the number of towns in which it can play, and an extension in its repertoire. These changes, obviously, needed an increase in financial aid, which has been met only in part.
The Company has served Wales well. Unfortunately, there are only three places in Wales where one can find facilities for
100
large-scale opera. These are Cardiff and Swansea in the South and Llandudno in the North. In spite of this, the Company has made great efforts to present smaller-scale operas in other towns in Wales which have only very limited stage accommodation. It is therefore truly educational in its aims and functions. The Company now compares favourably with the leading opera companies in England and elsewhere in Britain, and its prowess is recognised throughout the country. In the last two years it has played at Bristol, Southampton, Bournemouth, Birmingham, Leeds, Sunderland, Liverpool, and also at Salder's Wells. Welsh singers, as my noble friend Lady White reminded us, are now in demand not only in this country but also on the international operatic stage.
Before I resume my seat, I do not wish to indulge in any form of carping criticism, but, as a Welshman, I am always instinctively prompted to make comparisons between the treatment of England and that of Wales by various financial institutions. I would be the very last person to criticise the Arts Council of Great Britain, and that for two reasons. In the first place, my high regard for the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, would in itself prevent me from doing so. In the second place, I believe that the Arts Department, under my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge, was the outstanding success of the Labour Administration—I say that without the slightest reservation. I am only hoping that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will follow her good example. Nevertheless, curiosity prompted me to make a comparison between the grants allocated by the Arts Council to the Welsh National Opera Company and, for instance. Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells. I find that in the year 1969–70, Covent Garden had a total grant of £1,400,000; Sadler's Wells had a total of £762,000. That makes a combined total of £2,162,000. The Welsh Arts Council made, by comparison. a meagre grant to the Welsh Opera Company of £178.016. No doubt my words will reach the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. I would only say this to them: treble the grant to the Welsh Company and they will live happy ever after. It gives me great pleasure to support the Bill.
7.40 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, it is quite true that the Welsh Company is still in difficulties, and perhaps the trouble is that people simply cannot understand why opera is so expensive. I hope that Welsh pride will be fully enlisted behind this measure that has been introduced by my noble friend Baroness White. It is no use expecting the central Government to give total finance to any major art. Its very vitality rests on the fact that it has deep local roots. We hear a great deal about Welsh pride. The Welsh people are proud of their distinctive culture. Therefore I hope that all county councils in Wales and in Montgomeryshire will respond to this opportunity that they are being given.
You have to be at close quarters watching a great company work to appreciate the discipline, dedication and sacrifice that is put into running an opera company. I entirely agree with what has already been said: that it is enough that they should do this for us, without being haunted by wondering whether they can afford it: can they afford to train, can they afford the administrative staff? We are not even talking in terms of a Welsh opera house; we are talking in terms of supporting a Welsh Opera Company.
How can we get rid of this false notion that opera is only for a small minority of wealthy people? Of course we have Covent Garden, and it is extremely expensive to get into Covent Garden, even with all the subsidies that arc paid. I would ask my noble friend to remember that when one talks about Covent Garden one is talking about the opera house as well as the opera company. Some of my earliest memories in a mining village in Scotland are of delight when the Carl Rosa Opera Company or the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company visited us. All the operas were familiar in my home. I do not know what songs the young workers of Wales are singing these days when they go home on a Saturday night. I can remember more than 15 years ago sitting at an open window in Tredegar when the lads were coming home after 10 o'clock on a Saturday night. I assure your Lordships that it was not hymns they were singing, and it was not pop songs; they were singing arias from II Travatore, Carmen and so on. As I say, I do not
102
know whether they do that now, but they did in days past. The opera was a popular art. I cannot speak:or England, but in the part of Scotland where I grew up and the part of Wales that I knew, there was a great delight in the beauty of the words and the music of the opera.
There must be an insistence that if we are to have an opera company it must be absolutely first class; and, if we maintain the standards I hope it will become more generally recognised that it must be supported over a wide area. You must have a national power house: you must have it for Wales, for London, for Scotland and elsewhere. Welsh pride must insist on parity of esteem; that their company is not second-rate, but is superb in its training and talent, and gets an international as well as a national reputation. I hope that we can do something to make it clear to county councillors throughout Wales and elsewhere that this is a very special responsibility and a great opportunity that they have, and that they will realise that financial support for a great opera company must come locally, as well as centrally.
7.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I am happy to tike part in singing with this Welsh guar et and the guest artist in the shape of the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, whose dulcet tones we very much appreciated hearing. We are, I think, singing in close harmony, but due to the fact that there is a pop group called the House of Lords, we shall have to find another title for ourselves. I am pleased to have the opportunity of expressing the full approval of the Government for this short but important Bill. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in admiration of the succinct, concise and eloquent way in which the noble Baroness, Lady White, introduced the Bill, although perhaps the normal virtue of being concise was not so important this evening, when some of our colleagues who have to take a short rest from the Industrial Relations Bill may have been hoping that we could continue the debate a little longer.
Like others of your Lordships who have spoken, I have for many years admired

103
the performances of the Welsh National Opera Company, and I have listened to them with great pleasure both in London and in Cardiff. Therefore I fully support the Bill. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to a man whom I knew well, who started the whole thing going—Bill Smith. He was, I think, largely responsible for its success in the early days, against great difficulties, and he deserves some mention to-day. He was a simple man, but a successful businessman, with a vision and a devotion to the cause of opera. It was he who started the Welsh National Opera Company, harnessing the talents of great professional singers to the glorious swelling sound of Welsh amateur choruses. On that basis the opera company took shape. To-day it is well established, and largely professional, and therefore faces, as has been made clear by other speakers, severe financial difficulties. It needs to tour extensively in England, as well as Wales, and it needs financial support.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness for her tribute to what the Government are doing through the Welsh Arts Council; and this of course is a tribute to the last Government, who equally warmly supported the company through the Welsh Arts Council. It is only right that Welsh local authorities should not be deterred from supporting the opera company by the strict requirements of section 132 of the Local Government Act 1948. As has been said, it follows in the tradition of two other significant Acts: the Eisteddfod Act 1959, introduced by the present Secretary of State for Wales, and the Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod Act, introduced by Lord Maelor's brother in 1967. Both of these gave local authorities undisputed power to contribute to the support of these other two national institutions. This Bill follows that precedent. and I hone that your Lordships will give it an undivided Second Reading.
7.49 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all who have taken part in this brief debate. I am sorry
104
if the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has had slightly to expedite his dinner. We have no Standing Orders in this House, and we might have started singing and carried on for quite a little while. Between us I am sure we could give a very good account of ourselves. But perhaps that would be establishing a precedent which on other occasions (if. for example, our Scottish friends joined in; might be a little rowdy. As I say, I am grateful to all noble Lords, and not least to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who has expressed the support of the Government for this Bill.
I think I should perhaps have mentioned that at the present time, as I understand, the local authorities, who are entitled to contribute under existing legislation, contribute a sum, in round figures, of about £20,000 a year. This, of course, is excellent as far as it goes, but it quite plainly does not go anything like far enough. Needless to say, we should like the Government to give a little more than they do, and if possible on a triennial basis: I would suggest that the noble Lord might consult with his noble friend about that matter. It was said during the speeches of my noble friends that the position is very difficult for a company of this kind when it does not know beyond a 12-month period what its position is going to be, because it cannot then engage people of international repute and it cannot really make arrangements for its orchestra, either.
I think that, for opera companies particularly, a little more would be especially desirable. But however much the Government are prepared to do—and I hope they will do a little more, because I think the Arts Council are quite well aware that more is needed, and do it on a longer term basis—there is still room for the local authorities in Wales. We hope very much indeed that as a result of this brief debate, as well as what was said in another place, they will now take this opportunity to show the pride we have in Wales in the Welsh National Opera Company.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
7.52 p.m.
House again in Committee.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD GRENFELL): The debate continues on Amendment No. 238A. I would remind your Lordships that if this Amendment is agreed to I am unable to call Nos. 2:38B and 238C.
LORD DRUMALBYN: As there are no other takers, I suppose I had better speak now. We find ourselves in rather an unusual situation, and I might possibly be better employed in giving what is known in Scotland as a " wee song" at this moment than in replying to the debate. It might attract into the House more people to listen than my reply would. However, I think probably I can best serve the Committee by starting to reply to the debate, and this will give my noble and learned friend an opportunity of replying further when the audience is more worthy of his remarks.
I should like to start by drawing attention to the things on which I think we are agreed. We are agreed, I think, that collective agreements are not as clear as they might be. This was a point made at considerable length in the Donovan Report. And because they are not as clear as they might be, they are not suitable for legal enforcement. Of course it follows we are agreed that existing collective agreements should not be presumed to be legally enforceable. We are talking about the legal presumption that the agreement is, or is not, intended by the parties to be a legally enforceable contract. I am sure we shall agree that people should keep their bargains, and also, probably that where there are two parties to a bargain, the effect of one or the other not keeping to it should not be too uneven; in other words, it seems hard when one party, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, explained—namely, the employer—breaks the argeement he is liable to suffer loss through strikes and so on, whereas when the other party breaks or fails to observe the agreement nothing further happens.
I think we shall further agree that the failure to keep agreements in itself breeds misunderstanding, and in turn each misunderstanding breeds further misunderstanding; and this contributes to bad
106
industrial relations. Please do not misunderstand me; I am not saying that agreements are widely flouted. I think that, generally speaking, it would be true to say that there is a genuine intention on both sides to keep their bargains, at least so long as there is not a change of circumstances in which one party or the other feels that the bargain ought no longer to be kept. In such circumstances, we feel that the right thing h to review the agreement.
Another matter on which w; agreed, I think, is that there are now, and will be in the future, many agreement;—particularly oral agreements—that are not intended to be legally enforceable, indeed there may be parts of agreements which are not intended to be legally enforceable—whereas others may be regarded as much more binding. Finally, I think one has to recognise that although literally millions of contracts are made every year, only a very small number of them come before the courts each year. I think I am right in saying, that we are generally agreed on these points.
What we are seeking to do here is to emphasise two or three main points. First, it is important that whenever a collective bargain is made the parties should understand exactly what they are agreeing about. This is something that will have its effect right through the trade union, right down to its members, if they know what the agreement is about. It would not be unfair to say that there are some collective agreements that are made under great stress—perhaps during a strike or the threat of a strike—which are really much more in the nature of a truce than an agreement; and in truces perhaps one cannot be quite so certain that there is a meeting of minds on the agreement, that the parties mean the same thing by the agreement. One has only to look at international affairs around the world at the present time to see that this is so.
Then we have also to consider what is to happen if any disagreement arises about the interpretation of the collective agreement. Finally, I believe that there should be the will on both sides to keep the bargain, and the essential thing for industrial relations is to achieve the position where there will be confidence on both sides that that agreement will be kept. This is obviously desirable from

107
the point of view of the economy and the good working of industry, and indeed for venturesomeness in industry, because if an employer feels that at any moment an agreement may be broken he is much less likely to look forward and to invest and so on. So I am convinced that there is a great deal to be said for collective agreements to be enforceable in appropriate cases.
The real difference is purely whether they should be presumed to be enforceable unless the opposite is stated, or whether they should be enforceable only if they are stated in terms to be enforceable. The great advantage of the clause we are suggesting is that from the moment when the parties begin to negotiate an agreement they will consider whether the agreement is or is not going to be made enforceable. If we were merely to propose, as the last Bill did, that the agreement may be made enforceable but not unless it is stated in terms to be enforceable, then there will be little incentive on the parties to reach that meeting of minds of which I have spoken. They will tend less to consider the content of the agreements than otherwise.
LORD SLATER: Would the noble Lord clear my mind a little on those things which have become customary between employers and employees? Would they be enforceable by means of a new contract drafted in the form of an agreement against what had been customary for a long period of time?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps the noble Lord was not in his place at that moment, but I started by saying that, largely because of lack of clarity, present collective agreements would not be presumed to be enforceable. Under the Bill it is only future collective agreements that will be presumed to be enforceable unless the contrary is stated. I think that it is important to recognise this. I do not propose to go into details, because other noble Lords wish to speak and I shall leave it to my noble and learned friend to wind up the discussion after other noble Lords have spoken. I think that the Committee would do well to take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said. He has done a great deal of very progressive work in industrial relations and in his own fac-
108
tory he has a system which works. He said that perhaps it would be a good idea if we adopted holus bolus, if I may put it that way, his system instead of this Bill.
I think that every factory, every plant and every industry where there are collective agreements has to work out its own salvation in this. Let me make it clear from the start that we do not expect that the parties to agreements will in all cases refrain in the early stages from saying that an agreement is not enforceable, but as time goes on people will become more and more aware of the advantages of enforceable agreements. This was the point of view of the Donovan Commission, who recognised that collective agreements would increasingly come to be enforceable. Other countries, I may say, have come to recognise the advantage of legal enforceability. We do not always have to go to countries like the United States and Sweden. As was pointed out in a letter to The Times not long ago, our ex-Colonies, although they took over the law more or less as it was from us, proceeded to make their collective agreements enforceable.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, is not with us at the moment, but he said that our history is quite different. Of course it is, and I feel that in this matter we have deviated from the normal form of civilisation, because it is one of the advantages of civilisation that contracts should be enforceable at law. There was a time when the parties to bargains bound themselves by fearful oaths, and the wrath of the gods was supposed to descend upon the party which broke the bargain. As civilisation progressed, men found better ways, through the law, of ensuring that the innocent party to an agreement did not suffer damage because of the wilful breaking of the agreement by the other party. In principle this is bound to be right, and we believe that time will show that the principle of enforceability will be taken as natural. This is the case for our approach. I have explained it as briefly as I can, leaving the technicalities to my noble and learned friend, when he winds up.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It may be that the noble Lord answered this point before I came into the Chamber, but could he give the Committee any guidance in

109
regard to the trouble in industry by the breaking of honourable agreements which have been arrived at between the two sides?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Misunderstandings as to the interpretation of agreements are so common that they give rise to a great deal of trouble. The noble Lord is quite right, but this difficulty cannot be quantified. The Department of Employment cannot break down the figures—at any rate, not without the greatest trouble—to show the immediate causes of the breakdowns in industrial relations. But I think we all know that there are many cases where the interpretations placed on agreements turn out not to be the same on both sides. Before the noble Lord came in, I pointed out that the Donovan Commission included in their Report the opinion that it was largely because of the lack of clarity of collective agreements that we have these breakdowns and it was for that reason they did not suggest that existing agreements should be presumed to be enforceable. It would not work because the agreements were not clear enough for them to be legally enforceable.
8.9 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: As a lawyer, I feel a great deal of sympathy with both my noble friend Lord Brown and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. The making of an agreement legally enforceable represents an advance, in the sense that, as it has advanced, civilisation has recognised that it is desirable that agreements should be enforced. What I find singular about this provision—and although I have not been present during the whole of the discussions, so far as I am aware no specific reference has been made to it—is that it lays down that it shall be conclusively presumed that the intention is that the agreement shall be legally enforceable, unless there is some express provision. This is indeed a very singular situation and cuts completely across the normal principles of contract, which are that an agreement is not binding unless it is intended to be legally enforceable, and this may be shown either by an expressed clause or by implication. The whole course of legal development in regard to collective bargains has been that it has been recognised by lawyers in this country that the character of collective agreements as they have
110
developed up till now has not lent itself to the presumption that they should be legally enforceable. This was the basis of the Ford Motor case in 1969 when the court said, after examining the whole content, nature and structure of that agreement, that it was not sensible to reach the conclusion that it wt s intended to be legally enforceable. Indeed the learned judge, Mr. Justice Geo Trey Lane, I think it was, referred to the agreement as composed largely of optimistic aspirations rather than a series of clearly defined legal obligations.
What it seems to me one his to bear in mind here is that in many cases you will have agreements of this character, somewhat vaguely drafted agreements which the parties recognise as adequate for their needs but which have not been drawn up with any degree of precision, yet in all such cases under the clause the court will be forced to the conclusion that it is conclusively presurred to be legally binding This seems to be something not only of an anomaly but even an absurdity. I should have thought that the clause would have made a great deal more sense if it had provided that, " it shall be presumed to be legally binding "; in other words prima facie presumed, but it will still be open to the court, by looking at the whole agreement, to say that it does not make sense to say that the parties intended to make this legally birding, and that therefore they apply the ordinary contractual principle. I cannot see the justification in this transaction as against every other type of agreement that one should have 'this rather extraordinary conclusive presumption.
We are going to refer later on to Clause 39, so I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee by referring to it in detail now, but one sees the extent to which this anomaly is carried when one sees that in that clause the position Is arrived at where you have an arrangement which is not regarded by t le Industrial Court as being satisfactory, yet the Industrial Court can lay down certain provisions which are to take erect as a legally enforceable contract between the parties. So the anomaly is made doubly absurd by an arrangement being held to be a contract; that is to say, something agreed between the parties which the parties have never agreed to or contemplated at all.

111
I mention this in this context because it shows how far this rather curious concept has been carried. Therefore, I respectfully submit to those in the Government who have been considering, no doubt with considerable care, the drafting of this matter, that consideration should be given, even at this stage, to whether their purpose might not be just as adequately achieved by referring to a presumption, but not a conclusive presumption, rather than insisting upon this extraordinary result that the court may be compelled to treat the arrangement as a legally binding contract when the whole context, character, nature and terms of the transaction point irresistibly—as it did in the Ford case and will no doubt do in many subsequent cases having regard to the nature of these agreements and the way they are composed—to the fact that whether you view it as Mr. Justice Geoffrey Lane put it in the Ford motor case subjectively or objectively that the intention of the parties was that it should not be a binding agreement.
8.17 p.m.
LORD COOPER OF STOCKTON HEATH: May I follow the last noble Lord in putting the same point of view, that collective bargaining, which is the instrument of negotiation, is not going to be helped by the suggestion that we should formalise agreements in a legal framework. Many problems will arise from this. One of the first is that for any satisfactory negotiated settlement there is the question of time. You do not want negotiations to drag on too long, and if agreements are to be legally binding I would suggest that this is going entirely to alter the present method of negotiation.
At the moment, where good industrial relationships exist men keep their bargain and there is no requirement to make this legally binding. There are large areas in industry, in engineering for example, where there is hardly any formal machinery at all. The parties meet from time to time to negotiate a basic wage though, as Donovan pointed out, the basic wage in this industry does not mean a thing and it is possible for a worker to receive three times the basic wage due to
112
bonuses, piece work and so on. So the effective negotiation—and I cannot see any other possibility in an industry like engineering—is at shop floor level. Where people work on machines, where the job changes from week to week, where new prices have to be arranged and so on, how are you going to make a legal contract?
We have the American example before us where there is a two-year contract; where everything is expressed in legalised form. They have built up an army of legal people who deal with industrial law and nothing else, and therefore the contract has to be expressed in terms which can be interpreted legally. This is completely strange and foreign to our present practice. I stress this to bring out the point that this is another aspect of the Bill which is bringing great changes upon the trade union movement, and the question arises as to whether or not this is going to be helpful. Personally, I do not think it will help. I believe that in industries where we have good relationships—and this applies to the great mass of British industry—there is no problem even if we had to make legal agreements. For example, if we make an agreement with Imperial Chemical Industries there is no need to enforce it by a legal agreement; everybody keeps their bargain.
So of course the problem is where the relationships are poor. The question then arises, are you, because of the relatively small element of difficulty in industrial relations generally, to impose on the great mass of industrial relationships this kind of requirement that in my opinion will revolutionise the approach? In my own union we have to consider whether we need an elaborate legal department in order to be able to meet the possible requirements of an Act that is pending. Frankly, I think this is, taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is not required for the great mass of labour relationships in this country, and it will impose upon us the very thing that is such a problem with British industry. The one thing in negotiation is to get, if you can, a reasonably early settlement; but if every word, every comma and every dot over every i is to be considered to see if it stands up to legal interpretation, this is really imposing upon the layman a very considerable responsibility. I hope this

113
will be taken into account by the Government in their consideration of this part of the Bill.
LORD TANGLEY: This Amendment is really a question of procedure. The proposal in the Bill is that an agreement is to be identified as legally enforceable or not by what I might call negative procedure. The proposal in this Amendment is that an affirmative procedure should be substituted. I shall find it very difficult to make up my mind which is the better procedure until I have a much clearer idea of what the effect, or the supposed effect, of making a collective agreement legally enforceable really is. It seems to me to be extremely obscure under this clause, and the purpose of my intervention is to put some of my problems to the Government in the hope that, either now or before the Report stage, they will give them the attention which I am bold enough to think they deserve.
The clause says that every collective agreement which is identified as such, whichever procedure is adopted, shall be enforceable. Now what does this mean? This is my first question. I know that under Clause 34 it means that a breach of a collective agreement will be an unfair industrial practice, but I imagine also that the courts would say that Parliament did not use these solemn words " legally enforceable " unless they meant something by them. That is the sort of way in which judges talk to counsel, and legitimately so. I therefore suggest that it is intended that, in addition to having the effect under Clause 34 of making a breach an unfair industrial practice, it is intended that in the event of a breach of the contract there should be some claim against some party in respect of some thing. Indeed, my thought on that is confirmed by looking at Clause 125, which says:
"No court other than the Industrial Court shall entertain any proceedings brought by a party to a collective agreement against another party to it, if the purpose or principle purpose of the proceedings is—

(a) to obtain a decision of the court on the construction or effect of the collective agreement, or

(b) to enforce the collective agreement or claim damages for a breach of it."

So that clearly states there will be some party responsible for damages in the event of a breach, and if there is such
114
a claim the Industrial Court is.he proper tribunal to deal with it.
That sounds fairly logical s far, but does the clause really do this? Supposing you have an agreement made by a trade union, or perhaps by a shop steward on behalf of a trade union, of course that agreement is made in the interests of the workpeople in the place and, whichever procedure we adopt, it is identified as intended to be a legally enforceable agreement. If there is a breach of it, who is going to be the defendant in These proceedings? If it is the trade union they will say " The union is not in breach of it: it is the workpeople on the shop floor who are in breach of it. The union is not liable." If you were to go to the man on the floor, he will say, " I did not make this agreement: it was lot made on my behalf. It was a union agreement. I have no doubt it was a good one, and I am sorry I have broken it, but it was nothing to do with me." I think those problems will arise in the case of an attempt to enforce such an agreement, and even if you look at the question of unfair industrial practice in Clause 34 which is specifically designed to deal with this,

"(a) where the agreement is a legally enforceable contract to break the agreement, or

(b) where part (but not the whole) of the agreement is a legally enforceable contract…"

then the party is liable to be held in the position of undertaking an unfair practice. Who is the party under Clause 34—is it the trade union? A little later on it is suggested that it is really intended to be the trade union because it rather suggests that it will be a defence to say that he has done all he can to see that the agreement was carried out. If, on the other hand, the party is intended to be a workman on the floor, I do not know what the position is. Therefore I have great difficulty in deciding which procedure in this Amendment should be adopted, because I do not know what the procedure is leading to. I suggest that at present the clause is quite nonsensical, has no meaning, and would be utterly unenforceable.
LORD WILBERFORCE: I urn very happy to follow my noble friend from these Benches, because many of his thoughts correspond with mine..Before I

115
go back to his argument, I would take up some points raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, regarding this clause as a whole. We are at the moment debating whether the clause should be a contracting-out clause or a contracting-in clause, and I must say that I cannot work up much enthusiasm about that question. I know it provokes great passions on one side or the other as to which should be adopted, but in the end it is going to come to very much the same thing as this Bill is drafted—and that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, has pointed out, is going to be in practice that most collective agreements will be declared as not legally enforceable. I believe that that will be the practical result. I am sorry that I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on that point.
However, I wanted to take up an earlier point, and one which really cuts at the root of the whole conception of this Bill. One hoped very much that this portion of the Bill—the portion that was to deal with the collective bargain was really going to be part of the contribution which the Bill would make to a new law of labour relations. One knows that great hopes are pinned on it by the Government and by the public. It is thought on one side that the cure for all our evils is to make the collective agreement legally enforceable; and on the other side the trade unions believe that it is a terrible thing and that it is going to land all sorts of practices and unions and employers in the courts, with a lawyer at everybody's elbow.
I believe that both of those approaches are wrong and that the approach of this Bill, which polarises and separates agreements into those legally enforceable and those not legally enforceable, is really a false separation because, as has been pointed out by a number of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee, collective agreements are not as simple as that. They are not agreements which you can just take into a court and say, " Let us sue on it ". One knows, of course, that the Ford agreement came before the courts and a judge had to decide in the context of a procedure agreement whether that particular agreement was to be treated as legally enforceable or not. It was insoluble. He decided that that
116
particular agreement was not intended to be legally enforceable. He did so against the background of what he thought to be sound, orthodox theory. Some agree with the decision, some do not, but that was the dilemma he was in. Either it is legally enforceable or it is not legally enforceable and the thinking among many noble Lords on this side of the House and in trade unions on this sort of clause is that collective agreements which are of a diverse and often sophisticated kind are not really suitable to be brought into the ordinary legal process. I believe they are fundamentally right about that, and one was hoping for some recognition of that fact in this Bill, and some more sensitive and more sophisticated procedure which would bring collective agreements under the law but not, if I may say so, under lawyer's law—not under the law of contract, the law of judges and so on.
What one wants in this Bill is a law of industrial relations, which is quite a different thing, and I hoped that it would be brought about by this Bill. One has, after all, set up a flexible and ingenious machinery with the Industrial Court, the Commission on Industrial Relations, industrial tribunals, arbitration procedure—all that is there and one hoped that it was going to be used in order to deal with the law of collective agreements and industrial relations in the way which is suitable to those agreements. What would be much better—and it may not be too late to bring it in would be to have a flexible and sensitive procedure, either under the Industrial Court or the Commission on Industrial Relations, or both, which would enable complicated, informal, elaborate or long-term collective agreements to be dealt with in the most appropriate way.
As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, a number of collective agreements are very informal agreements made in small undertakings, possibly against a large background of custom in which everybody knows what they mean but it is not all set down. Others are going to be—and probably are at this time—long-term agreements, American-style; three-year agreements which are meant to cover, say, the whole of the procedure and the demarcation questions and the pay structure of a huge industry for three years. In that sort of

117
thing one needs quite a different approach. One wants a machinery which will provide means of saying that certain parts of the agreement are capable of enforcement; others are not at this stage because technologies change; others are suitable for reference to arbitration; others ought to be referred for negotiation between the two sides. What you do not want is a cast iron division between either totally legally enforceable or totally non-legally enforceable. This is true of the inarticulate practices to which another noble Lord referred. There are many of these behind a great number of collective agreements. People enter into something across the negotiation table, but there is a lot of inarticulate premise behind it and it is quite useless to bring into that sort of negotiation the kind of considerations arid the kind of arguments which you have in courts of justice, that you can sue on it or you cannot.
Therefore, with great respect, I think the Government are not taking the best course when they say that an agreement is to be legally enforceable—just like that—because they will find that when you come face to face with a collective agreement—assuming that any article will indeed be enforceable at all—there would be large parts of any collective agreement which do not fit into the ordinary legal machinery, and you will not get anywhere unless you have a much wider power, either to say that there is a clause which can be enforced or that there are other parts which must be referred for negotiation.
If there is to be any change in these clauses I hope that it will be in that direction. But assuming that we are to be fixed into this cast-iron mould of legally enforceable or non-legally enforceable agreements, then I am entirely with my noble and learned friend Lord Tangley in the observations he has made about the clauses as they stand. It is indeed far from clear what the effect of legal enforceability under this machinery is to be. He has given the clauses which are mainly relevant on this; Clause 34, the unfair industrial practices; Clause 125, which says that no court other than the Industrial Court shall entertain proceedings, and Clause 129 which says that the Industrial Court shall not have any jurisdiction other than that expressly conferred upon it.
118
I should like to bring out two questions which I think are probably inherent in what the noble Lord said. First, can the Industrial Court, which is the only court, admittedly, which can deal with the questions of collective agreements, deal with a claim that there has beer a breach of contract of a collective agreement? As the noble Lord said, by saying that it is legally enforceable you presumably intend that it should be sued on, and it is difficult to see whether all that can be claimed is that a breach of a collective agreement is an unfair industrial practice, or whether you can claim in the ordinary way that a breach is a breach of contract. It may be important because unfair industrial practice attracts a claim for compensation and it may to that the damages are very much the same. If one accepts the implication of Clause 125—damages for a breach can he brought before the Industrial Court—that it is put in the negative and it says, " No court other than the Industrial Court ", it is left to implication that it is the Industrial Court that can entertain such matters.
The other point is rather more important. Can the Industrial Court, under any of these clauses, decide on the interpretation of collective agreements if those collective agreements are not made legally enforceable? That is very important because, surely, one of the most useful functions of the Industrial Court is to help the parties to collective agreements to ascertain what thy mean. Again, admittedly Clause 125 says that no court other than the Industrial Court can entertain any proceedings to obtain a decision on the construction or effect of the collective agreement. What I am not at all clear about is whether that applies only to a case where the collective agreement is enforceable, or whether it applies to other cases. I should think that if the Industrial Court is to do anything useful at all, it ought to have power to decide on the interpretation and construction of collective agreements, whether or not they are legally enforceable in a legal sense. It may be useful to tell the parties what the collective agreement means, and that can be just as useful whether the agreement is (in whatever sense you choose to make it so) legally enforceable or not.
The other questions about the parties and the collective agreements have

119
already been sufficiently brought out by my noble and learned friend Lord Tangley, and I do not propose to repeat them, except to say that I entirely agree with him in thinking that the Bill, whether as drafted or as prospectively amended by means of the various Government Amendments, is far from clear on this point. I apologise for detaining the Committee from these Benches on this rather political clause, but it is an important clause from the legal point of view. The courts, in one form or another, will be much concerned with it, and perhaps those on these Benches are entitled to draw the attention of noble Lords to what seem to be certain difficulties in the application of those clauses, whichever way they come out.
8.41 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: The House is indebted to the noble Lords, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Tangley, for their observations on this clause. There is no need for Lord Wilberforce to apologise for addressing the Committee at such length; it will benefit greatly from his observations. The change in law which is coming about is extremely radical. Had I the eloquence of the two noble Lords who have preceded me, I should be able to express my point of view more clearly.
At the time we were debating Clause 1, I referred to this change of law as bringing industrial relations within a legal framework, at the same time comparing it with civil and common law. The two things are entirely different, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, has emphasised. I have asked a number of times for some indication from the Government as to why they are proposing this change in the law. Whatever evidence has been brought forward from both sides of industry regarding the number of disputes which have taken place consequent to interpretation of agreement, when all is said and done the fundamental principle is the interpretation of agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in his reply to me a little while ago, said that it would be impossible without an undue amount of expense and difficulty, to quantify the difficulties that have arisen. One would have thought that if there was to be this fundamental change, there should have been research
120
to see whether it was justified. Has there been any request from industry at all for a change of law of this description, either from the employers association or from the Trades Union Congress; or has anyone made representations to bring about these changes? I strongly suspect that the answer is, No. This is born from an ideological approach. In that connection, great difficulties will be encountered.
My noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, the General Secretary of one of our major unions, has indicated just what it will mean so far as the members of his union are concerned. They will seriously have to consider whether or not to establish a huge legal department to ensure that every agreement they enter into is legally binding. Even when that is done, and every effort from both sides has been tried, then the Industrial Court—as has been rightly pointed out by Lord Wilberforce—will be called upon to interpret. As I understand it, the Industrial Court will have power to redraft an agreement submitted to it. That is ironic, to say the least; and it is unnecessary. As has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Cooper, in the past he has been able, as General Secretary of his organisation, in discussing the matter with employers' representatives is to reach an agreement with them and to shake hands over it. Now before they can do that their legal people will have to be brought in. Once the legal people from either side are brought in. Heaven help us all, as we know, in our hopes of an early settlement!
This matter will drag on under great difficulties. Let us assume that a strike has taken place. Ultimately there is an agreement between both sides, in accordance with normal industrial practice. Then the legal people will have to come in. They will have to work very quickly unless the dispute is to drag on for a few more days after the actual settlement. This is something that is not required by either side of industry. It is too optimistic to express the hope that the Government will have another look at it.
The noble Lord. Lord Wilberforce, has rightly referred, when discussing this clause, to many other clauses which are implicated. The drafting of this Bill is one of our difficulties. When dealing with any clause we find that it involves

121
a number of others. That makes a speech on one clause almost like a Second Reading speech. If this is the Bill which will ultimately become an Act, what will be the position so far as this new established law is concerned on industrial relations? To commence with, there is no case law. It will be necessary to investigate through tribunals in the various stages, through the industrial courts, and then, ultimately, the Industrial Relations Commission, and possibly up to the High Court of Justice. As we have indicated on a number of occasions, this Bill seems to be an absolute lawyers' Paradise. Having regard to anything that has taken place industrially, it is not justifiable. It indicates just how silly the Government are in seeking to put the Bill on the Statute Book.
LORD PLATT: I am no expert on the subject under discussion. I would not dare to intervene were it not that I wish to draw to the notice of the Committee the fact that we have had from the Cross Benches two of the most notable speeches which I have heard during the whole of this debate. All I will say is that if the Government allow this Amendment to go to a Division and draw in, summoned by bells, one hundred people who have not heard the speeches of Lord Tangley and Lord Wilberforce, my respect for Parliamentary procedures, and my affection for this House, which is very deep indeed, will have suffered.
8.48 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: Without wasting the time of the Committee, may I add something to what has been said from the Cross Benches? I should like to say, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath, and to what Lord Wilberforce said, that it is most important that whatever procedure we arrive at under these clauses should be extremely flexible. There ought to be a good deal in the code of industrial practice to give guidance to people on how they are to handle these affairs. One of the main causes of bad industrial relations is that there has been delay in reaching settlements. I understand it is the intention of the Government that the arrangements set up under this Bill (when it becomes an Act) shall act in a rather quick and almost summary way. If they do not do that, they will per-
122
haps aggravate industrial relations rather than otherwise. On the other hand, as I understand it, we must not judge what is being arranged under the Bill in the light of the provisions and procedure of our present system of law.
I do rot want to be rude to tile lawyers. Far be it from me to be that! But I must say that I think that our law is expensive and extremely slow. If that were the case with the administration of this legislation I think it would be self-defeating. I believe that a little inquiry across the world would show that that is not the way in which labour courts work generally. My experience in a number of countries has been that they work pretty quickly. There is a judge, usually with assessors from both sides of industry. They decide quickly as a rule, and: hat is the whole object of the affair. If that is what would happen under this Bill I do not think that we have to fear half the things that have been mentioned this evening.
Secondly, I would like to ask: when you make a collective agreement, do you mean it to be kept? If not v. hat is the good of making an agreement? It reminds me of what that great scientist Galileo said about mediaeval theology: " It is like trying to milk a billy goat into a sieve ". Of course the billy goat has no milk but even if it had, the milk " of collective bargaining would not stick in the sieve, because it has no meaning. I think that I agree with what Mrs. Castle said. The important thing nowadays is to reinforce and strengthen the processes of collective bargaining, and I believe that you cannot do that unless you make it enforceable. Under this Bill, with the aid of a code of industrial practice, it should be possible to arrive at decisions fairly quickly, and to make them very clear.
Finally. I agree entirely with what was said by the Donovan Commission about collective agreements: that they are so vaguely drafted at present that you could not conceivably have them settled in this way. One of the reasons they are vaguely drafted is that there is no question of making them enforceable. If trey were to he made enforceable, you would get back to a system whereby there would be a great number of standard clauses. I do not think that a great man} lawyers would be cracking their brains about how the clauses were drafted. It would be

123
like an insurance policy: we do not crack our brains about the small print every time; it is absolutely standard. Of course, we are careful to read it, but we do not crack our brains about it. Incidentally, we almost never go to law about it, Heaven forbid that we should! So I think that this Bill has the matter the right way round. An agreement should be presumed to be enforceable; and the code of industrial practice should make it clear that there should be a summary procedure and that it should be extremely flexible, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath.
8.54 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has already replied to that part of the debate which took place before the House was resumed for the purpose of dealing with the Welsh National Opera Bill. Therefore I shall deal only with that part which follows. I think that the most constructive contribution that I can make to the discussion is to remind the Committee of exactly where the point of difference arises, as I see it, between the Amendment and the policy of the Government. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who said in his opening speech that he recognised there were some cases where legally enforceable agreements might serve a useful purpose. We think so, too. That is a point of identity. As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn pointed out, we are seeking by this clause to translate into terms of English legal practice what is already the law in Sweden and Germany, where the time lost in industrial disputes is much less than here, as well as in the United States and in the greater part of the new Commonwealth. In that respect I can hardly be expected to take seriously either the proposition that what we are seeking to do is subversive of democratic liberty or technically impossible
I would have taken more seriously, but for reasons which I shall give, and which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has already given, the proposition that what we are likely to do is not likely to produce much effect. Because, of course, it is a perfectly legitimate point to argue, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, sought to do in his closing speech, that it is theoretically possible for every agreement to contain a disclaimer; and if
124
every agreement contained a disclaimer as the Council of the Trades Union Congress at present suggest, the clause would not have very much positive effect. I will come to that argument in due course. I think that the Committee must make up its mind. It can say that this clause is subversive of democratic liberty, or that it is unnecessary, but I doubt whether it can do both—except by a feat of mental gymnastics which I should not myself desire to perform.
Let us next see whether we can find another point of resemblance before we come to our point of difference. Clearly, we both agree that some agreements ought to be enforceable and that some ought not to be. The present law is that they are not enforceable unless they are effectively construed in that way by the courts, because it has been generally, though not necessarily universally thought by lawyers that agreements of this type are usually not enforceable, and therefore the courts will lean against enforceability. We, on the contrary, think —although we agree with the general proposition that some agreements ought to be enforceable and some ought not—that the presumption ought to be the other way. We think this not for fundamentally ideological reasons, because ideologically it can make no difference. In theory, what is open to the parties to agree one way or the other in both cases cannot be the subject of ideological differences. We think it primarily for practical reasons, because we want a greater number of agreements to become enforceable over the years; not because we expect to see a Copernican change in the outlook either of employer or employee with regard to the enforceability of collective agreements.
So we start with the proposition that most existing agreements are not enforceable. This is a prospective piece of legislation; it deals with future agreements. Secondly, we start with the proposition that oral agreements are not enforceable because it may be rather difficult to ascertain what the oral agreements were; and a great number of agreements, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion properly pointed out, are based on custom and tradition and can be interpreted only in the light of both custom and tradition going back a long way and not lending themselves very easily to enforceability. There again

125
there is a point of resemblance between the two Parties. The question is, which way are we to tilt the balance? Are we to tilt the balance in favour of enforceability or in favour of non-enforceability?
I must say that I found myself wholly unattracted, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying this, by the suggestion of Lord Lloyd of Hampstead that it should be left to the lawyers to argue it out one way or another. The merit of Lord Champion's Amendment is that it makes a presumption one way, and the merit of the existing words in the Bill is that it makes a conclusive presumption the other way. We do not want a paradise for lawyers, although I think lawyers are entitled to a paradise in some other and better world. We have made it clear, and Lord Champion has made it clear, that one of the two could be chosen, but I would not be attracted by any third possibility making it open to doubt.
I therefore apply myself to the problem, which way do we want the balance to tilt? The argument for tilting the balance in the way we have tilted it is that we want the parties to any negotiation in future—as I have said, this is purely a matter of a speculative nature—to ask themselves whether there are advantages in legal enforceability or not. We want them to ask themselves the question and they can answer it either way. We have not laid down in which way they should answer it, but we want them to ask it. We believe that, as time goes on, more and more, in one case after another, it will be found that it is to the advantage of the parties, first to reduce an agreement to writing in terms sufficiently clear to be capable of enforcement, and secondly, to allow the presumption to apply so that the agreement shall in fact be enforceable. This was really the point that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, was making. I respectfully accept it without shame, because it was put from a lifetime of experience in that field of endeavour.
Suppose you ask yourself and I respectfully put this question both to the Opposition Front Bench and to the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell—are there sufficient reasons for supposing that sooner or later unions will see the advantage of enforceable agreements? I start with the proposition that most collective agreements provide some advantage to the
126
employees. The reason for this is not far to seek if one thinks it out. The employer makes his agreement of employment with his employees. This is the principle of individual bargaining. The unions base themselves on collective bargaining. Very few agreements are in fact made either to prevent a strike or in settlement of a strike which do not provide some solid advantage to the employees.
The first proposition which I put at this stage of my argument, and which I am putting at flatly as I can, is that the union will ask itself the question, " Do we gain an advantage from enforceability?" And. after the passions have died down and the matter has been settled, will they say, " Yes we do, because this agreement provides advantages "? When they reflect, as they will do later on, that the only sanction on the other side of the balance is that they must use their best endeavours to see that the agreement is kept, they will say—I hope they will: " This is what we have done already." In a sense the unions are getting something for nothing. They are getting a legally enforceable bargain against the employers or the association of employers which they can take to the Industrial Court if they wish. The only liability they are under is that if they do not use their best endeavours to keep the bargain they may be in for trouble themselves. That is something which we do not think is an unfair burden to apply to them. The parties to the agreement are quite clear. They are laid down by a clause (I cannot at the moment remember which clause) and in the ordinary course they will be art organisation of workers and the employer, or the association of employers, with whom the agreement is made. It is not the man on the shop floor. The man on the shop floor does not incur liabilities for breach of agreement.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, went on to ask: what court and what powers? The clause referred to establishes that it is not the ordinary court of the High Court, but.he Industrial Court set up by the Bill. "I he answer to the second part of the question is, I think, to be found—at any rate in part—in Clause 97, which deals with the powers, because this is tied as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, inferred, to the provision that a breach of agreement is a failure to use best endeavours, and that would be an

127
unfair industrial practice. Of course the agreed remedy under Clause 97, which has proved appropriate, would depend to some extent on the terms of the agreement.
There is our philosophy in this clause. I can understand noble Lords saying that it can be sabotaged because it is purely voluntary. I can understand their saying that it is thoroughly unnecessary and futile as it can be sabotaged, because it is voluntary and the two sides can say, " We shall not operate it at all and we cannot be made to do so." That is perfectly true. But this depends on whether or not they are faced with the actualities of the case when they will ask themselves the question, " Is there an advantage in drafting the agreement sufficiently clearly that it should be enforced "—and for that purpose one requires not a lawyer but a clear-headed man, as the noble Lord, Lord Brown, suggested—"or do we want it unenforced for ever?" I think an increasing number of people will come to the conclusion that there is an advantage in having the agreement enforced.
9.7 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I have followed most carefuly the very helpful speech which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is making, but I am not clear—no doubt other noble Lords are—about the meaning of " enforceability". I am clear now as to who the parties are; they are the parties to the agreement, which I thought they were; namely, the union on the one hand and the employer on the other, and not the individual worker.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is right.
LORD DIAMOND: " Enforceability ". I understand the noble and learned Lord to say, is forcing the union to carry out its best endeavours to see that the worker complies with what is recommended to the worker, and enforceability against the employer, to carry out the terms of the agreement. Am I right in both respects, and in what are the remedies against each —the remedy against the employer for not carrying out the terms of his agreement, and the remedy against the union for not using its best endeavours to see that the individual employee carries out
128
the terms which the union has recommended to him?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble Lord has got it right, although fit is very difficult to follow these things. The question which arises is: what does enforceability mean? I agree that is a term which requires explanation; that is why I referred to Section 97, which shows what the powers of the court would be in such circumstances. The first is to award compensation for breach. If there has been a breach, it does not follow of course that there has been a breach at the time when somebody threatens to commit one. The second (or perhaps I should have said the first) question which may arise for the decision of the court is a declaration of right. That is the first remedy provided by Section 97, and this would partly answer the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, about the powers of the court. It has first of all a power to give a declaration of right as to the true meaning of the agreement and to its application to a particular set of circumstances.
Incidentally, I would say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, that a non-enforceable agreement does not come within the jurisdiction of the court, according to my understanding of the matter. If I am wrong here, he will no doubt study the matter and tell me so; then I shall either apologise or come back to the issue. But enforceability means, first of all, that there can be a declaration of right; secondly, that there can be an award of compensation, and thirdly, that there can be an order restraining certain types of illegal action if they can be specified, and if they are capable of enforcement intrinsically by an order of that type. all within the discretion of the court since the court is not bound to give any one of the three remedies. Up to a point this is a preview of Section 97. No doubt we shall want to come back to it when we discuss that clause. But it is perfectly fair to ask me the kind of territory we are on, and I think that is a fairly accurate generalisation about the kind of territory we are on.
I have already said most of what I could have said in answer to the various points which have been made. For better or for worse, I do not take the view that what we are embarking upon is a

129
great new revolution in English legal thinking. In most cases of contract, other than this particular field and in one other field; namely, family arrangements, the presumption is always in favour of enforceability. If I agree to sell my watch to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, the presumption is that a legally enforceable contract is made, unless I put into it a clause saying: " This is not intended to give rise to any legal consequences ". In the field of family arrangement, in the field of social relations, as when you invite a man to dinner and he agrees to come, and in the field of industrial relations, this presumption does not apply. What we are seeking to do is (to say that in the field of future agreements made in writing, which come within the definition of collective agreements, as that will be defined when my noble friend's Amendment is proposed, and provided it is in writing, this presumption shall be reversed in the case of collective agreements in writing. It is not a very big change, and it accords I think with the best practice of this civilised world. I am bound to say, with my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, that I cannot arouse quite the excitement about it which seems to have animated some people, perhaps outside this House more than in it. but it is a fundamental part of our policy on the Bill, and, as I said before in the course of these discussions, it has never been part of my philosophy to try to avoid a Division where there is a genuine difference of opinion. What I am trying to do is to avoid a misunderstanding as to where each of us respectively stands in a matter on which we may not be agreed.
LORD BYERS: My noble friends and I were very keen in fact to be persuaded by the Government on the lines they were taking, but we have had very important interventions from the Cross Benches by the two noble and learned Lords, one of whom is a great solicitor and the other a Law Lord, and I am now in great difficulty, because both of them said, I think, that the system would be ineffective and never likely to he enforced. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said that most collective agreements will in fact be unenforceable; then he went on to develop the argument that certain parts of collective agreements
130
were in any case totally unenforceable in the courts. Willing as we are to try to get the structure of the Bill right, may I ask whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is saying; categorically that the two noble and learned Lords on the Cross Benches Mere wrong in the views they expressed?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should never be quite so rude as that, if I may say so, but I was suggesting that perhaps neither of them had paid sufficient attention to Clause 97 and to the definition clause of " party ", and it is possible—if the noble Lord is impressed by what they were saying about parties—that subsection (2) of this clause goes some way to meet the case. I would quite agree with both noble Lords if they say that this clause could be ineffective. It can be ineffective. We have deliberately adopted this as part of a long-term policy, because we wished each party to future negotiations—recognising that existing agreements are not touched by the clause —specifically to answer the question, in the course of those negotiations, whether they want that agreement to give rise to legal enforceability. We think that the advantages of that to both sides will become apparent as time goes on. If they do not, of course, the clauses will be ineffective, but we think it is worth trying because we do not agree with the noble Lord opposite who said that things are all right as they are. We do not think that they are, and we agree to that extent with the noble Lord, Lord Brown.
9.16 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: In spite of the very kind and courteous efforts which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made, I am afraid that he has not succeeded in lightening my darkness —which is a proper prayer to make at about this time of night. It may be that in the interests of brevity I did not make myself quite clear. It is quite clear, if I may respectfully say so, that under Clause 34 the word " Party " is used, and " party " is defined in Cause 32. Therefore, if one is before the Industrial Court on the question whether there has been an unfair practice, the " party " is clearly the trade union. I accept that. But the Lord Chancellor did not deal with the other point I made that prima facie to say that an agreement is legally

131
enforceable—which is quite a solemn term—means that it is legally enforceable. That is to say that someone can sue somebody either for specific performance of the agreement or for damages of the breach of it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: A contract.
LORD TANGLEY: As a contract. Clause 125 obviously assumes that a collective agreement will create a contract in respect of which damages can be sued for. That is presumably why the Industrial Court is given by Clause 125 exclusive jurisdiction over that type of case by definition. That assumes that Clause 34 is not the only clause to consider. We have to consider the actual interpretation which the courts will probably give to the solemn words " legally enforceable ". I suggest that they at least mean that the union could be sued for breach of this obligation, and the union would not have open to them the defence which would be open to them under Clause 34—namely, that they had done their best to see the agreement was not broken.
Nor am I at all satisfied that there would be no right of action against the individual workman, because when he takes his employment, knowing the situation, and all parties knowing the situation to be that there is an agreement that has been solemnly declared legally enforceable, I should have thought that the courts would probably hold—and if there is any ambiguity we should get rid of it—that that agreement is part of his contract of employment, and that he could be sued for breach of that accordingly. I am quite sure it should be cleared up when tackling the question of damages.
I am not arguing the merits of this clause at the moment at all. I have heard for over 50 years judges criticising Parliament for obscurity of language, and telling us it is no good telling them what the Attorney General said in the House of Commons or what the Lord Chancellor said in the House of Lords. What the soldier said is not evidence. I am not going to be a party to ambiguity on a matter of such tremendous importance. I am certain that these are real
132
points and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, believes that they are real points. Cannot this be thoroughly discussed before the Report stage? Whatever the decision on the merits of this clause, let us get them into a condition that will not bring Parliament into contempt.
9.20 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course if the noble Lord wishes to make representations to me or to continue this discussion between now and Report, I am only too happy to meet either with him or the noble and learned Lords who have also occupied the Cross-Benches in such distinguished fashion. I cannot agree at the moment that there is any ambiguity at all. I quite agree that, even as matters stand at the moment, if the terms of a collective agreement, as they stand unenforceable, are thereafter embodied by implication into the terms of an individual contract of employment between the workman and his employer, they are in theory enforceable though in practice they are not in fact enforced. That is not the result of the provisions, or any of them, of the Bill; this is part of the law of the land as it stands.
As regards the enforcement of this Bill, I would have thought that a combination of Clause 34 and Clause 97 would have reassured the noble Lord about the first of the points he is making. Clause 34 provides that a trade union, if guilty itself of a breach, is of course responsible; but what he was postulating, I had thought, in his previous example was a case where the union was not itself guilty of a direct breach of the agreement but had failed to use its best endeavours. It is for that reason only that I stressed that part of Clause 34. As regards the meaning of enforceability, I should have thought it was apparent from Clause 97, which I venture to suggest he had not fully considered.
LORD TANGLEY: I apologise to the Committee for intervening again, and I ask their permission. May I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor what meaning he attaches to Clause 125(b), in which the expression is used:
" to enforce the collective agreement or claim damages for a breach of it."
because I can see nothing in the Bill, except in the opening subsections of the

133
clause we are now discussing, which could conceivably give rise to a claim for damages at all.
LORD WILBERFORCE: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred a good deal to Clause 97. Am I right in thinking that that clause deals only with the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court over an unfair industrial practice? if my noble friend here is right, and a breach of a collective agreement is simply a breach of a contract which can be sueable under the ordinary law of contract and dealt with under Clause 125 by the Industrial Court, then, with respect, I do not see that Clause 97 covers that because it is only referring to the jurisdiction over an unfair industrial practice. There may be the two separate heads of claim.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble and learned Lord will bear with me, if he wants to pursue this matter, because it is highly technical, I am only too happy to do it, but I think we have exhausted this as far as we can in public discussion. He overlooks two facts; the first is that the Industrial Court has no jurisdiction other than that conferred in the Bill. The second is that Clause 125 is a clause excluding the existing courts and not conferring jurisdiction on the Industrial Court, which has its jurisdiction from another clause which I have tried to describe to the noble and learned Lord.
LORD SHINWELL: In view of the debate that is going on between the legal luminaries in the Committee, would it not be wise on the part of the Government to look into this matter and deal with it on the Report Stage?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry I did not hear that.
LORD SHINWELL: It is obvious there is a legal tangle here—at least, it is obvious to those of us who are not acquainted with these legal niceties, nuances, and imponderables. In the circumstances, since there appears to be some ambiguity, would it not be wise for the Government to say that they will look into this matter and come forward at the Report stage in order to clear up what appears to be a legal dispute?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I thought that was rather similar to what I have said. I am not persuaded that there is any ambiguity or tangy. If noble and learned Lords who thins: otherwise would care to approach me between now and the Report stage I would very wittingly go into the matter with them. I hope I am always accessible, but I am not going to say what I do not believe to be true; namely, that there is in fact any ambiguity when the Bill is adequately studied.
LORD WILBERFORCE: In view of what the noble and learned Lord said, I am afraid 1 cannot accept his explanation at all. What he has said about Clause 125 confirms that there is confusion. I think it is not a matter for the Report stage; it is a matter which those of us who think otherwise can take., up when the clause is reached. At the moment we are on a simple Amendment which has nothing to do with it.:Perhaps he will agree that we might drop the subject now; and my noble friend end myself, if we are not convinced of our errors when we get to that clause in several weeks' time, can take it up gain.
9.25 p.m
LORD CHAMPION: It has seemed to me for a long time that only two people were actually sticking to the Amendment; namely, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and myself. Everybody else has, to tremendous advantage to the Committee, strayed into the Question, whether the clause shall stand part and later stages of this Bill. I have no fault to find with that, because those who have spoken have been so highly critical of this clause and subsequent clauses bearing on this collective agreement. I am bound to say fiat I have listened to this debate with joy, because it has been made quite clear that this part of the Bill, at any rate, is in an awful mess, and about the on13 thing that the Government can do about it is to withdraw these three clauses and to discuss the possible replacement of them with the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, whose experience in his sort of thing, both as a notable solicitor and as a member of the Donovan Committee, is perhaps unsurpassed. This is something

135
to which I shall probably have to refer again when we get to the Question whether the clause shall stand part, because I shall have to remind the Committee of what has been said by these noble Lords and by others, and invite the Committee to accompany me into the Lobby against Clause 32.
The debate started, to some extent, with a speech by my noble friend Lord Brown. I cannot say that I am particularly grateful to him for his support. I am sorry he is not here. I respect my noble friend's experience in industry, as has been referred to both by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, but I am bound to say to him (and I hope he reads my remarks) that his experience seems to have been, if I have followed his many interventions, mainly in a very small industry which was almost of a paternal character, the sort of character where industrial relations can be very easy by comparison with some of the industries with which my noble friends had to deal. My noble friend talked of entering into agreements which became standing orders, and then went on, as I understood him, to suggest that such standing orders ought to be legally enforceable. Nonsense! If you are going to have standing orders of the type which he envisages, they ought to be interpreted within the industry, and the decisions taken within the industry, without ever having the possibility of going to court. I should have asked my noble friend Lord Brown, if he were here: would he, in the event of a quarrel about the standing orders that he is talking about, have taken the employees to court; and if he did take them to court, would he have improved industrial relations in the industry of which he is proud? Of course he would not. The whole thing is an absolute nonsense.
My experience was in a different sort of industry. It was in an industry which had 750,000 employees at the time, and, clearly, what can apply to a paternal type of industry cannot apply to the size of industry in which I was engaged. We in the industry in which I was engaged had procedure agreements. They were absolutely first-rate. They had been entered into as a result of lengthy experience; and when there was some difficulty about interpretation, if we could not solve the
136
problem at the lower levels within that negotiating machinery procedure, we went on to the next higher level, and so on, so that eventually, within the industry, within the agreements that were a part of what had been negotiated between us, we had no difficulty in finally getting an answer to the points, an interpretation of the things which were in dispute.
Against Lord Brown's experience I must set that of the noble Lords, Lord Cooper, Lord Shinwell, Lord Popplewell, Lord Slater and my own. In this instance, although I respect my noble friend, I think that the weight of our experience would overbalance his. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in his intervention said that agreements are not widely flouted. How right he is! Agreements that are entered into between the trade unions and the employers are not widely flouted. It is very seldom that an agreement is flouted by the people who have actually signed and entered into it. Usually, if there is a difficulty it is one which occurs rather on the shop floor than at the level at which agreements are signed. There is always the intention among those between whom agreements are signed that they will be kept. Occasionally difficulties occur; of course they do. They would occur in any walk of life. It is nonsense to try to fit the agreements that we are discussing into the sort of legal framework which appears to satisfy noble Lords opposite. How right was the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, to call attention to this, and how right the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, to call attention to the fact that it is not easy to fit this sort of agreement into the sort of framework which noble Lords are talking about!
The simple fact is that what Lord Drumalbyn and his colleagues want to place reliance on is very shifting sand. They want to try to ensure that these agreements can be made enforceable; they want to ensure that if a little difficulty arises anywhere the trade unions, and perhaps in some instances the employers, can be taken to court. I am absolutely positive that would be quite the wrong way to do it, whether there is an automatic presumption of legally enforceable agreements or whether they sign agreements affecting a legal contract. This is something to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred; and he

137
quoted foreign experience. So did the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I wonder if either can tell us whether in those countries to which they referred there is a system of contracting into a legally-enforceable contract or of contracting out. This seems to be the point we are now talking about in relation to this Amendment: whether it will be a deliberate contracting in or contracting out.
I have very grave doubts about the approach of the Government to this whole matter. I am not going into the clause as a whole, for we must discuss that eventually; but I am bound to say that the doubts expressed from the Cross-Benches convince me completely that this part of the Bill is a mess. It is something that will have to be cleared up. If not, industrial relations in this country will suffer as a result of the failure of the Government to heed what has been so forcefully expressed from the Cross-Benches. In addition, we have had widely devastating criticism from the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, who has very great experience in matters pertaining to the law.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor ended by saying that the unions, sooner or later, will come to the point where they will gladly accept legally enforceable contracts. All that I can say in connection with this Amendment is, if eventually they come to that point, even if my Amendment is carried, they will then contract in and not have to contract out. This is the whole point of this Amendment: that there should be voluntary arrangements entered into freely. That is why I am bound to say that nothing that has been said on the other side has convinced me. What has been said from the Cross-Be aches, certainly, has upheld every point that I have thought of in this connection; and for that reason I sincerely hope that noble Lords on the Cross-Benches, as well as my noble friends, will support me in the Division Lobby.
9.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 238A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 104.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

St. Davids, V.

Ardwick, L.

Gardiner, L.

Shackleton. L.

Bernstein. L.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick. L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Shinwell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy. L.

Slater, L.

Bowden, L.

Janner, L.

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Kennet,L.

Stonham, L.

Burntwood, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Platt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Plummer, Bs.

White, Bs.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Diamond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Burgh, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Allerton, L.

Burton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Amherst, E.

Byers, L.

Essex, E.

Amory, V.

Caldecote, V.

Exeter, M.

Auckland, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ferrers, E.

Balfour, E.

Clwyd. L.

Fortescue, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Conesford, L.

Gisborough, L.

Barnby, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Glendevon, L.

Barrington, V.

Cowley, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Beauchamp, E.

Craigavon, V.

Gowrie, E.

Belstead, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Gray, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Cranbrook, E.

Grenfell, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Hailes, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V.

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

Bridgeman, V.

De La Warr, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Denham, L.

Hankey, I..

Brooke of Ystradfellte Bs.

Derwent, L.

Hanworth, V.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L [Teller.]

Selkirk, E.

Heisby, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Hood, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Somers, L.

Inglewood, L.

Oakshott, L.

Stamp, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Poole, L.

Strange, L.

Kemsley, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Swaythling, L.

Killearn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Teviot, L.

Kilmany, L.

Redmayne, L.

Teynham, L.

Lothian, M.

Reigate, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Thurso, V.

Luke, L.

Rothermere, V.

Tweedsmuir, V.

Lyell, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Margadale, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Verulam, E.

Merthyr, L.

St. Just, L.

Vivian, L.

Milverton. L.

St. Oswald, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Molson, L.

Sandford, L.

Westminster, D.

Monck, V.

Savile, L.

Wigram, L.

Windlesham, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.43 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 238B:
Page 25, line 5, after (" writing") insert (" in a formally executed deed signed by the parties therto within the lawful scope of their authority ").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, as will be obvious to your Lordships, is to some extent an alternative to Amendment No. 338A which has just been defeated in the Lobby by the big battalions. The Amendment needs little explanation. Its purpose must be clear to everyone. If we are to have the nonsense of the greatest possible legally enforecable agreements, then for Heaven's sake! let us have them as nearly as possible in language which the courts may be able to understand and interpret. I say that, despite the fact that it was made obvious to us in the last discussion that this is going to be an extremely difficult matter, even for lawyers of the standard of those to whom we have listened this evening. The difficulty here must be obvious to all who have ever had to consider the efforts of highly skilled Parliamentary draftsmen. With the skills that are born of great knowledge and experience, with a body of information filed and tabulated as to how the courts dealt with this phrase or that, that word or the other, they still make drafting errors that have to be cleared up in the courts, and case law is established. These are the people whose job it is, whose life is spent in doing precisely that. If that is the case with Parliamentary draftsmen, how much
140
greater is going to be the possibility of error if the amateur draftsman is let loose on agreements which will have to try to embody in language understandable to the courts practices and customs which have grown over many years of voluntary negotiation in a given industry!
It will, I suggest, be hopeless for the amateur, lacking legal knowledge, to attempt to draft an agreement that would at least have some possibility of being construed even in the Industrial Court and not an ordinary court of law. There would be a better chance of getting it right if, as we are here suggesting, agreements which are intended to be legally enforceable are properly drawn up by lawyers competent in the act of preparing suitable instruments for execution by the parties. I should not like to bet that they would get such agreements right in every case, but at least they would have a better chance of doing so than the employer's labour relations officer or the trade union official or the shop steward. Added to that, I tend to think that agreements which are to be legally enforceable contracts ought to have about them a degree of solemnity which the signing of such a deed or document would impart, to ram home the fact that they are engaged in something more than negotiation which by custom and past practice has been satisfactorily honoured in the past.
This is a simple Amendment. It seeks to ensure that, so far as possible, we shall have the sort of deed, or document, that would be preferable to the sort of agreement that has been discussed here this evening—namely, words that have been

141
entered into as a result of past experience, past experience of collective agreements and so on. I think that to accept this Amendment would perhaps go some little way, though not very far, to cancelling out the result of the last Division. I beg to move.
9.48 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: This Amendment calls for a formally executed deed. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, I felt that perhaps he rather wanted an illuminated address. We on this side of the House do not visualise requiring such a degree of formality before the presumption of enforceability should apply. Although the noble Lord was, as usual, persuasive, I must say that I found the Amenment surprising, in view of the Opposition's emphasis throughout on the importance of not having an over-legalistic approach. I suggest to the Committee that the Opposition are overlooking the factor that parties to agreements will know that no oral agreements are legally enforceable; and that other written agreements are enforceable unless there is a disclaimer. So to that extent they will know where they stand. Naturally, both sides of industry will treat these provisions with the care which I think will make the terms of this Amendment unnecessary.
I would remind your Lordships, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor did, of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, who said that in his experience what was needed here was the clear head of a sound man. The noble Lord said that in his 25 years experience he had not found that shop stewards were in the least incapable of drawing up clear agreements.
On a later Amendment, No. 238RR, the Committee will be debating the position of joint negotiating bodies in this matter and we shall be putting forward the case that there are no special technical problems involved on their account. It is precisely because it is envisaged that bodies might wish to opt out of a presumption of enforceability, either on certain occasions or because an agreement is being concluded at a particular level or in circumstances in which legal enforceability might not be desirable, that the following subsection to this one (2) provides for opting out. For all these
142
reasons, I feel, to say the least that it is painting the lily to put this Amendment forward. I therefore ask the Committee, after it has been considered, not to accept it.
LORD CHAMPION: I recognise that this Amendment is not one about which I would go to the stake, and I should never ask anyone to present me with an illuminated address about it, as the noble Lord suggested. The illuminated address which I have at home on my wall refers to my long service to the trade union to which I had the honour to belong. I leave it at that. I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that if one cannot get the best, one tries to get the next best; and we thought that as we could not get the best—the Amendment which we moved and on which we voted—perhaps we might get the next best, the Amendment now before the Committee. As I said, I would not go to the stake about this—indeed, not even into the Division Lobby. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
9.53 p.m.
LORD BURNTWOOD LORD BURNTWOOD moved Amendment No. 238CC:
"No. 238CC Page 25, line 7, at end insert ('or construed')."
The noble Lord said: Having listened to many hours of debate on this Bill without intervening, I am optimistic in thinking that possibly this Amendment may commend itself to the Government. The discussion on the last Amendment but one included observations from many noble Lords on the fact that there was a level, which I might describe as being fairly near the shop floor, at which agreements could be entered into which would be enforceable if the Government had their way. What I would suggest to the Government is that it might be desirable to have a judicial long-stop, so that a second thought might be taken on what was intended by such agreements. I do not want to go into the long arguments already deployed about whether legal rigidity is desirable or otherwise; but there are many cases in which there are documents entered into, say, in a factory where there is great pressure of work, or where people with the best intentions in the world have come to an agreement as

143
between management and workers' representatives, which, had more time been spent on discussing the documents, might have been more clearly written.
I am well aware that the normal operation of the courts allows for the construction of written documents to be preeminent. At the same time I am advised that it is also provided that, outside the construction of the written document, there shall be some consideration of the circumstances surrounding how the agreement was made and recorded. I should have thought that if we said that legal rigidity in these circumstances is necessary for enforceability, there is a strong case for saying that what I have described, in my layman's langage, as a judicial long-stop might be useful, as it might preserve the position so that a works could keep going and not be interrupted by a dispute or strike. There are many examples in history of documents drafted in a hurry, the meaning of which, as it was first assumed, turned out to be completely wrong. The classic case is the dispatch dictated and signed by Lord Raglan at Balaclava, which got into the hands of Lord Cardigan, was completely misconstrued and led to the events about which we all know. I cite that case to demonstrate that second thoughts on the reading of a document may be very useful, indeed. It is merely the application of a little bit of common sense. I beg to move.
9.55 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I must confess I found a little difficulty in understanding what this Amendment meant when I read it, but now I think I see a little more clearly what the noble Lord means, though I do not think his Amendment would achieve the objective. This clause as drafted reads—
" Every collective agreement which…does not contain a provision which (however expressed) states that the agreement or part of it is intended not to be legally enforceable,"
The noble Lord wants the clause to read
"Every collective agreement which…does not contain a provision which (however expressed or construed) states that the agreement or part of it is intended not to be legally enforceable,"
144
The purpose of the words " however expressed " is simply to make clear that there is no definite formula by which enforceability is to be excluded. It can be excluded in any words that those concerned choose to use. The noble Lord wants to add to that phrase " and construed ". The difficulty I find about that is that the provision is expressed by the parties who are signatories to the document. It would therefore seem to follow that if one added another phrase after that it would also be " by the parties; but that would not be very sensible, and it is clearly not what the noble Lord means. It would mean, in effect, that however the agreement was expressed, if what was expressed by the parties did not represent what the parties really meant, or what one of them really meant, they should construe it in some other way. I am sure that would not be a viable proposition.
I understand that in the noble Lord's view there should be a kind of judicial longstop, so that if the document did not turn out as was intended then it could be looked at again. But who is going to look at it again? If it is challenged as being, after all, an enforceable document, and not a document which on the face of it appears not to be intended to be legally enforceable, then obviously the Industrial Court would have to interpret it in such a case. That could presumably be done in any case. If there is doubt about the way the exclusion of enforceability is expressed in the document, then it can, I understand, be challenged in the Industrial Court, and a second look can be taken at it in that way.
The noble Lord, however, seemed to be talking about the meaning of particular provisions and not the one provision which states that the agreement, or part of it, is intended not to be legally enforceable. I find it difficult to see any parallel between an order passed in the Crimea and a contract which is expressed in a certain way and which is intended to mean that enforceability is excluded. Nor do I see any point in adding the words " or construed ", especially since the body that is going to construe must be in any case the Industrial Court. I confess that I do not really understand this, but in so

145
far as I do understand it I do not think it is necessary.
LORD BURNTWOOD: The simile I tried to draw about the Charge of the Light Brigade was that if Lord Cardigan had had time seriously to consider what was meant, or had a court-martial been held in respect of Lord Cardigan—which he richly deserved—to examine that document issued by Lord Raglan, a very different construction might have been placed on it. I know that it is a good thing to give the judges an opportunity, which they use frequently of their own accord, to use a little common sense as to what really was intended and not to take what is written in the document.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Is not the answer to the noble Lord this: that if the document is expressed as intended in some way or another not to be enforceable at law, it will not go before the Court. But if there were a challenge as to the intention it could surely come only from someone who wanted to see that it was enforceable at law; and then he would take it to the Court to be decided. But there is really nothing else to be decided, as far as I can see. It seems to be a fairly straight issue and I would have said this would happen anyway.
LORD SLATER: I have listened to my noble friend moving his Amendment, and it takes me back to my union days when we used to get into branch meetings, and different members used to put their own interpretations upon items that were introduced during the course of discussion. Different people had different opinions. I remember an old miner who always used to say, "It is a matter of opinion." And it is a matter of opinion here. My noble friend differs from Lord Drumalbyn in what he was saying just now, where it says " expressed "—that is where he would like to see " or construed ". There are two parties here: one is leading for the Government and the other for the Opposition. Why should it go to the Industrial Court? Surely we are sensible enough people here, and if it is a matter of expressing one's particular point of view of the construction to be put upon a matter between two
146
parties, that is what we are after: that is the way it is being construed.
If the noble Lord were sitting alongside here, he would be expressing his opinion and I should be expressing mine, and it is to be a matter of opinion as to how it would be construed. But why we should have to take it to the industrial court has me absolutely beat. I cannot see any reason for it at all. I am considering the background of the noble Lord as against my own: I was only an elementary schoolboy, whereas other noble Lords have been to Oxford, Cambridge or one of the other massive universities. I am at a loss to understand how people who are supposed to be so advanced in intelligence could find forms of expression against the case that has been put by my noble friend in trying to get them to agree to this quite simple and reasonable Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is in some difficulty because, as he said in his first reply to my noble friend, the way in which the Amendment was described to him was rather different from his first impressions when he saw it on the Marshalled List. Would the noble Lord take this away to consider it, because I am sure my noble friend would not press it if the noble Lord could undertake to look at it. I say that because I think I know the origins of this Amendment which were (shall I say?) in our legal fraternity on this side of.he Committee. I think it arose from a doubt, and I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree to take it away and consider the matter, and perhaps he would like later on to have a talk with ray noble friend.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Of course I am willing to do that, and perhaps we may be able to discover whether there is a real point to be met. I am afraid that at the moment I am still not convinced that there is.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): In calling the next Amendment may I draw

147
the attention of the Committee to the fact that if Amendment No. 238C is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 238DD.
148
Perhaps I may also draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that if Amendment No. 238MM is agreed to I shall not be able to call Nos. 238D to 238JJ inclusive.
10.8 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 238MM:
Page 25, line 19, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to leave out subsections (3) and (4) and these will then be included at the end of the Bill in the general definitions. 'The origin of this Amendment is that the Government undertook in another place, after criticism from several quarters, to reconsider where the definition of " collective agreement ", at present in Clause 32, should be. As these Amendments show, the definition is to be placed elsewhere in the Bill.
The substantive provisions of Clause 32 concern the presumptions of legal enforceability in respect of collective agreements. They relate those presumptions to agreements made in writing after the commencement of the Act. The definition of " collective agreement " on the other hand applies to the use of the terms not only in Clause 32 but also in many other parts of the Bill. For example, it occurs in the provisions dealing with the exemption of dismissals procedure agreements, the effect of strike notices, restrictions on contracting out, the definition of " procedure agreement " and in connection with the closed shop agreement. Over so wide a field it has required careful drafting to cover such differing applications comprehensively. That is, after all, realistic. The phrase, as used in common parlance, covers a very wide range.
A major criticism which the Government have been anxious to meet was that the inclusion of the definition within Clause 32 has confused people. We have seen in the Committee this afternoon how it confused people, particularly those with little practice in interpreting legal documents. It became obvious that some were even afraid that there was something sinister about it. They could not understand the relationship of subsections (3) and (4) to the earlier parts of the clause. There is no sinister intention on the part of the Government. Our contention has been, and remains, that Clause 32(1) and (2) applies only to future written agreements.
However, we have taken note of the confusion and suspicions that were voiced. We do not accept that they were justified but we are anxious to clear up any mismderstandings. We do not want a continuance of what has been reported as widespread and serious misunderstanding. For these reasons, therefore, we are prepared to remove the definition of " collective agreement " from Clause 32 by leaving out subsections (3) and (4). At a later stage we shall propose that the definition be placed in a clause following Clause 157. When we come to it there are further considerations which, if I am still here, I shall bring to the notice of the Committee. But as they do not arise on this clause I should not be in order if I referred to them now. I hope that the Committee will accept this explanation and agree to the removal of the two subsections.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be here later. He is working very hard and deserves commendation from his own side. When I went through the logic and semantic; of this part of the Bill, about collective agreement " and on the definition, the noble Lord sometimes shook his head, but I am delighted now to know that Davies of Leek was correct in his analysis. If I look at page 115 of the Bill, find that:
" collective agreement' has the meaning assigned to it by section 32(3) of this Act".
We are withdrawing subsection (3), so noble Lords will see how muddled we can get. I am told, " Do not worry about that. We are going to stick in a definition of `collective agreement' somewhere else ".
That is all I wanted to point out. We are told that the definition will be found somewhere else and, when I look for the definition. I find it has been Liken out. The noble Lord says, " Later on we will tell you exactly what collective agreement ' means." I hope that he noble Lord will not say that I should have done more homework. We are working so hard these days with our battalions here that we have little time to go into the difficult and abstruse workings of the minds of the noble Lords opposite. I do not want to advise noble Lords opposite, but, please, will they tell us what " collective agreement " means in a manner that even a Welshman may understand?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I cannot guarantee that that particular Welshman will understand it, but if he chooses to look in the Marshalled List he will see the definition of collective agreements.
LORD BERNSTEIN: We have spent the major part of six hours dealing with Clause 32. Is it reasonable for your Lordships to remain here until two o'clock in the morning when those hours could have been given to discussion of the new clauses that are coming later instead of the ones which have now been scrapped?
LORD CHAMPION: I cannot complain over much about the deletion of these two subsections. Having prepared material for eleven Amendments on these subsections, however. I find that the time spent has been wholly wasted.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Save them up.
LORD CHAMPION: I am coming to that point. I can tell the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I shall look through the Amendments, which I have prepared very carefully, to see if they fit in with the new clause which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is to propose. I think there is something to he said for having definitions relating to an important part of a Bill situated before the clauses to which those definitions apply. It might have been an advantage to have included the definitions which come later in this part of the Bill so that we should know exactly to what subsequent Amendments and clauses refer.
We had a very long discussion about whether the definitions which are now being moved out of the Bill were sound. Clearly that was understandable in the circumstances. Perhaps it is as well to have definitions coming before clauses to which they relate. This applies to Clause 42. When we get to the definition of " sole bargaining agent " we shall be considering the definitions which in discussing those parts of the Bill will be extremely useful because they relate to clauses which follow. I can understand that perhaps in the circumstances it may have been found best to have an addition to the definitions which would apply only to those clauses we are discussing. In that case perhaps it is better to have
152
them placed later in the Bill. Clearly that is what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is thinking. Having regard to that, I certainly shall put no opposition in the way of the Committee adopting the Amendment.
10.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 32, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD CHAMPION: I make no apology for discussing this clause as a whole again, although inevitably some of the arguments I would have used in this connection have already been used by other noble Lords in connection with the first Amendment we discussed on the clause, notably by the noble Lords, Lord Tangley, Lord Wilberforce and Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, all of them eminent lawyers who brought their legal minds to bear on the clause as a whole rather than on the Amendment we were then discussing.
I certainly do not apologise for initiating or attempting to initiate a wide discussion on this clause, despite the fact that that Amendment caused considerable discussion in another place. I have heard it suggested that because a clause or an Amendment was discussed in another place we ought not to discuss it in detail here. I do not accept that for one moment. This House is part of the Legislature, and as such it has a duty to consider in detail Bills that have come from the other place. I should hesitate, however, to accept what Bagehot said in this passage of the House of Lords:
"The office of an order of nobility is to impose on the common people, not necessarily to impose on them what is untrue, yet less what is hurtful, but still to impose on their quiescent imaginations what would not otherwise be theirs."
I do not accept that, but I do accept what he says a little later:
"If we had an ideal House of Commons, perfectly representing the nation, always moderate, never passionate, abounding in men of leisure, never omitting the slow and steady forms necessary for good consideration, it is certain that we should not need a higher Chamber."
No one could pretend that this Bill went through the other Chamber with the progress which could be said by the most biased imagination to have been slow and

153
steady, or that the Bill had good consideration. It most certainly did not. That is why it must receive that consideration here.
Clause 32 is one of the most important clauses in the Bill, establishing, as it does, the enforceability of collective agreements and changing entirely the system which has developed and has served the country reasonably well—that of voluntary agreements, freely entered into in the main, not within a wholly unnecessary legal framework. It has been said with some truth that a collective agreement is at once a business compact, a code of relations, and a treaty of peace, and in Britain certainly it is frequently part of constant and dynamic negotiations. This matter of the enforceability of collective agreements was commented on at some length in the Donovan Report, and of it Mr. Andrew Shonfield in his Note of Reservation said:
"The proposal in essence is that the bias of English law, as it has been hitherto, should be changed. Instead of making it complicated and difficult for unions to enter into contractual obligations which are enforceable at law, so that it has become an eccentric thing for a union to do, unions and employers should be encouraged to treat it as the normal thing to do."
As against that I would set the full weight of the majority of the Commissioners, who say, at paragraph 502:
"At the present time, legislation making procedural agreements legally enforceable would not in fact be enforced, and like all legislation that is not enforced would bring the law into disrepute."
Surely the question we have to ask in this connection is, what employer seeking peace in his undertaking is going to jeopardise the whole future of that undertaking by bringing an action for unfair industrial practice to the Industrial Court? Even if he did so, it would probably be just as ineffective as was the action in war time when there was perhaps every justification for it against the Kent miners, the case upon which Sir Harold Emmerson gave evidence to the Commission.
It may be said in reply to our arguments on this clause that almost all human activities are ultimately regulated by law. That may be true, but it is a common feature of human experience that to enforce the law in some cases is
154
outside the realm of practical politics—and I need not remind noble Lords here that politics is the art of the possible. I believe that it will be impossible to enforce the law in this respect if this clause goes through, and if it becomes part of an Act of Parliament. It will not be enforced; the employers will not enforce it, the Secretary of Slate of the day will not try to enforce at; it will fall into disrepute simply because of the fact that it will never be enforced.
Much more could be said about this clause, but I will content myself with a final quotation from the personal addendum, in the Donovan Report, of the noble Lord, Lord Donovan. He quoted from a letter from a Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, who had been asked why no action had been taken against the dockers who were involved in breaches of contract. This letter said:
"It had been decided that it would merely have served to exacerbate the relations between the two parties and act as an irritant."
In our industrial relations in this country we want very much less exacerbation, less irritation, more tolerance and good sense in this Bill, and this clause is not the way to get it.
10.25 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: This is truly one of the most important parts of the Bill, and probably one of the most important little debates that we hall have. It is not my intention to fillibuster, but I sincerely want your Lordships to understand that, according to my reading of this clause, even for a registered union which is in some kind of privileged position, this clause and what we have discussed previously alters completely the legal responsibilities of its officials and its members. I gather from this clause that if an agreement is made, even nonmembers of the union in a shop could be considered liable. A union which signed a legally binding agreement would be under legal obligation to use its best endeavours to avoid or stop any strike by workers that was in breach of the agreement.
I cannot see how this can be interpreted within a code of law. I would not pit my knowledge against that of noble Lords in this Committee, not having been trained in the law; but I try to understand the common sense and the

155
meaning of the words here, and I should like to know how anybody can interpret " to the best of one's endeavours". In athletics, for example, I know that the best of one man's endeavours will not come anywhere near a world record or compare with the best endeavours of somebody else. The phrase " best endeavours" is an immeasurable thing that no judge can cast before an individual or a trade union. Because one thinks the best of one's endeavours have not been used, we are then landed with another illogical piece of phraseology; would he or would he not therefore be liable to be charged with an unfair practice? If he is charged with an unfair practice, the union could come in for a swingeing scale of fines. I am not making this up; this is the reality of this clause, when you try to turn it into punishment by the use of courts. A union, whether registered or not, or a group of its members, could be sued for damages.
An employer who had been unable to prevail upon a union to accept his ideas about a new procedure agreement for dealing with grievances could ask for a reference to the C.I.R., and then seek action from the N.I.R.C. to make the recommendation of the C.I.R. legally binding on his workpeople. What this amounts to is, that whichever way you turn you some smack up against the law, even if you are a registered union. As my noble friend has said, this is not the way to get the best industrial practice; it is not the way to get compromise.
I said the other day that I sincerely believe, without being emotional about it, that we in this country have fallen for a lot of propaganda and trivialisation of industrial disputes on television, and suffered trivial chatter by a lot of people. Sometimes on brains trusts you hear the silliest things uttered, getting rounds and rounds of applause, about lazy people at work, and we are undermining one of the finest and most responsible trade union systems in the world. Granted that we do not want the agitators who, for malevolent purposes, are upsetting production, but, for Heaven's sake, a sausage machine like this—full of different sized sausages, some of them bad ones indeed, and God knows what is the meat inside, dead cats I should think—to deal
156
with the mighty trade union movement, as one of the noble and learned Lords said, is unworkable.
One other brief point; a union which signs this legally binding agreement would have the legal responsibility for the actions of any person who might be in breach of the agreement, whether a member of the union or not. Any union that had signed this would have responsibility for anybody working in that shop, whether that person had signed the agreement or not. I will not be dogmatic about that, but I think I am right. I am fairly dogmatic about some of the other points in this mixture of morality, ethics and law, to try and settle disputes by jurisprudence, or by legal and binding decisions from the Bench. Some other simpler process is needed. Through 130 years of custom, practice and understanding between master and men (to use the old phrase), the managerial side and the production side are more and more, in this modern world, leading to co-operation, despite all the vicious things that have been said about our trade union movement.
This House seems to be euphoric because it thinks it is on the verge of going into the Common Market, but when we have mobility throughout the whole of Europe, when we have the men of all nationalities moving from one country to the other, simplicity in trade union law will be necessary Simplicity in dealing with men and employers will be the essence of good industrial practice. Clause 32. right from the start, in my opinion—and I base it on a little knowledge—will undermine that. I support my noble friend that Clause 32 should be withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not want to prolong this debate because I said everything I wished to say in response to an earlier Amendment on this clause. It is worth recalling that the only point we are discussing in this clause —the noble Lord, Lord Champion agrees that some agreements ought to be enforceable, and so do we—is whether the presumption in the case of written agreements should be in favour of enforcement or not. I have given my reasons for thinking that we are right. Any question as to the degree of responsibility which may follow from enforceability can be

157
discussed at several subsequent places in the Bill. The only thing we are concerned with now is which way the presumption should work, and that point has been exhaustively discussed on both sides of the Committee.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 32, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Clause 33 [Presumptions relating to proceedings of voluntary joint negotiating bodies]:
10.42 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 238NN:
Leave out Clause 33 and insert the following new clause—
"Presumptions relating to proceedings of voluntary joint negotiating bodies.
33.—(l) This section applies to any joint body consisting of representatives of one or
10.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 32, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dudley, E.

Merthyr, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Allerton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mowbray and Stour on, L.

Amherst, E.

Essex, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amory, V.

Exeter, M.

Poole, L.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fortescue, E.

Redesdale, L.

Barrington, V.

Gisborough, L.

Redmayne, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Glendevon, L.

Reigate, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rothermere, V.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gray, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailes, L.

St. Just, L.

Bridgeman, V.

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

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Savile, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hankey, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Burton, L.

Helsby. L.

Somers, L.

Caldecote, V.

Hood, V.

Stamp, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Inglewood, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Coleraine, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Thurso, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Kemsley, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Craigmyle, L.

Kilmany, L.

Vivian, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lothian, M.

Westminster, D.

Davidson, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wigram, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Luke, L.

Windlesham, L.

Digby, L.

Lyell, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Margadale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Shepherd, L.

Ardwick, L.

Diamond, L.

Snow, L.

Bernstein, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Stow Hill, L.

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi. L.

Bowden, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Strange, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Brown, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

White, Bs.

Champion, L.

Platt, L.

Wynne-Jones, L

Collison, L.

St. Davids, V.

Davies of Leek, L.

Shackleton, L.

more organisations of workers and of representatives either of one or more employers or of one or more organisations of employers or of a combination of one or more employers and one or more organisation of employers, with or without other persons, and established by or under a collective agreement (whether made before or after the commencement of this Act) for either or both of the following purposes, that is to say—

(a) regulating the terms and conditions of employment of workers of one or more descriptions;

(b) determining, in relation to workers of one or more descriptions, any matters for which a procedure agreement can provide.

(2) The following presumptions shall apply to any proceedings of a joint body to which

159
this section applies, where those proceedings take place after the commencement of this Act.
(3) For the purposes of any such proceedings it shall be conclusively presumed that the parties (whether organisations of workers. employers or organisations of employers) for the time being represented on that joint body tin this section referred to as " the constituent parties ") intend to authorise it, in relation to matters falling within the scope of its functions. to make decisions having effect as legally enforceable contracts made on behalf of the constituent parties.
(4) Any decision made by any such body in any such proceedings, in relation to matters falling within the scope of its functions, if the decision—

(a) is duly recorded in writing by or on behalf of that body, and

(b) as so recorded, does not contain a provision which (however expressed) states that the decision is intended not to be legally enforceable,

shall he conclusively presumed to be intended by that body to have effect as a legally enforceable contract made an behalf of the constituent parties.
(5) In this section decision ' includes any award or resolution, by whatever name called. and functions', in relation to a decision of a joint body established by or under a collective agreement, means its functions under that agreement as it has effect at the time of that decision."
The noble Lord said: I should perhaps explain to your Lordships that the rewriting of this clause is an attempt to meet some criticisms of the clause which were made in another place. Clause 33 relates to voluntary negotiating bodies established by or under collective agreements. Subsection (1) differs from the previous drafting in specifying more comprehensively the composition of bodies to which the clause relates. The difference is small but significant. It recognises that for some the parties represented may include individual firms and one or more employers' organisations. The function of these bodies as shown in subsections (1)(a) and (b) is unchanged. It is to regulate either the terms or conditions of employment of any workers or any matters provided in a procedure agreement, or both. The clause applies to written decisions of such bodies a presumption equivalent to that applied by Clause 32 to collective agreements reached by other ways of collective bargaining. The joint negotiating bodies cover bodies as widely varied as joint industrial councils and works committees. From these industry-wide councils, the same pattern
160
runs in the constitution and functions of many smaller bodies with less responsibility and functioning at lower levels within industry. Where they conform to the pattern and are authorised to make and to promulgate decisions they are within the scope of Clause 33. Some bodies, notably those at national level, have people within their membership who are independent of the constituent parties; and they are there to assist in decision making. Alternatively, they may provide for resolution of disputes arising in their negotiations by an independent arbitrator or arbitration body, and may give that body power to determine on behalf of the various parties the matter or matters on which they fail to agree.
Subsection (2) of the new clause is designed to bring out more clearly that the presumptions specified in the clause apply only to proceedings which take place after the commencement of the Bill. Subsection (3), together with the meaning ascribed to " functions " in subsection (5), is designed to remove the doubts which have been voiced about whether there was any risk at all of the conclusive presumption being interpreted by the courts as having retrospective effect. We do not think there was such a risk but we wanted to make matters quite clear. Subsection (4) is substantially in the same form as subsection (3) of the old clause. Noble Lords will have observed that the term " award " has been omitted here. However, as subsection (5) of the new clause shows, a decision of the joint body will include an " award " or a " resolution " where either may be the term appropriate to a particular body.
I should perhaps add that the amending clause which is to follow Clause 157 —that is, Amendment No. 287B—will include a provision that any reference in the Bill to " collective agreement " includes a decision of a joint body to which this clause refers. That is the substance of this clause. I hope I have explained clearly what the small alterations amount to, and I hope that it adds to the clarification of the clause.
10.47 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 238QQ, as an Amendment to the Amendment:
Line 6 of subsection (1), leave out (" with or without other persons ").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is, as the noble Lord will have seen, merely a probing Amendment. Although he explained to some extent what is meant by the words I am proposing here to leave out, I am not sure that he gave us a complete explanation and I am not wholly happy with his explanation. It seems to me that we ought to have on the Record as full an explanation as possible about whom these words apply to in connection with this clause. I know something about joint bodies that meet for this purpose. I know that in some cases they have other people meeting with them. Is it the case that the Government are thinking here in terms perhaps of lawyers, who clearly ought in the future to be present at every meeting of a joint negotiating body, having regard to the fact that so many of these agreements are going to be made legally enforceable? Is that what the noble Lord and the Government are up to?
Other persons who might be present are the Minister's conciliation officers, who ought to be present to advise negotiating bodies on the possible effects of their proposals for a decision or resolution, in view of the stultifying body of the law which will, with this Bill, surround negotiations which in the main are designed to ensure peace in the industry. It is precisely matters of this kind that I should like to ascertain—concerning conciliation officers of the Ministry; lawyers whose job it will be to ensure that matters are so framed that they would be suitable for a court of law. The noble Lord gave us some idea of the position, but not as complete an idea as I should like to have on the Record, because clearly this Record will be read in conjunction with the clause which is now being moved.
I believe I said at the outset that I had no objection to the new clause. In fact, it seemed to me to clear up some of the points that had been raised in the other place, and I certainly welcome the clause in so far as it does that. But I should like the noble Lord to tell me and the Committee a little more about the kind of persons who can be brought into these negotiations and who could be present when decisions are arrived at—which might indeed, as the noble Lord said, be awards as mentioned in a later clause. I beg to move
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not think the noble Lord need have any great fears about the inclusion of these words, but I do not in the least complain of his moving an Amendment to ask what they are intended to cover. As I said when I introduced the clause, there is a variety of negotiating bodies at various levels, sometimes made up of representatives of various firms, sometimes various trade unions and so on; and at the lower level, of course, they can be at shop floor level, a mixture of trade unions and one employer or possibly a number of employers. There is a variety of arrangements. On some of these bodies there are added members; that is to say, those who do not directly represent the parties, but who can play a useful part either in decision making or in the resolution of disputes.
The proposed Amendment would reduce the effectiveness of the clause in carrying out that sort of intention. It would quite arbitrarily remove from the scope of these provisions all voluntary negotiating bodies which included among their members anyone additional to the representatives of the organisations of the workers and employers concerned. This would not take into account or provide for the wide variety of ways in which industrial relations decisions and agreements arc arrived at in this country. What is more, the criterion for exclusion would be totally unrelated to the purposes of the clause and would operate very unevenly and inequitably.
I should add that a number of joint industrial councils and other national negotiating bodies, as the noble Lord well knows, have made provision for the reference of unsettled disputes to independent arbitration by an individual or a joint panel. Where the body concerned consists of representatives of either side, it almost invariably has an added outsider, as well. Whether such a body would be covered would depend on the exist wording of the authorisation given so it and the agreement setting it up. Other bodies include independent members in the main council. For example, some joint industrial councils provide for an independent chairman or referee to assist them in the ordinary conduct of their affairs, And have power to resolve any matters en which the councl members may fail otherwise to agree. That, for example, is the case

163
with the joint industrial council covering administrative, professional, technical and clerical staff in the local authorities. This is a practice of long standing which works well. The clause as originally drafted did not appear to cover this, and it was thought that it ought to be included to preserve the existing situation and to enable the decisions of these bodies, where appropriate, to have binding effect.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has met my request to expand a little on the actual words, and it seems to me that he has covered my points. However, I shall have to return on my next Amendment to something he said in his explanation when he referred to arbitration bodies. So far as this Amendment is concerned, as I say, the noble Lord has met my request and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to with-di aw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.55 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment (No. 238RR):
Leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I must admit to some doubt as to what class of joint negotiating body the new clause in place of Clause 33 refers. When I first read it it seemed to me to be applicable only to the national or, at a lower level, regional negotiating bodies. Thinking of the industry I know best, the railway industry, I can relate the questions I wish to ask about this clause to the somewhat elaborate machinery of negotiation agreed for that industry. Starting at the top, there is the Railway Staffs National Tribunal, with a chairman appointed by agreement between the employers and the railway trade unions. Sitting with the chairman, not as assessors but as members of the tribunal, there are one person selected from a panel previously nominated by the railway employers and one person selected from a panel previously nominated by the railway trade unions. No member or officer of the British Transport Commission and no member or official of a railway trade union is eligible for appointment to the tribunal. Representatives of the parties.
164
it is true, may sit as assessors, if the tribunal so decides.
The tribunal in this case decides major matters of salaries, wages, hours of duty and other standards of service on references to it. That tribunal clearly does not consist of representatives of the railway trade unions, or of the British Transport Commission. It does, however, make awards and decisions. It looks to me—and I should like to have some confirmation of this—as though such awards and decisions would not fall within the terms of this clause, although the tribunal was established under a procedure agreement. Can I be told if that is so? And, incidentally, is there any clause in this Bill covering industrial awards other than the awards mentioned in Clause 123 which arise from a reference to the Industrial Arbitration Board by the Industrial Court? Below the tribunal there is the Railway Staffs National Council, which consists of eight representatives of the British Transport Commission and eight representatives of the railway trade unions. They have the same terms of reference as the tribunal I have mentioned. Clearly, I would think, the decisions of that Council would be caught up by this clause.
Passing over one Council, one national body whose functions are somewhat similar to the Railway Staffs National Council, we come to a number of councils established on a railway region basis. Each of these councils covers a group of grades. Their composition is rather different, in so far as on the one side there are representatives of British Railways—that is the B.T.C.—and on the other side representatives elected by the employees concerned. The representatives have to be members of a railway trade union, and the electors have to be members of a railway trade union; but because they are elected outside the trade union itself and by the employees as employees, rather than as members of the trade union, they are not directly representing the trade union. Therefore I wonder whether, in this case, they come within the terms of this clause. This is clearly a difficult point. I am sorry I was not able to give the noble Lord advance notice of the questions I am asking. If he cannot answer all these points to-night, I am sure he will do the usual thing, promise to write to me later

165
and give me all this information. I am sorry, but I am one of those unfortunate individuals who have to do most things by hand. I have no secretary to type it out for me and send it to the Minister. Therefore, I am in some difficulty—and so perhaps will be the noble Lord in attempting to answer me on these points.
Next below this, at the very lowest scale of all, are what are called local departmental committees, set up at stations and depots where the staff numbers 50 or more. Local departmental committees are composed of not more than four members of the staff and not more than four representatives of the management. As in the case of the regional councils, the staff representatives are elected by the employees as such, not within the trade unions, but by trade unionists, and the nominees must be members of a trade union. This, of course, brings in a complication which must add to the difficulty of any noble Lord attempting to answer me. These local departmental committees consider and agree, if possible, such matters as arrangement of working hours, meal intervals, local rosters, holiday arrangements, tonnage bonus and piecework arrangements, questions of seniority where of local application, and arrangements for link working—and link working can be extremely important in a locomotive depot. On these and like matters these committees make decisions and issue minutes for perusal by staff concerned. Although the staff concerned are not directly representing the railway trade unions, they are nominated and elected by trade union members, but not within the machinery of the trade unions. Indeed, in many cases the nominee of one trade union will be contesting an election against the nominee of another trade union.
I hope the Committee will forgive me for putting these matters before it at some length. From such experience as I have had of the trade union movement, starting at the age of 15, and from my experience of reading Bills and Acts of Parliament, I frankly do not know the answers to the questions I have posed. I have not posed them just to be " plumb awk'ard ", but to elicit information on these points. Of the five parts of the procedure agreement covering the railway industry. I am fairly sure that two parts
166
fall within the terms of Clause 33. I very much doubt if the topmost arbitration level falls within these terms, although its awards and decisions are of vital importance. I doubt whether, on a strict application of the clause, the two lowest levels of the machinery of negotiation, which certainly make decisions of importance to the staff concerned, fall within the terms of the clause. Taking the lowest level of all, the local departmental committees, if the staff representatives on them are helping to take legally enforceable decisions, they will also—and this is important— have to police those decisions under Clause 34.
The very fact that within a single industry, with well-tried and well-tested negotiating machinery, three important parts of that machinery seem to fall outside the framework of this Bill, and of this clause in particular, appears to me to point to the nonsense of trying to fit machinery of negotiation, which has grown up over decades and in some cases generations—of trial and error, and of adjustment to meet experience, appears to me as it difficult and sorry sort of thing to attempt. The Government would be well advised to drop this subsection, and this cause, for they are so faulty as to make them quite unworkable in the real world of industrial relations.
The final question I wish to ask in connection with this subsection is, do the Government really think that by conclusively presuming that decisions and awards of the sort of body here envisaged shall be legally enforceable contracts, they will encourage trade unions to be parties to setting them up and going to such bodies to settle disputes? That is the question that arises here.
The point that I stress is one o which my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead attached such importance on the previous clause. I am very much in favour of machinery of negotiation. If properly used it can bring order into wages and conditions. But if I were an active railway trade unionist to-day I doubt whether I should welcome setting up the sort of procedural arrangement to which: this subsection, indeed the whole of the clause, would apply. I realise that in the, course of my speech I have raised some very difficult points, and if the noble Lord cannot give me complete satisfaction I

167
shall understand. I have explained why I was not able to give advance notice of everything I proposed to ask, and I shall be grateful for any reply that he may make in this connection. I beg to move.
11.6 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having explained so clearly to the Committee the doubts he had in mind here. Despite that clarity, I am bound to say that I feel I must avail myself of the suggestion that he made, and I should like to read what he had to say before I deal with this particular matter. It is complicated and it is difficult. We have already had to alter this subsection once before, and it may be, in the light of what he says, that we may have to alter it again—I do not know. I shall look at this point very carefully indeed, and if the noble Lord will permit me I shall refer to it at a later time. He has covered a number of particular industries and I would be extremely unwise to comment on any of them without knowing the details of the arrangements in those industries.
We think that the general proposal we have made in this clause will cover most cases—indeed all the cases that we have in mind where there are these mixed bodies or the straight joint negotiating committees—but we should like to look at this matter, and if we have any doubts we should like to avail ourselves of the noble Lord's particularly wide experience. and perhaps he would be willing to have a talk with us if necessary. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: That is the sort of undertaking that I hoped the noble Lord would give me. I accept it readily. I shall of course be happy to consult with him on these points of machinery of negotiation which I happen to know very well. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved as an Amendment to the Amendment (No. 238SS):
Subsection (4)(b), at end insert (" or
(c) is not the subject of a separate agreement in writing that such awards or decisions are not intended to be legally enforceable ")
The noble Lord said: We have in Amendments 238SS and 238TT two Amendments to the original Amendment which seem to me to run together. The purpose of these Amendments is, I hope, fairly clear. It is that the terms of Clause 33 shall be in such a form as will enable the bodies we are here discussing to embody, in the procedural agreements under which they are set up, the possibility of opting out of the intention to make legally binding awards. That is to say, that it can be a pre-condition of the setting up of such bodies that there shall be agreement between the parties that the awards or decisions made shall not be binding on the parties.
I am sure the point I am driving at will be understandable if noble Lords will read subsection (3). I do not propose to read it out, because I imagine that most noble Lords who take any interest at all in this matter will have read it. If the new paragraph (c) which I am proposing is inserted it seems to me that, on an individual reference to such a body, in the terms of the reference an agreement in writing by the parties to the reference would enable the body to make an award which would not be legally enforceable. It would also be possible, under my Amendment, for the parties to the original procedure agreement to specify that none of the awards or decisions of that body would be legally enforceable.
In this connection, in the other place there was a considerable discussion on the clause which we propose now to pull out of the Bill—and the terms of the clause which the noble Lord is moving into the Bill are exactly the same in this respect. This was discussed at some length, and indeed it was one of the few clauses that were discussed at reasonable length in the other place. The discussion took place on an Amendment similar to the one we are here discussing, and when replying for the Government the Solicitor General said:
" The honourable and learned Member for Leith has advanced a legitimate argument. I do not want in any sense to mislead the Committee or appear to be saying that something means other than it does. He suggested that it would not he sufficient to include a general disclaimer because, as so recorded, such a disclaimer would have to be included each time. If that is the proper interpretation within the clause, that is not the intention of the Government, and I certainly undertake to make

169
it plain that that is not the intention. It is an important point, and I recognise that there is room for doubt."
That is the Solicitor General, who I understand is very much the author of this Bill. He was in doubt about this. The clause has not been altered in this particular by the clause which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is here moving into the Bill. I am bound to say it seems extraordinary to me that such an undertaking, given without the reservations which Ministers so often attach to such an undertaking, should not have been honoured in the substitute clause we are now considering. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would care to explain.
As far as the Amendments that I am proposing are concerned, I am not absolutely sure that I have got either their placing or their wording right, but I think the intention must be fairly clear; and if the Government are prepared to accept the principle embodied in the Amendments I shall be happy to withdraw the one and not to move I he other—leaving it to the Parliamentary draftsmen to make a better job of it. However, I think the Government owe it to the House to explain what the Solicitor General said in the other place, and to explain to the House why the undertaking which he so clearly gave has not found expression in the clause which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, moved. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has referred to what was said in another place, and of course the clause was put down after consideration of what had been said there. The provisions of the clause have been attacked on the grounds that they are a threat to good relations on the shop floor. It has been alleged that they extend the Bill's presumptions regarding legal enforceability into a multiplicity of agreements at different levels, including the very lowest where hundreds of agreements about piecework prices and manning scales are reached every week quite informally between shop stewards, on the one hand, and rate fixers or foremen on the other. It has been claimed that the effects of these enforceability provisions would be disastrous in that they would frighten off shop stewards from settling any issue on the spot and in many cases even from acting as shop stewards at all. It was also suggested
170
that the clause would put an end to productivity bargaining and enormously increase time lost through stoppages, because even the smallest points of disagreement would have to wait for settlement by the works committee. Further allegations were made in another -place that the provisions would thus destroy the harmonious functioning of the words committee system, giving rise to endless arguments about whether or not to include a disclaimer provision which might devalue the status of the agreement reached; there would be unintended further damage to industrial relations should an appropriate disclaimer ever be inadvertently omitted— -something all too likely to happen in view of the level at which so many of the settlements would be reached.
The clause has also been attacked as altering the existing voluntary character of collective bargaining in that by reason of subsection (1) the two sides of joint negotiating bodies would no longer be free to decide for themselves whether or not to delegate to subordinate committees authority to enter into legally enforceable contracts these subordinate committees would necessarily be making legally binding agreements unless a disclaimer were included in each and every agreement. I think this is a point that the noble Lord particularly asked about. I think the answer to this is that the majority of shop floor and departmental settlements are not written agreements. In consequence, none of the Bill's presumptions about enforceability would apply to them. To that extent therefore the likely effect on shop stewards, productivity deals, time lost and the works committee system has been very much overstated.
In practice, moreover, the significance of the remaining arguments can also be questioned. One of the effects of Clause 33 would be that any joint body to which its provisions applied, from the largest to the smallest, would in practice have to consider at the outset what kind of settlements—in terms of legal status—-it would reach. Many would take a once-for-all decision on this. A works council, for example, might record a decision to the effect that awards and decisions made by the council were not intended to be legally binding. Though such a decision would not obviate the requirement to include an appropriate disclaimer in recording each subsequent decision of the

171
council, the fact that it had been reached in the first place would effectively remove the danger of arguments arising afresh about the legal status of each and every subsequent settlement. One beneficial effect of the clause (and of Clause 32) if they impel people to say, " We do not want to attach legal force in this kind of way ", could well be to encourage voluntary arbitration procedures for resolving disagreements.
It has to be recognised that for only a very small fraction of settlements reached throughout industry would any question of testing the Bill's presumptions under these clauses ever arise, whether the settlement contained an expressed disclaimer or not. Most of the very numerous day-to-day decisions reached by collective bargaining are about substantive matters which not only involve changes in terms and conditions on the trade union side but also are, in many cases, probably enforceable as things stand at present; action based on breaches of individual contracts of employment as the noble Lord knows, would be a way in which they would be enforceable.
It is also fair to point that settlements reached at lower levels, where the parties are more prone inadvertently to fail to consider the question of rebutting the Bill's presumptions, are those most likely to fall short in other repects, too; so that the courts might perhaps be forced to pronounce that the agreement, or the settlement, was void for uncertainty. We have already dwelt at length on the reasons which led the Government to include in the Bill these provisions on the legal status of collective agreements. We remain convinced that they will encourage moves to improve the quality of our collective agreements, to secure that they are more generally and consistently observed. I commend these advantages to the Committee as far outweighing the drawbacks which could arise, although, as I have said, I think that the drawbacks the noble Lord indicated are very much overstated.
LORD CHAMPION: The noble Lord, when referring to negotiations which take place at a very low level, said that the
decisions are not published. From what I know of them they are. In most negotiations the minutes of the meetings are agreed and published, and are read by people whom they would effect. I would have thought that even at that level they would be caught by the provisions of this clause. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to say that they could take a once-and-for-all decision that their decisions would not be legally enforceable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is right, they can take that decision; and then they would themselves, as each decision came along, indicate that it would not be binding. That would have to be repeated each time.
LORD CHAMPION: Does that not make a nonsense? They are going to take a once for all decision and then. on every decision made subsequently, they will include words saying, " This is not a legally enforceable agreement." Surely we ought to have what the Solicitor-General so clearly indicated in his reply in another place, that it would be possible in such circumstances for each body to say, " Our decisions will not be legally enforceable, unless we so decide." They could turn it that way so that they would take the sort of decision to make a matter legally enforceable only after carefully considering it. and its implications. I do not feel satisfied with the noble Lord's reply. The fact is that a statement was made in another place on a matter which was raised there and I feel that we must attach some importance to it. I would have liked to avoid a Division on this, but having regard to the fact that the noble Lord has not satisfied me at all, and he could not have satisfied those people in the other place who heard the Solicitor-General make his declaration, I cannot withdraw the Amendment, and 1 shall have to ask the Committee to divide.
11.24 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment to the Amendment' (No. 238SS) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 83.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Brockway, L.

Collison, L.

Bernstein, L.

Brown, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Beswick, L.

Champion, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Diamond, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Shepherd, L.

White. Bs.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

St. Davids, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merthyr, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dudley, E.

Milverton, L.

Allerton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Nugent of Guildfoid, L.

Amory, V.

Essex, E.

Poole, L.

Balfour, E.

Exeter, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Ferrers, E.

Redesdale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fortescue, E.

Redmayne, L.

Belstead, L.

Gisborough, L.

Reigate, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Glendevon, L.

Rothermere, V.

Brabazon of Tara. L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.,

Bridgeman, V.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gray, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Ystradfcllte, Bs.

Hailes, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Burton. L.

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

Sandford, L.

Caldecote. V.

Savile, L.

Carrington, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Selkirk. E.

Chelmer, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strange, L.

Coleraine, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kemsley, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cottesloe. L.

Killearn, L.

Thurso. V.

Cowley, E.

Kilmany, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kinnoull. E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Crawshaw, L.

Lothian, M.

Vivian, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Davidson, V.

Luke, L.

Westminster, D.

Denham, L.

Lyell, L.

Wigram, L.

Digby, L.

Margadale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Resolved in the negative, Amendment to Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.32 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: We now decide whether this new clause—Amendment No. 238NN—shall be moved into the Bill. We have had a considerable discussion on it but we must clear up some ambiguities on which I am far from being clear or which remain in the Bill and make it less than clear to me. In discussion of subsection (3) of the new clause I hope I made clear that as drafted it might catch not only the parties which negotiate terms and conditions of employment of workers at national level but also at the workshop depot or station level in those cases where the procedure makes provision for such negotiation. The more one looks at that sort of situation, the more one is bound to see the nonsense of such lowly bodies making decisions, recorded in writing and therefore legally enforceable contracts, and attracting the penalties implicit in any breach of them as provided for in Clause 34.
This Clause 33 is one of the very few clauses discussed in the other place, and I turn to the proceedings for February 1
174
to try to discover what sort of bodies the Government were trying to catch by this clause. At column (386 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for that day I see that the Solicitor General said:
"The clause retains and deserves to retain its place in the Bill, because it is plain that substantial and important collective agreements are arrived at in certain cases by substantial national joint bodies. The Government's view is clear: that those bodies in that kind of negotiation should be subject to the same alteration in bias, so that normally the parties in such negotiation are regarded, unless they provide to the contrary, as intending to set up obligations by which they intend to be bound. That is the primary objective of the clause."
After a few words about not wishing to catch the shop stewards private committee—and it appeared to me never to have been suggested that such a self-contained committee might be so called—he continued:
" Given the importance of the intention to apply this presumption to the large national body hammering out the importance national agreement, my right hon. Friend and I will certainly look at this again to see whether there is any possibility of it extending too far, too widely, or too obtrusively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 1/2/71, col. 1316–871

175
Having given an undertaking in such unequivocal terms, I suppose the right honourable gentleman did give it further consideration. I can only conclude that he still found that the clause expressed his intention, for no amendment to the clause has been put down by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on this point. My legal knowledge is nil, but my knowledge of and training in the trade unions are fairly extensive. If one reads subsection (1) of the clause, however one construes the words that appear in that clause, one is bound to agree that they would apply to anybody, no matter how lowly in the scale, provided for in a procedure agreement, and such body having for terms of reference those set out in subsection (1)(a) and (b).
If the Government really want to catch by this clause the large, national body hammering out the important national agreement—again to use the words of the Solicitor General—I suggest that the Government continue with their proposals to leave out Clause 33 and insert the new clause, but to give a clear undertaking to the Committee to introduce amendments at the Report stage clarifying the clause by giving effect to the undertaking given by the Solicitor General about the general disclaimers in subsection (4); and also to amend the clause in such a way as to make it clear that the clause will apply only to substantial national joint bodies —again, the words of the Solicitor General.
If the noble Lord is not prepared to give that undertaking clearly, and without equivocation, I shall have no alternative but to ask the Committee to divide in protest against what appears to me to be a clear breach by the Government of undertakings given by a responsible Minister. That applied in the Amendment I moved. Those words also apply to the clause itself, and I hope that the Government, for the sake of the honour of the Solicitor General, will be able to tell us that they propose to ensure that the words he used in the other place find expression in this clause before it leaves this Committee.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think the noble Lord, Lord Champion, is under some misapprehension about this. What he is quoting, if my recollection is correct, is what the right hon. Gentleman
176
said on the Committee stage, and there was a further debate on the Report stage. My right hon. Friend there explained very fully that the Government had concluded that a general disclaimer provision which applied to the bodies referred to in Clause 33 would not be either tight or desirable. I think the noble Lord is going a little far in saying that we are failing to give effect to something which was said at the first stage before, no doubt, my right honourable friend had had time to consider this matter, in view of what he did say on the Report stage. There is no reason whatsoever why we should not reconsider this, but I feel that the noble Lord is treating my right honourable friend with rather less than due respect by not taking account of what he said on the Report stage.
The Government have reached a decision on this. We shall take account of what the noble Lord has said. I certainly cannot make any promise that we shall change what was obviously a considered decision that my right honourable friend announced on Report stage. Of course discussion would be meaningless in this place if we did not take account of what has been said. I do not think that the noble Lord has encouraged us to regard this very much more favourably by the rather stern line he has taken in this matter, in a rather misplaced manner.
11.41 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I should only like to say that, after hearing what my noble friend has said, I cannot think that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, will want to press the complaint he made about the conduct of the right honourable gentleman, the Solicitor General. Having said that, I have some slight sympathy with the view he put that it seems a little cumbersome to have a separate disclaimer for every single agreement made at a very low level. I would hope that my noble friend would just think as to whether there is any other way of avoiding what I think seems to be a rather cumbersome procedure.
LORD CHAMPION: If I said something which I ought not to have said in the circumstances, I apologise to the Committee and to the Solicitor General. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, again mentioned the point of the general disclaimer. I was on that point in the Amendment.

177
I am not here on the point of the general disclaimer; the point I am talking about here, and that the Solicitor General was talking about in the other place, was where this part of the clause refers to these joint negotiating bodies, and what part of those bodies will attract this clause and how far down. He talked here about the substantial national joint bodies; these are the ones that he wishes to catch, not the others. As I see it, this clause will go right down through the whole of the machinery from the top to the bottom—the bottom particularly—if they make decisions and awards. I certainly was not on the point of the general disclaimer when I was talking about the clause as a whole, but on this point as to whether the national body will be caught by it, or whether the local departmental committees that I talked about in relation to the railway industry would also be caught by it. This was the point I was putting to the noble Lord. This was the point upon which I was quoting the Solicitor General. If he said something about this on Report, I did not happen to spot it, and.I read fairly thoroughly those debates that occurred in the other place on the clauses for which I happen to have some responsibility.
I invite the noble Lord to look at this point. I do not want to do the Solicitor General an injustice; but, on the other hand, I want undertakings which I thought he gave in the other place to find their expression in the Bill that we have before us.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I shall of course be very glad to respond to what the noble Lord has said. It is worth pointing out that these subordinate to bodies can act only within the authority which is conferred upon them. This may mean that the parent body can modify the authority which it delegates so that the subordinate body may only formulate recommendations which do not have the status of decisions and shall not be acted upon without prior ratification or confirmation at some specified higher level. This was the way in which we foresaw this difficulty being overcome; but, as the noble Lord has said, I am quite prepared to look at this again.
11.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 283NN) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 19.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourten, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliot of Harwood. Bs.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Allerton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Poole, L.

Amherst, E.

Essex, E.

Rankeillour. L.

Amory, V.

Exeter, M.

Redesdale, L.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Redmayne, L.

Barrington, V.

Fortescue, E.

Reigate, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Gisborough, L.

Rothermere, V.

Belstead, L.

Glendevon, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Berkeley, Bs.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Just, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gray, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hailes, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, (L. Chancellor.)

Savile, L.

Burton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Carrington, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Chelmer, L.

lnglewood, L.

Somers, L.

Coleraine, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strange, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kemsley, V.

Terrington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Killearn, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cowley, E.

Kilmany, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lothian. M.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vivian, L.

Davidson, V.

Luke, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Westminster, D.

Digby, L.

Margadale, L.

Wigram, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merthyr. L.

Windlesham, L.

Dudley. E.

Milverton. L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Brown, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Bernstein, L.

Champion, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Beswick, L.

Collison, L.

Diamond, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wells-Pestell L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd L.

White, Bs.

Hoy, L.

Strabaolgi, L. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

St. Davids, V.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 34 [Breach of collective agreement]:
11.49 p.m.
LORD BROWN LORD BROWN moved Amendment No. 238N.
Page 26, line 34, after (" agreement ") insert (" made after the commencement of this Act ")
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple, almost verbal Amendment. Where the clause refers to a collective agreement, it changes it to " a collective agreement made after the commencement of this Act ". This conditioning of the term " collective agreement " has occurred at other points in the Bill already, and it would almost seem to have been an omission not to have included it at this point. Otherwise, the term " collective agreement " might presumably refer to agreements made prior to this Bill becoming an Act. Therefore it seems that this form of words should be inserted. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, the intention is as he divined, and is quite simple. It is that the Government seek to protect any legally enforceable agreement from being broken by any of the parties. It is to apply whether an agreement was made before or after the enactment of the Bill. There are some collective agreements now in existence which the parties believe are legally enforceable. They may be few; but while the belief is held we see no justification for ignoring this belief. It may well be that occasion will never arise for bringing any of these agreements to the Court, and of course everyone hopes that this will be so. Again, we cannot prejudge the view the Courts might take when the status of agreements of this sort are tested. However, I would repeat that we think it sensible and just that the Bill should take into account these existing agreements which the parties intended and believed to be legally enforceable.
Under the present law, enforcement of such agreements may be sought only through the ordinary courts, and by means of Clause 125 we shall provide that
180
jurisdiction in cases arising wholly or mainly on collective agreements should be transferred to the National Industrial Relations Court. By means of Clause 34(1) a breach by any of the parties of any existing or future legally enforceable collective agreement will become actionable before the Industrial Court. To remove a breach of any existing legally enforceable agreements from the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court would leave those agreements actionable nowhere at all; and this I suggest to noble Lords opposite would be retrospective legislation, which the Government have promised they would avoid in this Bill.
At the same time, we see difficulty, which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has not referred to, in not transferring jurisdiction of these cases to the Industrial Court. As the Donovan Report records. our collective bargaining systems are fragmented, overlapping and piecemeal. and there could well be cases arising after the commencement of the Act which involved a pre-enactment agreement which had been amended or otherwise qualified by a post-enactment one. In these circumstances, divided jurisdictions could greatly, and unnecessarily, increase the complexity and duration of the case, and of course the cost.
There is one small point which I think your Lordships would want referred to before I sit down. Fears have been expressed about the consequences of the proposal in this Bill for the repeal of Section 4(4) of the Trade Union Act 1871. Particular concern has been centred in another place upon a risk that the repeal could render legally enforceable some existing collective agreements between employers' associations and trade unions. The Government believed the risk was slight. But though slight, the risk was recognised. and the Government undertook to ensure that it was taken away. I am taking this opportunity to point out that this is the reason for the amendment to Clause 101—Amendment No. 267A—which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, which it would not be in order for me to discuss in detail now. I have tried in that rather long reply to a very brief speech moving

181
this Amendment to give explanations and assurances which I hope may lead your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
11.58 p.m.
LORD BROWN: I must say, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, that it was extremely confusing. I think the Government must have another look at this question, on these simple grounds. I quite understand the noble Lord's objection to the Amendment as worded, because it would imply that agreements which both parties had agreed were legally enforceable before this Bill came into existence might be deemed not to be legally enforceable by the words of the Amendment. I take that point from the noble Lord. But, on the other hand, if the Amendment is not adopted, then provisions in this Bill may turn what was thought prior to the existence of this Bill to be an unenforceable legal agreement into an enforceable legal agreement.
This of course would be retrospective legislation in the true sense of the term, because it would alter the meaning of an agreement made prior to this Bill. That, I am sure, the Government do not want to bring about. So if this Amendment is not put in you are in danger of having something retrospectively altered in a previous agreement; and if you do put it in it will mean that agreements which were previously legally enforceable will not be able to be legally enforceable. So I think the Government had better take a look at the situation in which their wording places them. While respecting their inability to accept the Amendment that I have moved, it does not mean that the Bill, as it stands, is right.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps I can reassure the noble Lord on the last point that he made. He has taken up one point which I think was the only point strictly material to the Amendment that my noble friend made, namely, that there may be a limited class of preexisting agreements or existing agreements which are enforceable. He has accepted that point. He then goes on to say that if the Amendment is not made some agreement which is already existing, but which is not enforceable, might he rendered enforceable by this Bill. This I can reassure him about unequivocally, because under Clause 32 (1) (a) he will see that the only agreements rendered enforceable under that clause (which is the
182
operative clause) are those made in writing after the commencement of this Act. So that the thing is not retrospective, and is not capable of retrospection so far as Clause 32 is concerned. We have already discussed Clause 33, which raises a quite different point. The point that the noble Lord was making in his last utterance is one about which I can give him an unqualified assurance.
LORD BROWN: In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to will-draw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.2 a.m
Lotto CHAMPION Lotto CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 238P:
Page 26. line 40, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This subsection is at the very heart of this clause, and the preceding clauses were obviously intended to lead up to it. First, it seemed to me that the Government were determined to make as many collective agreements legally enforceable contracts as they could hope to get away with. I am sure they must have hated the fact that practical politics made it necessary to include the words which permit a party to contract out of making a legally enforceable collective agreement. Secondly, the whole idea of this subsection, and what has preceded it in Clauses 32 and 33, has been somehow to try to shift the burden of securing some greater degree of industrial discipline from the managers of industry on to the trade union leaders. That is what it is all about, and it simply will not work.
The subsection imports the new phrase " unfair industrial practice ", and one has to dig deeply into this Bill as a whole to discover the penalties which may be imposed on any party or person which or who commits an unfair industrial practice. For the purposes of the Record, I should be grateful if the noble Lord. when he comes to reply, will tell u: who is likely to be the complainant in an alleged breach of a collective en 7orceable agreement taken to the Industrial Court under Clause 97, which I believe is the clause to which the noble and learned Lord referred in our previous discussions.
A further question that I must ask is: who is likely to be the complainant in a

183
complaint that a party to such an agreement has not taken all such steps as are reasonably practicable to carry out paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2)? In Clause 97(3) we are told that the remedies which may be granted are:

" (a) an order determining the rights of the complainant and of the respondent in relation to the action specified in the complaint:

(b) an award of compensation, to be paid by the respondent to the complainant, in respect of that action;"

(c) an order directing the respondent to refrain from continuing to take that action …"

I suppose I may take it that the amount of compensation will be within the limit set out in the Bill. Would the penalty attracted by a failure to obey an order to refrain from continuing to take that action be the penalty that contempt of court would normally attract in a court of law? And what would be the limit of that?
What does the subsection say, in addition to the words about unfair industrial practice? It says that any party to a legally enforceable collective agreement must
"take all such steps as are reasonably practicable for the purposes—
(a) of preventing persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of that party from taking any action in breach of the collective agreement…"
I must admit that I do not find the words " reasonably practicable " worrying. If as a magistrate I had in a given case to decide what in the circumstances was a reasonably practicable action to take, I think I could manage to do so. The words I do not like, however, are " preventing persons acting or purporting to act ". If an agreement is signed by a trade union leader with the full authority of his office, knowing, as he will from now on, that it is a legally enforceable agreement, he must, in my opinion, do everything in his power to see that it is carried out in its entirety. That is all right. But that is an entirely different thing from saying that that trade union leader and the union must accept responsibility for the behaviour of every member of that union and everyone who might purport to act on its behalf. As I see it the trade union leader under this subsection might be held to be guilty and responsible for all other persons who
184
might be so misguided as to take an action in breach of the agreement. It is a concept which is abhorent to the trade union movement.
Moreover, I believe that it is impracticable. I believe that Donovan was right when he said in his Report at paragraph 122:
"Consequently, it is not surprising if from time to time groups of trade union members protest that industry-wide agreements are not to their liking, and even indulge in mutinous strikes. But such strikes are relatively rare. The great majority of unofficial strikes have nothing to do with industry-wide agreements. It is a mistake therefore to suppose that the shift of power to the work group could have been presented by a more ready exercise of disciplinary powers by trade union leaders. Even if successful, this could do little to halt the transfer of authority from management to the work group. And it is unlikely that it would be successful. Trade union leaders do exercise discipline from time to time, but they cannot be industry's policemen. They are democratic leaders in organisations in which the seat of power has almost always been close to the members."
I quote that paragraph because it makes good sense and it is in line with all the experience of the trade unions at all levels.
As I see it, this clause is one in which the penalties are there; the words that would try to import something into trade union practice which is quite foreign to its nature and character are there. But the will and the machinery to enforce it will never exist. For who is going to commence an action under this clause? Will the Secretary of State, whose whole desire on behalf of his Government and the nation is industrial peace? Will the employer, whose desire is peace within his industry? In this connection, look at the recent breaches of contract and see how many employers have brought actions for damages. Can any one of the bodies to be set up under this Bill commence an action; and if it can, will it? I think not. The whole thing is an elaborate pretence; it is a facade. It is a facade, designed to satisfy those who quite mistakenly think that if a law is passed the problem is solved. It is not, as all past experience of laws which cannot be enforced has proved. I suggest that the Government face up to what for them is bound to be an unpleasant fact and drop the whole idea embodied in this subsection and in this clause. I beg to move.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): May I remind the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to, the next one cannot be called.
12.10 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder if I may be allowed to answer one or two questions. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will wish to reply as the debate proceeds, but the noble Lord, Lord Champion, asked one or two questions, which are quite outside the Amendment, questions of policy, or at any rate only related to it tangentially, and I will try to answer them so far as they are capable of answer. The first question was: who would be a party to the proceedings against either party to the agreement who were guilty of an unfair industrial practice under Clause 34? I think that the answer is to be found again in Clause 97. Obviously, it is only a party to the agreement who would be able to invoke the agreement in the ordinary course. Clause 97(1)(c) lays down that the complainant must be the person against whom the action complained of is taken. I think that is the proper reply to the noble Lord as regards that.
The next question related to the remedies available, which are set out in Clause 97(3). The first is a declaration of right. My own feeling about this, though I may be wrong, is that this is by very much the first and most important subsection of all. On the whole, when a court has laid down what the rights of parties are, most reasonable parties tend to accept that as the award, and abide by it. I should expect either an employer or a union who were parties to an enforceable agreement to be content with a declaration of right in the ordinary course, without perhaps pursuing their other remedies. The third question was on the award of compensation. The noble Lord asked to be confirmed in his view that in respect of a registered union the ceilings would apply to the award of compensation under paragraph (b), which is perfectly correct.
He asked about penalties for contempt. The noble Lord was jumping there before we got to the fence. Before there can be any penalty there must be an order of the court under subsection (3)(c),
186
ordering a respondent to retrain from continuing to take action, or to take any other action of a like nature. I do not want to go into the technicalities, but clearly there can be no penalty for contempt until such an order is made. That would not arise simply because you have committed an unfair industrial practice or broken an agreement. It could only arise if an order of that kind were made.
May I explain in brief terms here, because we may have to return to it later, that the court has a discretion. In the ordinary course it would be expected to exercise a discretion on the same lines as it exercises its jurisdiction to grant an injunction at the moment. In other words, it never orders a party either to do or to refrain from doing something which it is not in his power to do. The best endeavours clause applies to the original breach, but the injunction would have to tell the party either to do or refrain from doing some specific act which was in its power. You cannot be guilty of a contempt if you are asked to do something which is either impossible or outside your power to do. That would be the next stage.
Thirdly, the penalties for contempt would never be incurred unless the party had deliberately disobeyed the court. Mere accidental failure to comply with an order of the court would not incur penalties for contempt. Subject to that, in the last resort penalties may be a fine or imprisonment if all those fences have been jumped.
There is only one thing I would like to say of a technical nature before the debate continues on policy matters, to which my noble Friend will reply. I think the noble Lord was mistaken when he referred continually to the personal position of a trade union official on this matter. The party to an agreement of the kind we are discussing would be the employer or employers' association on the one hand, and the trade union or group of trade unions on the other, although, of course, an individual who was made subject to an order of the court in some way or another might be rendering himself liable to penalties for contempt. In that event, I would take it, in the case of a registered trade union, that the union would be responsible rather than the official who was not a party to the agreement.

187
It is, of course, possible to introduce legal doctrines whereby a trade union official might render himself liable, but in the first place you would have to regard the union as the principal party to the proceedings. I make that last observation subject to correction. I have only considered it since the noble Lord was making his speech. I think I am probably right about that, and I feel considerable confidence about the other things I was saying.
LORD BROWN: I find subsection (2) of this clause extraordinarily objectionable, and I therefore support the Amendment before the Committee. It seems to me that under this subsection managers or perhaps trade unions are being held guilty of unfair practices if they are guilty of acts of remission; or, to put it another way, guilty of sub-standard judgment in failing to interfere, as they ought to do, or guilty of failure to take intiatives. This seems to me, although I am not learned in law, as being a very unwise principle to introduce into a Bill of this kind. I was under the impression —subject to correction—that if an individual sees somebody drowning in a pond he is not guilty in law if he does not rush to try and save him. It is true that in a number of Acts in connection with railways, public transport and aircraft one is guilty at times for acts of omission, but these are special cases which are felt to endanger life.
Here we introduce the principle that if a manager or a union—I am accepting the noble Lord and Lord Chancellor's admission of the union official—fails to take the initiative in taking all such steps as are reasonably practical then he is guilty of unfair industrial practice. This is going to be—I say with the utmost sincerity one of the most unworkable clauses in this Bill. I think it will cause more dissension. It is going to be an extraordinarily difficult thing for anyone to come to a conclusion—and I am referring to the courts—on whether, in taking this initiative they took sufficient initiative, whether they ought to have done more, or ought to have done anything: a whole series of "oughts"—not sins of commission with which the law usually has to deal, but sins of omission. I believe this subsection and the following subsection ought to be looked
188
at extraordinarily carefully by the Government. I fear they are running them-themselves into a position of extraordinary difficulty by this subsection. I therefore support the Amendment.
LORD DAVIES or LEEK: I would like to add my voice in support of this Amendment too. This part of Clause 34 obliges a union which has made a legally binding contract to take " all reasonable and practicable steps " to prevent its members from breaking such an agreement. Again, we have something which is very difficult to prove, as the noble Lord has indicated over the drowning incident. This clause, as my noble friend said from the Front Benches—and this was mentioned in the other place—would compel unions to act as policemen against their members and to use the powers of fining and expulsion in their rule books. When Mr. Carr. in another place, was tackled about this, he replied that the court would decide what was reasonably practicable, and when challenged on the fact that the Conservatives expected unions to fine or expel members, he alleged on February 2, in Col. 1486, that it was all nonsense.
But is it? At that time Mr. Paul Rose replied, from evidence given to the Donovan Commission by the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Conservative lawyers; when asked what a union should do about its members who were breaking an agreement, he said " I think one of the things the union would have to show was that it was intending to suspend or expel them." We are getting nowhere on this. All this is doing is to undermine some very efficient bargaining machinery that has worked wonderfully well through some very difficult periods. Although the hours is late, I do sincerely hope that this clause will not be rushed and that the Government, because we have made such progress, will give us time another day to discuss this in depth and without bitterness or asperity, so that we can get to the core of this and make it worth while.
LORD BERNSTEIN: May I ask a question, because I support this Amendment? If a spokesman for a militant minority starts a strike, or even a go-slow, and in doing so says he is doing it on behalf of the union, if the union could be held responsible for securing that the trouble

189
is not continued, how could it deal with this situation? It seems to me that there is nothing in here which will protect the union from a militant who might intend to disrupt it.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The answer to that is a simple one: the union is constantly faced with militants now and does its best to control them. Under this clause it will continue to be expected to do its best: but if a militant is acting in defiance of the union he may, of course, find himself in trouble over an unfair industrial practice, but it does not necessarily involve the union if it has acted in good faith, in accordance with the clause.
LORD CHAMPION: I do not want to stop the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, from replying to the general points I made. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the explanation he gave. I did not hear him replying to the point I made about purporting to act. It is true that that really is high-lighted in the next Amendment, but I was not proposing to move that if the noble Lord had given me an answer which I could have regarded as a reasonable explanation in the circumstances.
The other pointer I was referring to was in connection with who takes a complaint to the Industrial Court. I had read Clause 97, and the application of that. The point I was on was not so much who would in law be permitted to take the complaint to that Court, but who in fact would enforce it in the circumstances of the difficulties which it would bring to any industry where you found an employer doing it or anyone else attempting to secure satisfaction under this Bill. If the noble Lord would reply to the point about " purporting to act ", that would he extremely helpful to me and to the Committee.
12.25 a.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I shall try to deal with the points that have been raised. I should like to start by stressing what my noble and learned friend has said about the extent to which trade unions do exercise their authority where action is taken in defiance of collective agreements at the present time. Noble Lords may have seen a reference in
190
The Times only last Friday which read as follows:
"The 80 maintenance workers whose unofficial strike has stopped all cal production at British Leyland's Austin-Morris car plant at Cowley, Oxford, will be told today that union leaders have ordered them to return to work at once.
"The instruction was sent yesterday to shop stewards by Mr. Reg Birch, executive council member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, and Mr. Moss Evans, national automotive officer of the Transport and General Workers' Union."
This is exactly a case in point
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: Did they stop their strike?
LORD DRUMALBYN: This may be a relevant question from the practical point of view, but not from the legal point of view. Undoubtedly there will be cases where the best endeavours will be successful and there will be cases where they are less successful. All that the law calls upon the trade unions to do is to exercise their best endeavours. I find it difficult to see any great objection to that. That is the obligation—the obligation of a contract—aid all that the subsection seeks to do is to ensure that that obligation is.recognised. It is not necessarily going to mean, as my noble and learned friend has '.,aid, that in every case the party is going to be taken to court. It is primarily designed to lay emphasis on the obligation.
LORD BROWN: The legal obligation.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The legal obligation, yes; but surely it is rig it that it should be a legal obligation in 'his case, because if the contract itself is legally binding, then obviously the parties to it must use their best endeavours, if they cannot do anything more, to see that the contract is carried out, and that also must be part of the legal obligation. I must confess that I cannot see the difficulty in this, but I hope that noble Lords will not feel that this is in any way incongruous. and, if not, I hope they will rot press their Amendment.
A question has been asked about the circumstances in which any person has purported to act on behalf of any party, and why this is in the Bill. Perhaps I could just say what the effect of removing the words " purporting to act ' would be. They would have an effect which, in practical terms, would certainly be

191
very important to the plaintiff, because it would make it necessary for the party alleging the unfair industrial practice to prove that the person taking the action to breach the collective agreement was in fact acting on behalf of the other party to the agreement. That would be a difficult thing for the plaintiff to prove, but quite easy for the union to prove or to rebut. So I should have thought that these were sensible words to put in and that noble Lords would be satisfied with that explanation.
The point is, quite simply, that the burden would be placed on the plaintiff who is normally in a position neither to know the facts nor to obtain them in such a case. What I think one wants to stress—and this has not come out sufficiently in the debate today—is that nobody is going to run to the courts on every conceivable occasion whenever an agreement is broken, any more than everybody runs to the courts in the ordinary way when agreements are broken. Not only are there normal ways of settling these differences but under the Bill there are special ways. There is the conciliation which can be brought in, and the rest of it.
I think that noble Lords are elevating this too much into the legal sphere. The legal obligation is there, but how many people are involved in the courts in their lives? One would think that in good trade unions the same would apply. I think one must make a clear distinction between obligations laid on the citizen, in whatever capacity, and the sanctions that are taken if he does not carry them out. The sanctions are not taken in nearly every case and, what is more, if the obligations are clearly there and are recognised as part of the law, there could be no doubt at all that the ordinary citizen—and that includes, as it must, the trade unionist—will be more apt to observe those obligations.
I hope that noble Lords will not press this Amendment. I feel very strongly that it would be difficult to defend the exclusion of this clause which merely calls on trade unions to exercise their best endeavours to do something which they are doing already. Noble Lords may say this adds the legal sanction as well. I am saying that the chances of
192
that legal sanction being widely used are comparatively remote.
LORD CHAMPION: Then why put it in?
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord says, " Why put it in?". I am saying that the proportion of people who will disregard their obligations now is small and we hope that it will become even smaller when this legislation comes into force. The fact remains that it is a consequential legal obligation, and we believe that by making it a legal obligation it will be that much more observed than it is now and will be understood right down the line. The trade union official intervening will be armed not only with the authority of the union but also with the authority of the law. I believe that this cannot fail to have a general effect; and, what is more, it cannot fail to improve the methods of communication down the line because it will be very much in the interests of the trade unions to make certain that at all levels the obligations of the collective agreements which the trade union has entered into are fully understood. After all, the main purpose of all this is to make certain that people do not take the law into their own hands. We have a procedure agreement at various levels. No doubt tempers will fray and break sometimes, but this is so in ordinary life, in the streets if one is insulted and the rest, but it should not be right to take the law into one's own hands. It should not be right for an individual or a group on the shop floor to act in defiance of a collective agreement.
The answer is not of course that only a comparatively small number of occasions will arise when there is shop floor action in defiance of a collective agreement. The answer is to make certain that collective agreements are respected right through industry at all levels. If this particular reinforcement helps in that direction, it will be well worth while.
12.35 a.m.
LORD BROWN: The noble Lord cannot get away with this. He says that all this subsection requires is to make clear that unions continue doing what they have been doing all along but it is far more serious than that. Take the case of a union which has a lot of wildcat strikes

193
and there are legally enforceable collective agreements. The union officials are very busy with all sorts of problems and fail to put on the agenda of a committee meeting of the union branch this power to deal with the situations. They fail to discuss the matter and to take steps which might have resolved the disagreement. This means that institutionally in our society simple acts of omission occur because there is failure to take the initiative which wise people usually take but sometimes fail to take, and this becomes unlawful.
All this talk about the total situation is not to the point. The point is that we are making unlawful acts which normally are not unlawful. We are burdening people who have busy lives and have to take many decisions with the fear of the law because they use unwise discretion or fail to take the initiative. Be it on the head of the Government, for I believe it will boomerang on to them.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I should like to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said. Here we have come to one of the crucial points of the Bill. This is the great panacea which the Party opposite has been peddling for years. This is their solution to industrial unrest. They have been telling us for years how, if only there were a simple law which introduced sanctions of this sort, we should have an end to all unofficial strikes and all the other troubles. Now we have come to the point and we have heard what the noble Lord had to say. It is, all that is asked is that a trade union should go on doing what they have done in the past. That is a little different from what has been the propaganda of the Party opposite. We are up against practical problems and a number of people, not least those on the Donovan Commission. have tried to bring them out again and again.
Take the situation with which this subsection is intended to deal. Take a perfectly simple example, where a small group of workers—the clearest case from the point of view of the Government—come out on unofficial, unconstitutional strike because, they say, an agreement has been made which, while it might apply quite well nationally. because of some peculiarity in local circumstances does not operate fairly for them. So they
194
come out on strike. What is to be done? The noble Lord suggests that we should act as did Reg Birch in the case he quoted. The humour of Reg Birch being the noble Lord's new hero would be as apparent to Mr. Reg Birch as to anyone else. But if you are a trade union official, let us say, at the headquarters of the union, what exactly are you to do to deal with this situation? One of the first things about a situation such as this is that often you can get nobody who will take responsibility for it. Your local elected representatives will frequently say: "The lads won't. take any notice of my advice; they lave acted in this way contrary to my advice".
Now what are you to do? Are you to remove your local elected representative from office? Where will that get you? For you will then have nobody who is in contact with the men who are taking this unofficial action and with whom you can effectively deal. In any case, the great danger is that your local elected representative will remove himself from office, if he has the impression that under this Bill lie may be made the person against whom effectively the.action can be taken and he may find himself in a very exposed position. So you are likely anyway to find that your local elected representatives may remove themselves from office. This will not have made one scrap of contribution towards what has to be done, which is to get the people back to work. What indeed you have to do—and there is no alternative to it —in nine cases out of ten is to get somebody to go down, or go down yourself, and try to find out what the trouble is. There may be circumstances in which one can issue an order of the kind to which the noble Lord referred, but it is likely to be effective only when there a closed shop in operation; because if you issue an order or if you expel the people concerned, all that you will have is 200 or 300 striking non-members instead of 200 or 300 striking members, and I do not quite see what advance that constitutes. Of course, if there is an agency shop in operation, under Clause 10 of the Bill, you will then have 200 or 300 people who are paying contributions to the union without being members, instead of having 200 or 300 people who are paying contributions to the union and are members. But the mater al point

195
would still be that work would be stopped, and they would be out on strike.
What possible contribution is all this paraphernalia of legal penalties making to this practical situation? That is what we want to know. That is what we have been asking the Party opposite, year after year, ever since they started pretending that they had some magical solution for our industrial problems. At the end of the day, problems of that sort, in nine cases out of ten, are not solved by threatening people with penalties, or going to talk to them about the majesty of the law, or even going to talk to them about the majesty of the trade union. The vast majority of men and women in industry want to see collective agreements observed; the vast majority are prepared to observe them. But the problem you face when something goes wrong—and it goes wrong pretty infrequently, taking British industry as a whole—is to get down and find the root of the trouble, and try to put it right. In fact, every trade union is going to be embarrassed by the sort of legal paraphernalia which surrounds this clause, rather than being in any way assisted in doing practical work.
12.45 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Even at this late hour I feel that one or two observations are called for in answer to those remarks. Some of us on this side of the Committee do not find it acceptable that we should lie down under a deliberate breach of agreement. The willingness of the Party opposite to adopt an attitude of absolute helplessness in the fact of it is precisely what convinces us that this Bill is not only necessary but overdue. The various points to which the noble Lord, with his usual assurance, seemed to attach such importance are susceptible of a very easy answer again. He postulated the case of unofficial strike in breach of an agreement. The first thing to say is that the leaders of the unofficial strike, acting without the authority of the union, are the people who, if they can be identified, will render themselves liable to considerable penalties, not necessarily under this clause but under other clauses of the Bill. Normally they appear on television and give interesting interviews, so they are not
196
usually quite the modest violets that the noble Lord seems to imply.
As regard the union itself, obviously it is in some difficulty, and I should have thought the noble Lord would at least have noticed that he had answered his own question. Clearly, the first thing the union has to do in such cases is to go down and ascertain what the trouble is and try to stop it. That is exactly what is meant by " using your best endeavour ". The third and only other thing it is necessary for me to say about Lord Delacourt-Smith's speech is that in June, 1969, the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, extracted from the Labour Party what was described as a solemn and binding undertaking, and that was interpreted by Mr. Wilson as putting upon unions an obligation to get their members back to work. If that is not exactly the same as is now put into this part of the Bill. I do not know what is. I do not know what the then Labour Government thought that the unions were giving by their solemn and binding undertaking, but if it is impossible now, it was clearly impossible then. Either the solemn and binding undertaking was spoof, or else they are now in a position to get a little more " go " out of their own members than they are now pretending in the face of this Bill. That is the complete answer to what is to my mind the wholly preposterous attitude adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: I should be very reluctant to match my assurance against that of the noble and learned Lord. I was not for one moment suggesting that trade unions should be or are in the habit of lying down in the situation which I was describing as an example, nor am I going to be drawn by the noble and learned Lord's utterly irrelevant and to me incomprehensible remarks about something that happened in June 1969. The sole point I was making, and I make it again, is that when a situation such as I was describing arises you have to get down to the practical job of identifying the problem and finding a solution. I gather the noble and learned Lord agrees with me. I am merely making the additional point that, first, all the legal paraphernalia and liabilities for penalties of various kinds and damages do not assist in doing that

197
job. I go further and say that it makes the doing of that job more difficult than it would otherwise be. That is where 1 stand, and I shall be delighted if the noble and learned Lord or any other noble Lord will respond on that point.
LORD CHAMPION: I was not going to ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment, but the answers we have
12.57 a.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 238R:
Page 27, line 10. leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I was going to make a tremendous song and dance about this Amendment, but then I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, had added his name to it, which rather spiked my guns. I beg to move it formally.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think perhaps I owe the noble Lord some explanation of why we appear to have the same
198
had seem to me to be so unsatisfactory that I have no other course open to me but to ask the Committee to divide against this subsection.
12.49 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 238P) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 78.

CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Diamond, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Brown, L,

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

White, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Shackleton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dudley, E.

Poole, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Eccles, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Allerton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Redesdale, L.

Amory, V.

Essex, E.

Redmayne, L.

Balfour, E.

Exeter, M.

Reigate, L.

Barrington, V.

Ferrers, E.

Rothermere, V.

Beauchamp, E.

Fortescue, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Gisborough, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Glendevon, L.

St. Just, L.

Bridgeman. V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Oswald, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gowrie, E.

Samuel, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gray, L.

Sandford, L.

Burton, L.

Hailes, L.

Savile, L.

Carrington, L.

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

Selkirk, E.

Chelmer, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve. L.

Coleraine. L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Somers, L.

Colville, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strange, L.

Conesford, L.

Kemsley, V.

Terrington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Killearn, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cowley, E.

Kilmany, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lothian. M.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs

Cranbrook, E.

Luke.L.

Vivian, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lyell.L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Davidson, V.

Margadale, L.

Westminster, D.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Merthyr, L.

Wigram, L.

Digby, L.

Milverton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

point of view on this matter. The explanation from his point of view is quite simple: if he will look at page 40 he will see that, with the change of one word, the substitution of the word " Act " for " section ", the subsection (3) that we are discussing appears as subsection (3) of the new clause to be moved after Clause 157, the definition of " collective agreement ". I may add that it might be more convenient in any case to debate it then, when we have discussed he clause with which it deals.
LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful to the noble Lord for calling my attention to that point. I might have town up my

199
notes if he had not told me. I shall now use them in attack a bit later.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 34, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a moment or two on Clause 34, which I have not studied with anything like the care which my noble friends have. Indeed, the only reason I rise to discuss Clause 34 is because of the explanation which the noble and learned Lord gave a little earlier on about Clause 34 (1). I am back on the point of an unfair industrial practice arising where an agreement which had been entered into prior to the Bill's having effect is a legally-enforceable contract. I gathered—and I should be grateful to the noble and learned Lord if he could put me right—that where such an agreement exists and was entered into with the intention that it should be a legally-enforceable agreement, one of the effects of the Bill is to remove the jurisdiction from the court which previously would have had jurisdiction, and that the only jurisdiction left is with the Industrial Court. The argument of the Government is that if it is to be legally enforceable you must have some court to enforce it. One could make the point that it is a different court; and that when the agreement was entered into it was intended that any argument should be settled before courts with which the parties were familiar, with the staffing of which the parties were familiar and with whose likely conclusions the parties were familiar. But I do not stress that matter very much at the present time because there are other more important points which arise from this clause.
What the parties thought they were doing when they entered into a contract legally enforceable at that time was not that they were entering into an agreement the breach of which would constitute an unfair industrial practice. The unfair industrial practice produces results some of which can go beyond those which could have been resulted from agreements which might have been tested before a court had this Bill not become an Act. Therefore, it seems to me that the introduction of Clause 34(1) is to substitute a new and much more onerous
200
situation upon the parties to an agreement than existed at the time they entered into the agreement. If that is so, then the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, seems to me not wholly appropriate; because, in fact, the parties as a result of this clause have been put at risk to penalties which might not have been capable of being applied had this Bill not been enacted. Therefore we are facing a situation in which there is what is tantamount to retrospective legislation—though not in the most literal sense —namely, that the position which the parties to an agreement understood was to be the position is subsequently altered by an enactment in a way in which they did not intend to happen.
There are various ways of dealing with this matter. If the difficulty arises from the fact that the enacted Bill says that jurisdiction shall only be that of the Industrial Court, then there could be an Amendment saying " except as regards legally enforceable contracts entered into prior to the Bill becoming an Act ". That is one way. Another is to say that where the parties enter into an agreement which they intended to be legally enforceable they must now, in the changed circumstances, have an opportunity of saying whether they wish it to be legally enforceable in the new way, in which case it could produce penalties different from those earlier intended; or that they no longer wish it to be enforceable having regard to the changed circumstances.
So it is certainly not the case that there is no easy method of dealing with this problem. There are two easy methods of dealing with this problem. But what is not tolerable is that parties to an agreement should find that the penalties in respect of a contract which they intended to be legally enforceable should be totally different and should exceed those which existed at the time they entered into it. That is the main point I wanted to raise. The rest of it we have been over, and the Committee knows that we dislike this whole clause intensely. But I thought it was right to raise this one point inasmuch as the reply which was given was such as to satisfy my noble friend Lord Brown that he was not on a good point, while in my view he was on a very good point indeed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is very ingenious but, as at present advised,

201
I do not think it will wash. To start at the beginning, the noble Lord's point is limited to agreements which under the existing situation, and before the Bill passes into law, are enforceable. He is right in saying that they are, if enforceable at all, which is his assumption, enforceable in the ordinary courts; that is to say, in the county court or in the High Court. But how are they enforceable? The answer is, only between the parties to those agreements and only to give rise to one of the following remedies: one, a declaration of right; two, an award of damages; and three, an injunction; because those are the only remedies at present available.
All we have done by Clause 34 is to say: the county court and the High Court shall not have jurisdiction to try this particular dispute between the parties if it arises and, in place of that, there shall be an award of compensation; that it will be called not " a breach of contract " but " an unfair industrial practice " which is the term of art used in the Bill, meaning no more than a wrongful act giving rise to jurisdiction, in this case of the Industrial Court but in other cases either of the industrial tribunal or of the Industrial Court—and there will be one of the following remedies available: one, a declaration of right——Section 97(1)(a); two, an award of compensation, assessable on exactly the same principle as damages——97(b) and, I think, Section 111 (the second one may not be the right number but I think it is); and three, an order in the nature of an injuction. In other words, they are in exactly the same position, but with this difference only—and there is this difference only therefore
at first sight in the noble Lord's point—that if the defendant or the respondent to the complaint in the Industrial Court is a registered trade union, there is a ceiling on the amount of compensation which can be awarded against it—a ceiling which does not apply if the party who is respondent to the application is an employer and not a registered trade union. That is the only difference and it is a difference which, in so far as it affects a change in the law, affects it solely for the benefit of registered trade unions. I daresay that in theory an employer would have a grievance, but if so it is a relatively small one and certainly nobody purporting to speak in the interests of the trade union movement could claim to have one.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having explained that the remedies broadly are the same. That is the essence of the matter. I had understood from a previous speech that the remedies were not identical. I think what I have to do about that is to say how grateful I am for the explanation and to consider it carefully and be advised on it. I am glad to say, therefore, that the reasons for voting against Clause 34.are not as numerous as I thought they were going to be: but they are wholly adequate, and that is what we propose to do.
1.9 a.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 34, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 74; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Craigmyle, L.

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

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Amory, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne,L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Balfour, E.

Davidson, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Barrington, V.

Denham, L.

Kemsley, V.

Beauchamp, E.

Digby, L.

Killearn, L.

Belstead, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kilmany, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dudley, E.

Lothian, M.

Bridgeman, V.

Eccles, V.

Luke, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lyell, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Essex, E.

Margadale, L.

Burton, L.

Exeter, M.

Merthyr, L.

Carrington. L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Chelmer, L.

Gisborough. L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Glendevon. L.

Poole, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Goschen. V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Conesford. L.

Gowrie, E.

Redmayne, L.

Cottesloe. L.

Gray, L.

Reigate, L.

Cowley, E.

Hailes, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs

St. Just, L.

Somers, L.

Vivian, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Strange, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Sandford, L.

Terrington, L.

Westminster, D.

Savile, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Wigram, L.

Selkirk, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Diamond, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Brown, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

White, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Shackleton, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 34, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
House resumed.

  IMPORTS FROM G.A.T.T. COUNTRIES
  IMPORTS FROM G.A.T.T. COUNTRIES
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: COMMUNICATIONS WITH ARGENTINA
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: COMMUNICATIONS WITH ARGENTINA