Sitting of 24 May 1971

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

  Redbourn
  Mr. Allason: I beg to ask leave to present a Petition from my constituents, which reads:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the residents of Red-bourn and its neighbourhood sheweth that whereas the increasing volume of fast and heavy road traffic passing along the main trunk road known as the A5 through our narrow village High Street and only shopping centre presents a grave danger to our people, especially old persons, shoppers and children, from risk of accident, and accelerates the deterioration of the environment.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will require the Department of Environment and other authorities responsible for these matters to give priority to the early building of roads by-passing Redbourn, and pending their construction to take other immediate safety measures for the protection of our people.
  2
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  This Petition has been signed by no fewer than 1,900 of my constituents, which is substantially the population of the village of Redbourn.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  WALES

    Comprehensive Schools (Standards)
    Mr. John Stradling Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has with regard to the provision of special assistance to local education authorities with 11 to 16 comprehensive schools in order to bring such schools up to the standards required by pupils, teachers and parents.
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): None. It is expected that any proposals by local education authorities to make up deficiencies at such schools or to convert them to other forms of secondary organisation, including 11–18 schools, should be carried out through the annual minor and major capital building programmes.
    Mr. John Stradling Thomas: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply. Is he fully aware of the acute anxiety felt by teachers, parents and some pupils about

    3
    the situation of these schools without sixth forms? Is he aware of the great difficulty which can arise in that if such a school gets a bad name, it could bring into disrepute the whole concept of comprehensive education in the area? May I urge my right hon. Friend to do all that he can to assist local authorities faced with this difficulty?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: If my hon. Friend has any particular school in mind I should be grateful if he would let me know. Clearly, 11 to 16 comprehensive schools are established only in areas where the school population is not large enough to enable individual schools to support fully viable sixth form units.

    Blaenau Ffestiniog (Visit)
    Mr. William Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make an official visit to Blaenau Ffestiniog.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have no immediate plans to visit Blaenau Ffestiniog. But I will bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind when an opportunity occurs of doing so.
    Mr. Edwards: Is the Secretary of State's reluctance to come to Blaenau Ffestiniog due to the fact that the Conservative candidate at the last election promised that his Government would give special assistance to that community? Is he unwilling to come to Blaenau Ffestiniog because he does not have such special assistance to give?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, I am certainly never reluctant to come to Blaenau Ffestiniog. I am always very pleased to visit the place. I know it very well indeed. Officials of the Welsh Office and the Department of Trade and Industry went to Blaenau Ffestiniog in February, at my request, had a meeting with the full council, and gave me a report which I found very useful. The hon. Gentleman will remember that at the last Welsh Grand Committee meeting I referred specifically to Blaenau Ffestiniog. He will be happy to know that work is to commence today on the construction of the 10,000 sq. ft. factory which I mentioned on that occasion. I hope that the factory will be ready for occupation by the end of the year.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the trade union movement in Wales in favour of British entry into the Common Market.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The trade union movement in Wales has made no representations to me on this matter.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if Britain were to enter the Common Market it is the families of ordinary trade unionists who would have to bear the brunt of increased costs and that in terms of industrial development Wales will be more or less a write-off? Would he therefore speak up for Welsh interests in this matter?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the trade union movement in Wales is reserving its position, as are large sections of the community in Britain, until the terms are known.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that trade union organisations within the Common Market countries which had certain misgivings about the Common Market when it was first formed are now unanimous, including even the Communist unions, in their support of the Common Market?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I certainly agree that within the Community there is great enthusiasm among not only trade unionists but all sections of the population for the idea of European unity.
    Mr. McBride: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the trade union movement will always be in opposition to entry of the E.E.C., considering that the right hon. Gentleman was a party to Article 118 in railroading the Industrial Relations Bill through the House? Has he seen the trades councils' decided "No"? Would he therefore agree that united trade union opinion in Wales is against this sell-out of Britain?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, I cannot agree. As I said, I have received no representation from the trade union movement in Wales on this matter.
    Mr. Elystan Morganasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will call a national conference of public and official bodies in Wales which are representative of a wide range of interests in order to discuss the question of the consequences to Wales of the United Kingdom's entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir.
    Mr. Morgan: Is it not a fact that, whatever the negotiated terms will be, entry into the Common Market would create in Wales problems more acute than those in most other parts of the United Kingdom? I am thinking particularly of the inevitable eastward drift of human and material resources and of assistance to farmers on marginal land. Is it that the Secretary of State does not appreciate these problems or that he is too complacent to apply his mind to them?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman was a member of the previous Administration, and he will recollect that a great deal of consideration was given to whether a detailed analysis of the effects of entry on any particular part of Britain could prove practicable. It was found that it could not. It is important that after the terms are known there should be good public debate and discussion, and undoubtedly that will take place. But I do not believe that a conference of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman would serve the bodies concerned better than the existing arrangements, whereby the bodies can tell Welsh Ministers and Members directly what their views are.
    Mr. Gwynoro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will publish a paper on his Department's assessment of the impact on the Welsh economy if Great Britain should join the European Economic Community, following Welsh Office officials' discussions with European Economic Community representatives.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir. A detailed analysis for particular parts of the United Kingdom is not possible, but the Government believe that Wales will share fully with the rest of the United Kingdom in the benefits arising from membership of the Community.
    Mr. Jones: Is there not a grave inconsistency in what the Secretary of State
    6
    says? He says, on the one hand, that it is not possible to estimate the effect on regions such as Wales; yet, on the other hand, he predicts confidence? At this late stage, when right hon. Gentlemen opposite are gleefully accepting that they are already in the Common Market, will he ensure that some assessment is made of the impact on the Welsh economy, especially regional development in areas such as West Wales? Will he speak for Wales and its people and stop acting as Chairman of the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It was agreed by the previous Administration that all parts of the United Kingdom should share in the benefit that the United Kingdom should have from entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. McBrideasked the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the volume of industry which would be attracted to Wales, assuming that Great Britain enters the Common Market.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is not feasible to make such estimates. Wales should, however, share fully in the increased industrial opportunities presented by membership of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. McBride: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—and he has Ministerial corroboration a few yards away from him—that under Article 67 of the Treaty of Rome we should have no control over capital outflow, and that therefore investment in industry would be concentrated in the Low Countries, and Wales would suffer? Is he aware that Wales would stagnate because it would be on the periphery of the enlarged E.E.C.? Will he oppose entry into the E.E.C. and thus protect the interests of the Welsh people, from whom he springs?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman should await the terms which may be agreed in June before he reaches the conclusions that he so emphatically states.

    Llantrisant New Town (Factories)
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many factory units he estimates will be established in the proposed Llantrisant New Town.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is not possible to say, but I expect about 18,000 jobs to be provided in a new town of the size envisaged.
    Mr. John: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a difference between wishful thinking and planning and that the vagueness of his proposals on industry is giving rise to grave doubt in the locality of Llantrisant about how many jobs will be created?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: It is impossible to plan until the new town is set up. These are just proposals; following the proposals there will be consultations with the local authorities. I shall presumably make a designation order following those consultations, and then the usual statutory procedures will apply.
    Mr. George Thomas: But the right hon. Gentleman has told us again this afternoon that he expects 18,000 new jobs to be provided at Llantrisant. On what basis does he calculate this figure and found his expectations?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I said that it was not possible to say but that I expected about 18,000 jobs to be provided in a new town of the size envisaged. The reason why I said that was that Professor Buchanan's original target of a town of 94,000 by 1981 has been reduced in my proposals to between 70,000 and 75,000. This would mean that the original estimate by Professor Buchanan of 22,000 jobs would be reduced to 18,000.

    Transport
    Mr. Nicholas Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will establish an inquiry, either on a departmental basis or in co-operation with the Welsh Council, to make a comprehensive re-examination of the transport requirements of the Principality, including the road, air and rail services, and to report on the way in which they may best be improved.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The Welsh Council will continue to pay particular attention to the public transport situation in Wales and will report its conclusions to me. In the circumstances, I do not think a further inquiry is necessary.
    Mr. Edwards: I am glad that the Welsh Council will consider the matter, but there will be some disappointment at my right hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that, while we welcome the speeding up of the major road programme, there are many aspects of the Welsh transport scene which cause concern—nobably the lack of any air service between South Wales and London or within the Principality itself, the inadequacy of the rail system even over many existing routes and the shortcomings of the rural buses and that, if we go into Europe, as I hope we shall, an improved transport system will be even more important?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I certainly agree that there are many anxieties about transport in Wales, and the transport requirements in the Principality are continually being examined by the responsible Departments, which act in close liaison.
    Mr. Ifor Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing fears concerning future air services at the Fair-wood airport in my constituency, having regard to its importance to the economic and industrial development of West Wales? Is he further aware that a consortium of West Wales local authorities, together with the Swansea authority, is struggling hard to keep this airport open? Would he investigate the possibilities of giving aid in accordance with the Government's civil aviation policy?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am aware of these anxieties and of the views which have been expressed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a meeting was arranged between those interested from his constituency and around his constituency with my right hon. Friend who is responsible.

    Nursery Schools Flintshire
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many nursery schools, English speaking and Welsh speaking, respectively, there are in Flintshire, giving the location of each.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: One, at Shotton. English is the medium of instruction.
    Mr. Jones: Is the Secretary of State not aware of the rocketing population in Flintshire, particularly East Flintshire?

    9
    Would he not agree that, in those circumstances, there is, on new housing estates, a real and acute need for nursery school provision? Is there any action that he might take to encourage and assist local authorities to provide more nursery schools?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, I am aware of the great increase in population in Flintshire, but priority at this stage is being given to the replacement of inadequate pre-1903 primary schools. Later, I hope, we shall be able to give greater priority to the needs of nursery schools. I am, however, continuing to develop nursery education in areas of special need.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that there are now five times the number of mothers working in Wales that there were in 1950, and that this creates a substantial social problem, to which the provision of nursery schools is part of the answer?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Yes, a lot of children under five go to primary schools; 57 per cent. of the four-year-old age group are in primary schools.

    Local Government Reform
    Mr. Roderickasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will prolong the period for receiving submissions on the Consultative Document on the Reform of Local Government in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have received no requests for an extension of time, and I believe there is a general feeling that the 3½ months allowed for comment has been ample. However, where there has been a change of political control I am prepared to consider any request I may receive for a reasonable extension of time.
    Mr. Roderick: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it would be wiser to await the outcome of the Crowther Report on the Constitution? Can he honestly expect a county like Powys, which is envisaged, to comment on the proposals when it does not know what will be in the Green Paper on the financing of local government? Last, would he not consider that it is difficult for some areas where a change of boundaries is envisaged to have all the neces-
    10
    sary consultations, in view of the fact that it takes the Secretary of State six weeks to reply to letters as it is?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, I do not agree that we should await the Crowther Report. In that, I accept the view of the previous Administration, as indeed it was their view about the publication of the Green Paper on finance. We have made it clear that we intend to legislate in 1971–72, and for that reason it is very important that we should get the views of local authorities as soon as possible.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman help the consultative process by explaining how he assumes a community of interest to exist between the city of Swansea and small Tory villages 10 miles outside its boundaries but not between Swansea and Labour-voting areas which actually adjoin existing Swansea suburbs?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I shall be very interested to receive the view of the local authorities in and around Swansea. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall pay particular attention to their views. My sole concern is to have proper and effective local government reorganisation.
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he now proposes to issue a White Paper setting out his proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that a White Paper would give him the opportunity to withdraw his present gerrymandering proposals and place the interests of Wales, for the first time, above those of the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I shall announce my final decision on local government reorganisation in the light of representations made to me by local authorities and other bodies. I shall announce my final decision in the way which seems most appropriate at the time.
    Mr. Elystan Morganasked the Secretary of State for Wales if following the discussions between himself and Lord

    11
    Crowther on local government reorganisation in Wales, he will now agree to postpone acting upon the proposals for reorganisation contained in his White Paper until the Crowther Commission on the Constitution makes its report.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: No, Sir. This Government, like their predecessors, do not consider that the Commission should constitute a bar to action where this is urgently needed.
    Mr. Morgan: What was the point of the Crowther Commission meeting in public to take evidence and of the Secretary of State publishing his White Paper as a consultative document if both are to be materially affected by covert conversations between the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Crowther Commission?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that, as I have told the House, I did not discuss with the Chairman of the Commission what his proposals might be. I saw the Chairman of the Commission to let him know what my proposals for local government reorganisation were. I wished it also to be confirmed that there was no objection to my going ahead with those proposals.

    Free School Milk
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many children aged 7 to 11 years are attending schools in Wales; and what is the amount which he expects to save by the decision to end supplies of free milk to this age group.
    Mr. Alec Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many schoolchildren in Wales will cease to receive free school milk following the Government's announcement on 27th October, 1970.
    Mr. Barry Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he has received advocating amendment of the Education (Milk) Bill, so that local education authorities could expend moneys to provide free school milk for pupils under 11 years of age; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: There are about 160,000 children aged 7–11 years attend-
    12
    ing maintained primary schools in Wales. It is estimated that the withdrawal of free milk from this age group will save about £400,000 in a full year. No letters have been received in my Department advocating amendments to the Government's proposals.
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this unforgivable blow against the younger school-children in Wales will cost him far more than the £400,000 to which he has referred? Will he consult medical and educational authorities in Wales about the likely consequences of a combination of the deprivation of free school milk and the higher school meal charges? Has he taken into account the possibility of damage to the children of Wales through this wanton and foolish act?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: This matter has been considered very carefully. It is the Government's view that it is a saving in Government money which can be made without any adverse effect on the health of the pupils. The right hon. Gentleman will know that children who require school milk on medical grounds will continue to receive free milk.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not ashamed and humiliated to put his hand to this flinty and heartless measure? Could he not attempt to adjust this so as to enable milk to be paid for out of the rates by the local education authority?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: This is a gross exaggeration. In this day and age it is not thought that one third of a pint of milk for a child for 200 days in the year, which will be supplementary to its diet at home and meals at school, is essential to ensure that our children are adequately nourished. The position is that if a child between the ages of 7 and 12 needs milk on medical grounds, it will get it free.
    Mr. Fred Evans: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of Early Day Motion No. 554, standing in my name and the names of 162 hon. and right hon. Members, calling upon the Government to change their mind and allow local authorities to continue this service out of the rates? Has he read the studies by the Head of the Social Nutrition Research Unit, Dr. Lynch, of Queen Elizabeth College? Is he further aware that the

    13
    Secretary of the Association of Education Committees, Sir William Alexander, has come out in support of this idea and that many other local authorities wish to continue with this service? Will he try to touch with some compassion the heart of the flinty female who is at present the Secretary of State for Education and Science?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: This is a saving of Government expenditure. The money saved will be spent in those areas where it is considered that there is a greater need.
    Mr. George Thomas: Sixpence off tax!
    Mr. Peter Thomas: As to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, the Bill has yet to receive a Second Reading, and there will be ample opportunity at this and subsequent stages for discussion of all aspects of the Government's proposals.
    Mr. George Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    St. Clears—Carmarthen Road (Dual Carriageway)
    Mr. Gwynoro Jonesasked the Secretary of State for Wales if he can now announce the starting dates for the construction of the dual carriageway from St. Clears.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the proposed dual carriageway road between St. Clears and Carmarthen. This is in the preparation pool but it is too early yet to give a starting date.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Minister not accept that, especially at this time of the year and until September, the road between St. Clears and Carmarthen, and Carmarthen itself, is subjected to traffic congestion every weekend over a length of about six miles? Would he not further accept that the construction of the motorway to Pontardulais by 1976—which is greatly welcomed by everyone on both sides of the House—will mean, unless there is provision for Carmarthen and the dual carriageway to St. Clears, that traffic
    14
    will move into this area all the sooner, causing even greater queues?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I certainly accept that there are difficulties. It is not possible to forecast a starting date for schemes in the preparation pool since this depends, among other things, on the time needed to complete the statutory processes and to acquire land. Work will be carried out as soon as possible after these steps have been completed.

    Infrastructure
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales what new expenditure, other than that for road building, he has incurred since taking office on improving the economic infrastructure of the five North Wales counties.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I have authorised expenditure by North Wales local authorities of £2,905,000 on water, sewerage, coast protection and derelict land schemes, and approved grant aid of £341,500.
    Mr. Ellis: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that the beneficial results on the economy of the North Wales counties as a result of this policy are better than the results that would have accrued had the policy of the previous Administration been followed? If he is, can he say in which respects?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Many of the policies which I am now following are a continuation of the policies of the previous Administration. I warmly welcome any worth-while infrastructure improvement undertaken by Welsh local authorities. As a Government, we are considering the question of applying the provisions of the Local Employment Act more flexibly.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that if he can get a favourable decision for building an integrated steel works at Shotton and an early decision on the Dee crossing he will fill our cups with happiness in North Wales—if not to overflowing, then at least to near the brim?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I can understand the interest of my hon. Friend in these two schemes but I do not think that either of them can be classed as infrastructure.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if he can get any decision at all about the steel industry out of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, it will be a 100 per cent. improvement?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt await with interest the debate which is to follow Questions. I know that the House will be interested to hear him.

    Hospitals
    Mr. Colemanasked the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has received for the redevelopment of the Neath General Hospital from the Welsh Hospital Board.
    The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt): I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 1st February, 1971.—[Vol. 810, c. 228.]
    Mr. Coleman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the grave concern being expressed in Neath at the delay in implementing the plans for this hospital, which were formulated as long ago as the time of the previous Conservative Administration? Will he confirm that the delay in deciding on the question of the medical school in Swansea will not be used to hold up the redevelopment of this rather important hospital?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Welsh Hospital Board is at present considering its plans for the hospital services in the West Glamorgan area. As to the last point, I can assure him that the question of the establishment of the medical school at Swansea will not delay a decision on the development of Neath General Hospital.
    Mr. Denzil Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Wales what recent consultations he has had with the Chairman of the Welsh Hospital Board regarding the future of Llanelly General Hospital.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: None. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on 16th July, 1970.—[Vol. 803, c. 267, 268.]
    Mr. Davies: Is the Minister of State aware that there is considerable anxiety
    16
    in my constituency that the establishment of a medical school providing 1,500 beds at Swansea might well lead to the closure of Llanelly Hospital? Would he, therefore, give an assurance that if that medical school is to be in Swansea—which we would welcome—no more than 800 beds will be provided on a single site and that the remainder of the beds will be distributed between Llanelly and the other surrounding hospitals?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I accept the hon. Gentleman's anxieties over this question and the matter of numbers. I repeat what I have said to his hon. Friend just now, that the hospital service in the area of his constituency will not be hurt by a possible medical school which may, at some time, come to Swansea.

    Severnside Study Report
    Mr. Probertasked the Secretary of State for Wales, in view of the possible effects of the Severnside Study proposals upon the existing communities in Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire, if he will initiate immediately a study group or working party to consider those effects and to consider counter proposals for the revitalising of the valley communities.
    Mr. Kinnockasked the Secretary of State for Wales what consideration he has given to the Severnside Study Report; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The Government welcome this report as a contribution to the planning of Severnside but they are in no sense committed to its conclusions and recommendations. Before forming a view on these, my right hon. and learned Friend will be seeking the comments of the Welsh Council, the local planning authorities and others. I am confident that in formulating their views these bodies will have in mind the implications for existing communities in South Wales.
    Mr. Probert: In view of the hon. Gentleman's assurance recently that the Severnside development would not be permitted until the problems of South Wales had been solved, will he state whether this is Government policy?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I do not retreat from anything I said in Cardiff at the Press conference which I gave. In this connection we must remember that the Severnside report was commissioned by

    17
    the Labour Party when it was in government. I am glad to say that the Government are satisfied that the recommendations of this report will not be put into commission until the economic problems of South Wales have been satisfactorily dealt with.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that hon. Members on this side of the House and people in Wales generally are comforted by his assurances, but that they nevertheless find that those assurances conflict somewhat with the policy followed by the Government in other spheres, since the Severnside study appears to be encouraging the idea of growth based on so-called natural growth points? Is he aware that we find it strange that the Government should be embracing the idea that there will be planned growth in Wales before natural growth takes place on Severnside?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: If the hon. Gentleman will study the report, he will find that he is not correct in what he has said.
    Mr. Adley: If my hon. Friend welcomes this public relations exercise on behalf of the Government, would he accept my word that many people in the areas concerned, certainly in the Bristol/ Bath area, find the report little more than a collection of statistics, most of which were available anyway? Is my hon. Friend aware that the almost non-existent mention of transport in the region, certainly in the Bristol/Bath area, surprises many people? Is he also aware that any report that purports to be about developing the area but does not mention the new Avon Bridge, due to open next year, is virtually meaningless?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: My hon. Friend will realise that I am answering the Question from a Welsh point of view entirely. This is not a publicity exercise on behalf of the Government. If any country is faced with an increase in population of 11 million between now and the year 2000, it is right to carry out such plans.
    Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Welsh area of Severside ought to have a greater degree of priority than the suggested North Gloucestershire development of Severn-side, and that it would be much better for the Government to continue development south-west of the Severn rather than pur-
    18
    sue a policy, as envisaged in the report, of developing the area of Staunton, Huntley and the North side of Gloucester.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: I should not like to enter into particular arguments between one part of the country and another. The hon. Gentleman knows Gloucester and his constituency better than I do. This inquiry, which was started by the Labour Party and which has now been published by the Government, ought to be looked to by planners wherever they may be, in Wales or in that part of England, who have a job to do.

    Bala
    Mr. William Edwardsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance is available from Government resources to Bala Urban District Council to enable it to develop the township of Bala to double its present size.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Bala, being within the development area, benefits from assistance available under the Local Employment Acts.
    Mr. Edwards: Having heard the Minister's interesting thesis that it is not his task to differentiate between areas in trying to develop them and bring in new population, may I ask whether it is part of that thesis which is preventing Government assistance to towns like Bala, which the Government have designated as growth points? Is it not cynical of the Government to tell these towns that they should develop, when they cannot afford to do so because they do not have the means to build houses and factories?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The lion. Gentleman will be glad to know that arrangements have been made for my right hon. and learned Friend to meet representatives of the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association shortly and to have full discussions on the problems of town expansion in Mid-Wales.

    Commission on the Constitution (Welsh Panel)
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to seek to meet the Welsh Panel of the Commission on the Constitution.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: None, Sir.
    Mr. John: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it would be worth while, in view of his meaningless assurance as to his consultation with Lord Crowther, to meet this panel to assess what it thinks of his local government proposals and anything that the panel may recommend?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: As far as I can remember the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question on the previous occasion, I am afraid that he is under a misapprehension about the meeting which I had with the Chairman of the Commission. My meeting with Lord Crowther was entirely in the context of my proposals for the reorganisation of local government in Wales, and its purpose was simply to inform him of my intentions and to ensure that there were no objections from his standpoint to my going ahead.
    Mr. Alan Williams: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate whether by "going ahead" he means merely publishing or actually implementing?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Lord Crowther fully accepted that it was undesirable to defer decisions on local government reform in Wales pending the report of his Commission. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, this was equally accepted and emphasised by the previous Government.
    Mr. William Edwards: Is not the Secretary of State aware that in Wales we do things democratically? How is he sure that Lord Crowther holds exactly the same view as all the other members of his Commission?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I was not seeking the views of anyone except Lord Crowther. I was asking the Chairman of the Commission whether he saw any objection. It was the Government's intention, as it was that of the previous Administration, to go ahead with local government reorganisation without waiting for the Commission's report.

    National Health Service (Consultative Document)
    Mr. Roderickasked the Secretary of State for Wales whether he proposes to publish a consultative document on the
    20
    reorganisation of the National Health Service in Wales similar to the one released by the Department of Health and Social Services on 17th May.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: My right hon. and learned Friend will publish a consultative document shortly.
    Mr. Roderick: Will the Minister say whether the consultative document will be on the same lines as the one just published for England? Shall we have more meaningful consultations than those to which we have been accustomed in the past?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: The principles underlying the reorganisation proposals are the same in both countries, but the hon. Gentleman must await the document for details of any differences there may be between the administrative structures proposed for England and for Wales.

    Industrial Establishments (Visits)
    Mr. George Thomasasked the Secretary of State for Wales what industrial establishments in Wales he has visited officially during the past month; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: None. Had, however, the right hon. Gentleman picked the coming month, the answer would have been three.
    Mr. George Thomas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is succumbing at last to the pressures we are putting upon him. Is he aware then when he visits Wales he will find deep depression in industrial circles? There is a complete lack of confidence in the Government's policies in view of the mounting unemployment that they are causing.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying "mounting unemployment". He will be aware that the unemployment figures dropped last month. In the past month I have had many engagements in Wales on these very matters. I am fully aware of the situation in Wales. I had eight engagements in London and five in Wales on industrial development matters.

    School Meals
    Mr. Probertasked the Secretary of State for Wales what effect the increase

    21
    in charge for school meals has had upon the number of children taking school meals in Wales.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: This information is not yet available. It has been estimated that, overall, there will be a fall of about 12 per cent. in the number of children taking meals.
    Mr. Probert: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that statistical evidence already shows in other areas a marked decline in the number of children taking school meals and that, in view of these statistics, there is rapidly growing concern on the part of all concerned about the possible effects upon children's health? Therefore, will he do all he can to get his Cabinet colleagues to change this niggardly policy?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not know that any statistical evidence at present obtainable is accurate. A survey is being undertaken the result of which will be available in June. The purpose of the survey is to ascertain how much of the fall is due to higher charges or to the normal seasonal decline at this time of year and also to show the effect of the more generous scales for the remission of charges.
    Mr. Kinnock: What do the Government propose to do if it is true that the take-up of school meals has fallen since the imposition of higher charges? As the Secretary of State is responsible for part of education in Wales, will he dissociate himself from the remarks and the weird logic of the Secretary of State for Education and Science who in a television programme encouraged the teaching of young children in deceit by going through a charade in presenting dinner money on Monday mornings?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend engaged in deceit in any way.
    Mr. Kinnock: She encouraged the teaching of it.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: My right hon. Friend's programme was greatly appreciated. After the two increases in charges which were made by the previous Administration, which together represented a 75 per cent. increase, the numbers of children taking school meals initially decreased but then rose again,
    22
    by both numbers and percentage, and at the end there was an increase in the number taking school meals.

    Mental Patients (Private Boarding House Accommodation)
    Mr. Ellisasked the Secretary of State for Wales how many private boarding houses in North Wales now cater for patients discharged from the North Wales Hospital for mentally disordered people; and how many are registered with the county authorities.
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Eighteen, of which five have been registered.
    Mr. Ellis: Is the Minister of State aware that it has been the policy of local authorities in North Wales to secure the registration of these boarding houses and that this policy, which was beginning to bear fruit, as the figures show, is being jeopardised by the absurd ruling of the Department of Health and Social Security that the allowances paid to each patient are reduced by approximately £2 per week when the houses are registered? Will the hon. Gentleman look into the matter and consult his colleague with a view to preventing a very successful and promising development from being jeopardised?
    Mr. Gibson-Watt: Yes, Sir.

    Manufacturing Industry (Redundancies)
    Mr. Alan Williamsasked the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the percentage increase in redundancies announced in Welsh manufacturing industry from 1st January, 1971, to the latest available date compared with the similar periods in each of the two preceding years.
    Mr. Peter Thomas: Redundancies in Welsh manufacturing industry notified to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment's Department amounted to about 8,100 in the period January to April, 1971. This was respectively 195 per cent. and 140 per cent. more than in the same periods in 1970 and 1969.
    Mr. Williams: Is the Secretary of State aware that Welsh unemployment is at the moment 16 per cent. higher than it was

    23
    a year ago and that the figures he has just given, showing a trebling in the rate of increase in redundancies in manufacturing industry, are an absolutely staggering increase and a devastating indictment of a failure of his and his Government's policies and reveal the extent to which they are undermining the very industrial diversity which Wales needs and which the Labour Government built up over six years?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am fully aware of the level of unemployment. It is a level which concerns us all, and one which is too high. One can take some comfort from the fact that the Welsh share of Great Britain's unemployment has fallen steadily over the past year and Wales has stood up better than certain other parts of the country to recent difficulties.
    Mr. John Morris: Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the industrial visits he is making next month is to the aluminium smelter at Anglesey? Was not this smelter built with the aid of investment grants? Will he explain to those he meets how that smelter would have come about without the policy of the Labour Government?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: I am aware that the R.T.Z. smelter plant at Anglesey was built during the time of the late Government.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Was not the R.T.Z. smelter built only as a result of the rejection of the first proposition put up by R.T.Z., which was that it should go ahead in conjunction with the Atomic Energy Authority? Was not the plan it had to adopt during the time of the late Government very much a second best; and has not the industry been twisted by the fact that we had to have three instead of two smelters?
    Mr. George Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that when he compares the increase in unemployment in Wales with the unemployment in the rest of the United Kingdom he brings comfort to no one? What we want from him are practical proposals for increasing employment in the Principality?
    Mr. Peter Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman should take comfort from the fact that when there are difficulties in
    24
    the United Kingdom as a whole Wales e has been able to withstand them better than she has done in previous years. As regards proposals for stimulating the economy, I suggest that he looks in detail s at the measures which have been e announced by the Government and, in particular, the Budget.

  PART-TIME STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES
  Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Attorney-General if he will take steps to enable part-time stipendiary magistrates to be appointed to deal with long trials or committal proceedings, particularly where accused persons are being remanded in custody in areas where only lay magistrates sit at present.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): The hon. Member's proposals would require legislation but the suggestion will certainly be studied and borne in mind when a suitable opportunity for such legislation occurs.
  Mr. Davis: While I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, can he indicate when such legislation is likely to be introduced? Is he aware of the great injustice caused to a substantial number of people who are remanded in custody in circumstances such as I have described, simply because a lay justice can sit in a court only once or twice a week?
  The Attorney-General: There have also been suggestions by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate about the greater use of a whole-time stipendiary magistrate to travel around. Delays occur mainly from lack of accommodation. I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has suggested.

  LEGAL AID SCHEME (TRIBUNALS)
  Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Attorney-General if he will now take steps to enable legal aid to be extended to further tribunals.
  The Attorney-General: The extension of legal aid to further tribunals will be considered in the light of research now

  25
  taking place into the need for legal assistance in those proceedings.
  Mr. Davis: Is the Attorney-General aware that tenants appearing before rent assessment tribunals are frequently prejudiced because they cannot afford legal representation, whereas landlords can afford not only that but expert advice? Does not he think that the matter requires urgent attention?
  The Attorney-General: The question of legal representation before tribunals is being studied by the Nuffield Foundation, the Universities of Birmingham, Newcastle and Edinburgh and the Cobden Trust. The Committee on the Rent Acts was not in favour of legal aid being made available in proceedings before rent assessment committees, and there are indications that other bodies have been suggesting that legal assistance is not perhaps the most appropriate.
  Sir Elwyn Jones: What progress is being made in the provision of facilities for expert witnesses to be called for tenants before rent tribunals? It would seem that priority should be given to that problem.
  The Attorney-General: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is correct, that very often the need is for the expert rather than for legal assistance. I will make inquiries, as I cannot tell him exactly what progress has been made in that respect.

  PINNOCK FINANCE COMPANY
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Attorney-General why, in view of the report on the Pinnock Finance Company crash and the prima-facie evidence submitted therein of alleged fraud and various other illegalities, the Director of Public Prosecutions has decided to take no action; and whether he will make a statement.
  The Attorney-General: The report by the Board of Trade Inspectors was received by the Director of Public Prosecutions in May, 1970. After discussion with me, the Director decided in June, 1970, that, having regard to the nature of the available evidence, police inquiries would not be warranted at this stage.
  Mr. Lewis: Why, in view of the evidence in that report, did the Director of Public Prosecutions issue a statement which in effect gave notice to one of the people mentioned in the report, who was then in residence in Australia and could have been extradited, so that he could flee to a country with which we had no extradition arrangements? Surely that was warning him to get away, which he has now done?
  The Attorney-General: I have no knowledge of the person to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. The whereabouts of the principal concerned is unknown, and has been unknown since 1967. There have been various rumours of his whereabouts, but they have not been substantiated, and the police have no knowledge of where he is now.

  MURDER CASE (FILM)
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that the Commissioner of Police has admitted that the Metropolitan Police co-operated with the British Broadcasting Corporation in making a film of the McKay murder case whilst the appeal and appeal proceedings were pending; and whether he will take action against the police and the British Broadcasting Corporation for interfering with the process of justice in a matter which was sub judice.
  The Attorney-General: I am satisfied that the making of this film, which was broadcast after the appeal had been dismissed, did not interfere with the administration of justice, or prejudice the appeal in any way. There are no grounds for taking any action.
  Mr. Lewis: Whilst I pay tribute to the police for their efforts in apprehending the criminals and having them convicted, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think it is wrong that before the accused were properly charged, before the trial had begun, before their appeal had begun, and before the appeal had been heard, negotiations were taking place and work had begun on the making of the film, which was finished and shown within three weeks of the result of the appeal? Should not justice not only be done but be seen to be done? As this has been the only occasion on

  27
  which this has happened, will the Attorney-General see that it is the last?
  The Attorney-General: The only question with regard to the prejudice of an appeal is whether the Lords Justices would have been prejudiced. As they did not see the film, there was no question of any prejudice to the appeal.

  MAINTENANCE ORDERS
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Attorney-General how many letters have been received by his Department, for a convenient period during the last 12 months, from women who complain that court orders, in their favour, involving alimony, have not been implemented; and what replies he has sent.
  The Attorney-General: During the six months from 1st November, 1970, to 30th April, 1971, nine such complaints were received by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. The content of each reply sent has related to the exact nature of the particular complaint. While my noble Friend cannot himself give legal advice to individuals, replies have included information about the relevant law and procedure, including, recently, the Attachment of Earnings Act, 1971, and about the availability of legal aid.
  Mr. Dalyell: Since the recent Government circular, is there any sign that the courts have become less lethargic about the matter?
  The Attorney-General: The Government are considering how improvements can be made in the procedure for enforcement. The Attachment of Earnings Act will assist, I hope. Magistrates' courts have power to obtain a husband's address, for instance, through the Department of Health and Social Security.

  SOLICITORS (CONVEYANCING CHARGES)
  Mr. Kaufmanasked the Attorney-General whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the action he proposes to take to implement the recommendations in Report No. 164 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, Command Paper No. 4624, with regard
  28
  to the reduction of conveyancing charges by solicitors.
  The Attorney-General: I would refer the hon. Member to my answer to his supplementary question on 19th April. The necessary studies have not yet been completed.—[Vol. 815, c. 809–810.]
  Mr. Kaufman: Is the Attorney-General aware that it is nearly two months since that Report was published? Should not the Government take action now to implement the recommendations of the Prices and Incomes Board so that the power of this closed shop can be broken and people who wish to buy their homes can be given greater assistance?
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman has obviously not remembered the answer I gave him on 19th April. The Report was received on 1st April. The recommendations were to be studied in the light of the Monopolies Commission Report. That Report has been received, the Law Society's reflections upon it have been received, and all are under consideration.

  OBSCENE OR INDECENT MATERIAL (DISTRIBUTION)
  Mr. Dempseyasked the Attorney-General how many prosecutions under the Post Office Act, 1953, concerning the delivery of obscene or indecent material by post have been carried out in the last five years; and how many convictions have been obtained.
  The Attorney-General: The Director of Public Prosecutions prosecuted in 81 such cases, of which 69 were successful.
  Mr. Dempsey: Is the Attorney-General aware that a 10-year-old primary schoolgirl received pornographic literature through the post twice within 14 days, and that after police investigation the Director of Public Prosecutions refused to act? Is it not about time that we strengthened the law to protect innocent children against pornographic morons?
  The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman will give me the details of that case, I will have it investigated.
  Mr. Dempsey: I sent them to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I direct attention to a point which will, I think, cause increasing irritation to back-bench members unless some action is taken fairly rapidly. I have given you, Mr. Speaker, prior notice of the point.
  I have two Questions on today's Order Paper—Nos. 26 and 42. They were tabled at the same time and I wrote on them which was to be first and which was to be second. I also made the point when I spoke to the Clerk in the Table Office. They appear on the Order Paper in the reverse order so that the Question which I regarded as being of greater importance has not been reached.
  May I, on behalf of back-bench Members, ask you, Mr. Speaker, to check with the Table Office to see whether a less fallible system of indicating priority in Questions can be established?
  Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he would raise this point. He is perfectly correct. His two Questions should have been printed in the opposite order. The mistake arose in the course of the final grouping of Questions on the Order Paper which, since the Resolution of the House on 7th April, has become quite a complicated process. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The reasons why it happened are being carefully studied, and we hope that it will not happen again.
  Mr. Loughlin: On a point of order. May I ask, with great respect, why the point of order was taken prior to 3.30?
  Mr. Speaker: It is for me to judge the time.

AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT (YUGOSLAVIA)
Mr. Leslie Huckfield (by Private Notice)Mr. Leslie Huckfield (by Private Notice) asked the Minister for Trade whether he would make a statement about the Yugoslav air disaster.
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble): A Tupalev 134A aircraft, operated by Aviogenex, a Yugoslav company, on a flight from Gatwick, crashed on the approach to Rijeka airport on
30
the Adriatic island of Krk at 1955 hours G.M.T. yesterday. There was a major fire and 73 British passengers lost their lives, of whom 28 were men, 35 women and 10 children. Three Yugoslav passengers and three Yugoslav stewards were also killed, but four other crew members and a courier escaped with injuries.
The Yugoslav authorities have set up a Commission of Investigation, and Mr. Stewart, the British Ambassador to Yugoslavia, has accompanied the President of the Commission to the site of the accident. Because the aircraft crashed in Yugoslavia and was registered there, and had been manufactured in the Soviet Union, the investigation of the accident is a matter for the Yugoslav authorities. The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944, Annex 13, does not give us a right to take part, but, contrary to what may appear from some of the newspapers, it does not prevent our doing so. In fact, we have offered to assist and the Yugoslav authorities have agreed that two members of our Accident Investigation Branch may attend as observers. Two Inspectors of Accidents are now on their way to Rijeka.
Her Majesty has asked that her condolences should be sent to the relatives of those who have lost their lives. A message of condolence has been received from the Yugoslav Director General of Civil Aviation, for which I would like to express my gratitude. I know the House will wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy with the relatives of all who have lost their lives in this disaster.
Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information. I am sure the whole House would wish to be associated with his expressions of sympathy. While it is far too early to conjecture about the cause of the accident, may I ask him whether he can give any further information about contact which he has had with the Yugoslav authorities and when he expects the report to be published in this country?
Mr. Noble: As the hon. Gentleman said, it is too early to speculate on the causes of the accident. We have been

31
in touch with the Yugoslav authorities, and, as I told the House, they have agreed that our accident investigators should take part in investigating what happened. Until a little more is known, it is difficult to say when the report will be available.
Mr. Mason: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the Minister's expression of sympathy to all those who have lost friends and relatives in this tragic accident, particularly when one realises that a highly qualified pilot, a modern aircraft and a modern airport were involved? I hope that he will be prepared to offer the full services of his highly experienced accident and safety branch to the Yugoslavs if they require them for the accident inquiry as distinct from the observers.
May I add a word of thanks to Yugo-tours, which acted so promptly and sympathetically in making a flight immediately available for the relatives of those involved in the accident? It is only small consolation, but it means so much to them.
Mr. Noble: I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about Yugo-tours' very prompt action. It is a small consolation, but it was a right and proper thing to have done. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if the Yugoslav Government ask for help from any of our inspectors in connection with this tragic accident it will be made available.

PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (TALKS)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the visit which I made to Paris last week.
I should like first to tell the House of the warmth of the welcome which I received from the President of the French Republic and from the Prime Minister and his colleagues. I was impressed by their unmistakable desire for a renewal of friendship and co-operation between Britain and France, as an essential element in the growing unity of Europe.
My talks with President Pompidou extended altogether over a period of
32
something like eleven hours. Except for a short time at the end of the talks when we were joined by the Prime Minister of France, we were accompanied during this time only by interpreters. This enabled us to deal with the wide range of subjects covered in the communiqué issued at the end of the talks, which I will with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Our main area of discussion was the whole field of European policy. It was heartening to discover how close are the views of the French and British Governments on the development of Europe and its rôle in the world.
Our talks showed that both Governments wish to bring about the development of a united Europe through an enlarged European Community. We do not intend this as a defensive alliance against external threat. We see it as certainly the best means and probably the only means, in the world of today, of guaranteeing peace within Europe, providing prosperity for her peoples, and restoring to Europe that political, economic and cultural influence in the world that her traditions and her potential justify.
We also found an identity of view on the rôle which a united Europe can play in relation to the problems which face us in other parts of the world, and particularly in relation to the developing countries, where there is so much that an enlarged community which included Britain and France could contribute.
We discussed the development of the European Community and the working of its institutions. We agreed in particular that the identity of national states should be maintained in the framework of the developing Community. This means, of course, that, though the European Commission has made and will continue to make a valuable contribution, the Council of Ministers should continue to be the forum in which important decisions are taken, and that the processes of harmonisation should not override essential national interests. We were in agreement that the maintenance and strengthening of the fabric of co-operation in such a Community requires that decisions should in practice be taken by unanimous agreement when vital national interests of any one or more members are at stake.
This is indeed entirely in accordance with the views which I have long held.

33
It provides a clear assurance, just as the history of the Community provides clear evidence, that joining the Community does not entail a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential national sovereignty.
As to the means by which greater unity and co-operation could be achieved, our primary concern was with the development of common economic policies, in the context of the British application for entry into the European Communities. But we both saw this as the basis for closer political collaboration, if the negotiations for enlargement of the Communities could be brought to a successful conclusion. We had only a brief discussion of defence questions, recognising that these were matters for the future, after enlargement.
We reviewed the progress made in the Community towards economic and monetary union, following the meeting of the six Heads of Government in The Hague in December 1969. I told President Pompidou that Britain looked forward wholeheartedly to joining in the economic and monetary development of the Community, if negotiations for British accession could be satisfactorily concluded. We both arrived at a clearer understanding of each other's anxieties and objectives in this field; and I was able to dispel any reservations which the French Government might have felt about the British Government's willingness, which my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have often expressed, to accept the consequences of this development for its own policies.
We agreed upon the need to negotiate suitable arrangements for those members of E.F.T.A. who are not applying for membership of the enlarged Community, and thus to avoid the re-erection of trade barriers between them and the Community.
We discussed the problems which would arise as a result of enlargement of the Communities, when the time came to renew the Yaoundé Convention. The House will have noted that our agreement on the need to safeguard the existing rights of present associations under the Convention was matched by our agreement on the need to safeguard the
34
interests of future associates under a new Convention and particularly of those who would depend largely on exports to the enlarged Community of sugar or other primary products.
Finally, the President and I reviewed the progress of the enlargement negotiations. We did not attempt to reach definite conclusions on issues which fall to be considered within the negotiating conference in Brussels and Luxembourg. But the President emphasised the importance he attached to the system of Community preference and his welcome for Britain's acceptance of this principle immediately upon entry into the Community which had been agreed upon at the last Brussels meeting. I went over the main issues involved in a settlement of Britain's contribution to the Community budget in the years leading up to the full implementation of the Community's system of financing its expenditure. And I emphasised to President Pompidou the importance of reaching satisfactory arrangements for New Zealand. I also explained the difficulties presented for us by the existing fisheries regulation. On all these points, though we did not seek to arrive at final conclusions, President Pompidou's attitude was positive and constructive.
The results of our exchanges on these matters are best demonstrated in our joint conclusion that it is desirable and possible to reach early agreement in the negotiations between Britain and the Community. The President and I both felt able to say after our talks that we were confident that the main issues could be settled before the end of June.
There are still important questions to resolve, and there is still much hard work to be done before Her Majesty's Government will be in a position to come to Parliament with an account of the arrangements on which our entry into the European Communities can be negotiated. But this I can say today as a result of my talks with the President of the French Republic. I am confident that the divisions and suspicions which have so hampered relations between Britain and France in recent years have now been removed. We have established that the views of the two Governments are very close over the whole range of European policies. The French President has shown his clear desire to proceed

35
with the building of a united Europe on the basis of an enlarged Community, with Britain as a member. We can therefore approach both the final phase of our negotiations for entry into the Communities and, if they go well, the development of Europe thereafter, in a spirit of confidence and partnership. I believe that this opens the prospect of a degree of unity, and thus of peace and prosperity, in Western Europe which our continent has never seen before, and which would be of profound significance for Britain, for Europe and for the whole world.
Mr. Harold Wilson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, which was inevitably, and, rightly, somewhat lengthy, could I ask him if he would be good enough to confirm that no defence questions were raised in these talks and that there was no issue at any time in the private discussions of any future Anglo-French joint nuclear arrangements or of any future defence proposals other than those which fit foursquare into the Western alliance?
Secondly, in view of the reports, which appear to be authoritative, that limits in the discussions were set to the terms both in regard to the period of years and quantities, and that a settlement of the New Zealand question could be negotiated at Brussels, would the right hon. Gentleman say, in the light of what he has just told the House, whether President Pompidou as a result of those discussions has now withdrawn the term he used three times in a B.B.C. broadcast when he said that there must be a rupture of our own food import arrangements from New Zealand?
Thirdly, with regard to the budgetary contribution which the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned, having regard to the inevitably disproportionate burden on Britain which would result from food levies—as I think the whole House has recognised from the outset—would the right hon. Gentleman now say whether he feels, following these talks, that the likely budgetary contribution to be negotiated will be one which will not place an undue burden on this country and, in particular, force this country into a continuing period of devaluation to maintain our balance of payments over the first difficult years?
36
Finally, would the right hon. Gentleman confirm the impression which I think the House got from the answers given us by the Leader of the House two weeks ago about parliamentary debate and stated, I think, quite specifically by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster a week ago, that when the terms are known there will be published to the House a White Paper which the House will be able to debate, and have adequate time to debate, without being asked at that time to take a yes or no decision on the terms, and that subsequently, when the country equally has had time to absorb and consider these vitally important issues, as we all recognise them to be, then, in the autumn, we will be asked to take the decision?
The Prime Minister: I have told the House that the amount of time which we devoted to the discussion of defence was very small indeed. We both accepted that the position of Britain, within N.A.T.O., and that of France, which is a member of the alliance but has withdrawn from N.A.T.O., is different. If when the Community is enlarged Europe is, in accordance with its other policies, to develop a defence policy, these matters will have to be discussed at that time, but there could have been no discussion last week at our meeting. As far as nuclear questions are concerned, both France and Britain are nuclear Powers, and there was no discussion of any arrangement. I was not asked for any offer; I made no offer; and the matter was left exactly where it stands today.
On the question of New Zealand, this is a matter which has to be settled in Brussels. The President was, quite rightly, adamant that the negotiations must be continued with the Six. In exactly the same way as in my talks with Chancellor Brandt, there has been no attempt to reach a settlement of individual problems, and the same was true in Paris.
As for our future relationship with New Zealand on trade, as with other countries, there may be changes in trading patterns, but so far as the continuation of trade is concerned, it will continue, and the form will be negotiated in Brussels.
We shall, of course, wish to publish a White Paper as soon as we can set out the conclusions on the main problems, which both the President and I believed

37
could be settled in June. We are considering the form in which the House will wish to debate this and the amount of time which will be required. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be having discussions through the usual channels with the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman inadvertently did not answer my question about budgetary contributions. Before he does so, I thank him for his other answers, but do I understand that there is now no question of an Anglo-French nuclear deal of the kind which the right hon. Gentleman used to advocate from this bench? That is how I take his answer, and I hope that he will confirm that is the case. On New Zealand, I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said as representing the viewpoint put by Her Majesty's Government, but did he make clear for his part that we cannot accept any proposals involving a rupture of Anglo-New Zealand trade?
The Prime Minister: I discussed with the President the new proposals on Community financing put forward at the last Brussels meeting. I said that I thought these would help to remove any suggestion that we were not accepting the full system of Community financing which had, after all, been accepted by both administrations. I said that the arrangements for it should not be such as would appear at the end of the period to be too great a burden for us to assume so that there might be a desire to try to change the whole system. It was agreed that the actual arrangements, to be satisfactory, must not place an unbearable burden on the balance of payments or across the exchanges, and that was accepted.
On New Zealand, I did not enter into a discussion about the actual words used on television. I discussed the nature of the arrangements which can be made to produce a satisfactory arrangement for New Zealand, but this will be dealt with in Brussels—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not now?"]—because they have to be settled with all the members of the Community. As it has been known that the French negotiators have hitherto taken a certain negotiating position on New Zealand, what satisfied me was that the President's response was positive in respect of obtain-
38
ing a satisfactory arrangement for New Zealand—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]—I am not going to answer questions about details which will be settled in Brussels.
As I have already told the right hon. Gentleman, no agreement of any kind was reached between us on any aspect of defence. What was agreed was that if, in the context of the enlarged Community, Europe wishes to move towards its own defence policy, that is a matter to be settled by the European members at the time that they consider it.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will my right hon. Friend say whether in the course of these discussions the President indicated an understanding of the moral obligations of this country towards New Zealand, and of the effect on New Zealand of British entry without proper special provision for her?
The Prime Minister: Yes Sir, the President showed a full understanding of the position of New Zealand, its relationship to this country and the possibilities of dealing with these problems in the negotiations in Brussels to produce a satisfactory answer.
Mr. Shore: Has the Prime Minister simply accepted the French view of the future of Europe and, in particular, the French President's conception of a European Republic which was spelt out on British television three days before the talks began? Will he tell us whether he has also accepted the French ideas as to what are the correct terms of entry? If he has not, will he indicate any important area of negotiation where the French position has become closer to ours rather than the reverse?
The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the question, we reached agreement about the sort of Europe we want to see. This has not been exclusively a French view over the past 20 years, but a view which has been put forward by members of consecutive administrations, by many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in this House and broadly held in this country. It is a Europe which, by its unity, will be of a size and nature and in an equal position with the United States, Japan or the Soviet Union, to enter into international trading arrangements and international

39
financial arrangements and to use its influence in the world. On this the French and British Governments find themselves in agreement.
On the question of institutions, those who have followed European policy closely will know that I for one have always believed that countries in the Community would not be able to overrule another member's vital interests. It is not a question of creating the United States of America from a country which has been newly settled. It is a question of a community of six ancient European States, well-established in themselves. Therefore, the way in which we have to develop in Europe is by harmonising policies while at the same time acknowledging the vital interests of individual countries.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me for details about the negotiations. These will be carried on in Luxembourg on 7th June and on 21st and 22nd June. Their objective now is based on the fact that the French President wants to see Britain in the European Economic Community. That is the fundamental change, surely, over the last 15 years, and it is basic to the whole negotiating position. Therefore, we shall be able, I believe, in the coming month of June to reach agreements between ourselves and the Five as to what those arrangements should be.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: I congratulate the Prime Minister on the success of the discussions, which I hope will lead to a successful conclusion of the negotiations in Brussels next month. I urge him to emphasise that the European Economic Community is not just an end in itself but is there to support in broad terms the political and defence purposes of an ever more closely united Europe.
The Prime Minister: The European Economic Community is there to ensure the prosperity of its peoples, which it has been successful in doing since its foundation, to lead to a closer unity in international finance, in monetary fields and in the co-ordination of economic policies, and then to be able to exert political influence and, if it so desires, to consider, as the European members of N.A.T.O., with the exception of France, are doing, how Europe can best contribute to its
40
own defence. There is the well-known difference of view in this House on whether or not Britain should become a member of the Community, but I hope that everyone here will agree that it is good for this country and good for Europe that the cloud of mutual suspicion between Britain and France which has hung over us for the last 20 years is being dispelled and we can now build a better relationship.
Mr. Thorpe: I welcome the outcome of these talks, which appear to have removed the possibility of a European veto. I recognise that there are still matters to be negotiated in Brussels, but, leaving aside the genuine opposition to Europe, which I respect, and the opposition for political tactical reasons, which I do not respect, does the Prime Minister agree that the main task now is to convince the people of this country of the undoubted economic and political advantages of uniting Europe for the first time in its history?
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome. I believe that the people of this country who have been worried about the possibility of the French Government maintaining their veto will now see that this is no longer the case and that they can consider the arrangements which it is possible to make for British entry into the Community. As the President of France said in his speech to the Press conference on Friday evening, for so long there have been those who believed that Britain's only purpose was to try to get into the Community in order to wreck it, for so long there have been those who have believed that France's only purpose was to veto Britain's joining the Community to which she had a right to belong, and before that gathering there were two men with heavy responsibilities who have now acknowledged openly that neither of those things was true.
Mr. Turton: Did my right hon. Friend explain to M. Pompidou that at present 59 per cent. of the British people are opposed to entry of the Common Market and only 23 per cent. are in favour? Did he inform the French President of the steps he proposes to take to ascertain whether the British people support any terms which are negotiated?
The Prime Minister: I have always made it plain that it is Parliament's responsibility to decide——
Hon. Members: No.
The Prime Minister:—this issue, as it is to decide every other issue of international relations [Interruption.] If hon. Members do not wish to accept their responsibilities, that is a matter for them. I have always taken the view, as a Member of Parliament, that it is my responsibility fully to report on these matters to my constituents and to consult them, but I have always taken the view of Burke, who represented the constituency of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), that one owes them one's judgment as well as one's energy.
Mr. Maclennan: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, whatever is to be the outcome of the negotiations to join the E.E.C., that the apparent accord and reasonableness of approach of the French Government on this occasion will be widely welcomed on all sides? Does he expect that all the difficult outstanding issues will have been fully thrashed out in Brussels and Luxembourg, so that the House will be in possession of the facts on which to make up its mind before the Summer Recess?
The Prime Minister: We both believe that it is desirable and possible, in the work between now and the next meeting in Luxembourg on 7th June and then the meeting in Luxembourg on 21st and 22nd June, to prepare the ground sufficiently for the Ministers to take the decisions on the major items outstanding by that time. It would then be the wish of the Government to present a White Paper to Parliament setting out the whole position.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my right hon. Friend accept that it was obvious that this meeting had to take place and that, having taken place, its success has been considerable? With regard to the arrangements through the usual channels for debating the White Paper, will he recognise clearly that it is not just a question for the House of Commons: that this really is a matter in which all of us in this House must be given adequate time to propound to our constituents what is contained in the White Paper?
42
Therefore, may I express the hope that when the White Paper is published, we shall have a "take-note" debate on that and then an opportunity to discuss it with our constituents?
The Prime Minister: I have said that the debate is a matter which we are considering. We would want to give the House the fullest possible White Paper at the earliest opportunity and then to have discussions about how the debate should take place, when it will take place, its length and its form. On my hon. Friend's first remarks, I am not one of those people who believe in the inevitability of casuality. There was nothing inevitable about this meeting. It was the result of a great deal of long and hard work and very careful preparation. I believe that that is the key to its success. I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations.
Mr. Jay: Does the Prime Minister deny that his party election manifesto of last summer said:
"Our sole commitment is to negotiate—no more and no less"?
If that is so, would it not be indefensible to try to force through this drastic constitutional change without a further appeal to the electorate?
The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot accept that conclusion. Her Majesty's Government are not trying to force through a decision. What we are doing is preparing to give to Parliament the fullest information, which Parliament can debate—and Parliament will take the decision.
Mr. Longden: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to confirm and underline two points arising from his statement? Is it the case that the French President accepts the view that major decisions affecting the Community must be taken by the Council of Ministers and not by the Commission, whose members, however able, are not responsible to an electorate? Second, would he confirm that decisions upon questions which are considered of vital importance to members must be taken unanimously?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The view of the French President—it is one with which Her Majesty's Government

43
agree—is that it is the Council of Ministers in Brussels who rightly take the decision. There are certain administrative arrangements which are handled by the Commission and which are clearly defined in the Treaty of Rome, and they cannot go beyond their powers. But our view is that it is the Council of Ministers, representing member countries, who must take the decisions.
On the second part of that question, where a country considers that an item is of major national interest to it, a decision should be taken unanimously—in other words, the member countries should not attempt to over-rule a single country in something which it considers to be of vital national interest.
Mr. Healey: Could I return to the question which many hon. Members have put to the Prime Minister and to which we really have not yet had a reply? Would he accept that on both sides of the House—among those who favour entry of the Community and those who oppose it—there is a deep and strong feeling that sufficient time should be given between the publication of the terms and the House being required to take a decision—not only for hon. Members to be able to read the White Paper, but also to consult their constituents and those others for whom they speak, and that if the Government were to attempt to bounce a decision through the House before the Recess the consequences for the purpose which they hope to serve could well be disastrous?
The Prime Minister: I have said that we fully accept the need to discuss through the usual channels with Her Majesty's Opposition the way in which this matter should be handled on the Floor of the House. I have undertaken—[Interruption.] There is no need for hon. Members to become so excited about this matter. Both parties recognise that there is a difference of view in each party, and that therefore there must be proper time in which all hon. Gentlemen can consider the White Paper. We have also to discuss the length of time for the debate, when it can best take place and the form and structure of the debate, and that we will do.
Mr. Marten: Could my right hon. Friend clear up one small point? He said that the Council of Ministers should continue to be the forum, when, at the banquet at the Guildhall in July, 1969, he said that Britain would be the first to press for democratic and parliamentary control of the Community. Chancellor Brandt when he was in London said that there should be a European Government in the end. Surely, if Europe is to speak with one voice, as we are told, can it not speak with one voice on this somewhat important matter before we start?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend began by saying that that was a small point and ended by saying that it was a very important matter. I agree with his last remark rather than his first—it is a very important matter. When I urged that there should be democratic control, I had in mind that Ministers are the representatives of their Governments and they are the ones who take the decisions. They are responsible to their own democracies. But I have also never hidden my view that, were Britain to be a member of the Community, it would be Members of this House who would contribute most towards the development of satisfactory parliamentary institutions in Europe.
Mr. Harold Lever: Could not the Prime Minister clear up the anxieties which are manifest on both sides of the House, in both sections of opinion on this question, about the opportunity which the House will have to decide the matter after a suitable interval? It is clear that there is great feeling in the House that this time should extend until after the Summer Recess. Would the right hon. Gentleman not give the assurance now which it is clear the House wants on this point?
Second, would he clarify somewhat the oblique reference to sterling which he made in his statement? What are our intentions on sterling? Could he also clarify whether any question of the parities and fixed parities was decided upon or discussed with the President? Or is that a matter to be left until after we get into the Community?
Finally, may I express—I am sure on behalf of all hon. Members—a deep personal gratitude to the Prime Minister

45
for the way in which, at some personal sacrifice, he gave in person to the French people and Government a warning of the dire consequences which will follow from excessive insistence on the need to preserve linguistic balance—[Laughter.]—by extending universally the use of the French language on all these Community matters?
The Prime Minister: On the subject of sterling, there was no discussion of parities or items of that kind. It was accepted that this matter only arises in the context of co-ordination of currencies inside an enlarged Community, if we become a member, and is obviously concerned with what progress is made on the co-ordination of policies.
As for the French language, our position has not changed over the past 10 years. When required to do so, the British delegation has always been able to carry on business in European congresses in the French language. That will remain our position, and English becomes an official language, like those of the other member countries, and is added to the list. I make no claim to mastery of the French language. What I tried to contribute was not meant to be reproduced in this country.
As for the treatment of this matter, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to allow it to be discussed in the usual way. I cannot give any undertaking at this time as to the exact date on which the White Paper will be published, the exact amount of time for the debate, the exact timing or the form of it. Nor can I give any undertaking about whether the House will be asked to reach a decision at that time——
Mrs. Castle: Why?
The Prime Minister: Because it is a matter that we ourselves wish to consider carefully. We also wish to discuss it with the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. It is a matter, therefore, to which we ourselves wish to give the utmost attention.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I must press the right hon. Gentleman on this. Is he aware that there has been a widespread feeling—it did not come from this side of the House—that there would be a "take note" debate before the Summer Recess, assuming that the right hon. Gen-
46
tleman could get out the White Paper by the end of June or early July, that not only hon. Members but the country would have time to make up their minds on the issues and, above all, the terms, which we have not before us now and cannot know until the White Paper is published? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was the clear impression of most hon. Members from exchanges with two Ministers, the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that that would be the position when it was being discussed in the House, and that it was not until we saw a rather orchestrated statement in the Press this weekend that there seemed to be any doubt? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that opinion in both major parties is divided, that it is sharply divided in the country, that the country has a right to consider these issues not in the middle of its summer holidays but when these matters can be debated, and, what is more, that every hon. Member has the right to know where his constituency party stands? Does not that mean the autumn?
The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to give an undertaking at this stage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I am prepared to discuss in the usual way with the Leader of the Opposition what is the best way of handling this matter and, with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Cabinet, to take into account the different points of view in this House. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will take the opportunity of considering the position quietly when we are able to provide a White Paper, so that he can then come to a conclusion as to the best way of handling the matter. It is not reasonable to ask me to give a decision at this stage of the proceedings about what is to happen before the Summer Recess.—[Interruption.] It is unworthy of the former Leader of the House to suggest that I intend to "bounce" this House. In all the 20 years in which I have been dealing with European policy, for nearly 15 of them as a Minister, I have always been at immense pains to give the fullest information to the House and to take the opportunity of discussing it. That is where the matter had better be left.
Mr. Harold Wilson: It is right that this vastly important matter should be decided

47
in a calm atmosphere. It is right that there should be discussions between the two sides. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reason for our anxiety, which was not allayed by the terms or the tone of his last answer—[Interruption.] I am trying to give the right hon. Gentleman time to get back to a calm atmosphere. Is he aware that the reason for this anxiety today is that the House had the impression from his colleagues and from what was being said quite authoritatively in wide sections of the Press—and it does not get there by accident—that there would be adequate time for this matter to be debated? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to leave it there now? Will he agree that there should be immediate discussions this week between the two Front Benches so that we can get fully the views of backbench hon. Members on both sides and those of the Liberal Party, and then see what will be of the greatest convenience in this matter? It would be wrong to wait until the White Paper comes out, perhaps in the middle of July, and then "bounce" it through when most of the country cannot make its views articulate.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is not justified in reaching conclusions along the lines that the White Paper will not be published until the middle of July and that there will be an attempt to "bounce" it through. I shall see when it is possible to publish the White Paper. We shall then discuss when a debate can be held, how long it will be, and what form it will take. That is the normal way of conducting our business. Over the weekend, I read the exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House last Thursday, and he has pointed out that what he said was in response to a request for a debate before the negotiations continued. That is a different situation from the one that I am discussing, which is the publication of a White Paper at the end of June after the major items, we hope, have been settled. If the Leader of the Opposition wants a discussion about that part of the proceedings this week, we shall be prepared to discuss it with him.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The topic for debate today is the steel industry. I do
48
not think that we should proceed further with this matter.
Mr. Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to point out that, although many back benchers understand it is quite impossible for you to call every hon. Member to comment on the Prime Minister's statement, particularly since that particular statement and the Prime Minister's visit to France qualifies for the dictum by Burke as an event on which it is difficult to speak and impossible to be silent, nevertheless some of us would like to have questioned the Prime Minister. Back benchers such as myself would ask you to note, Mr. Speaker, that the same Privy Councillors who were called on an earlier occasion to put Questions to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were called to question the Prime Minister this afternoon. Since the question of whether Britain wishes to join the Common Market is one of the gravest in our history, we now believe that the rule of giving Privy Councillors precedence should be dropped. We are of the opinion that the constituents of Ealing or Rugby are just as interested in this extremely important matter as are the constituents of Huyton, Bexley or the constituents of any other Privy Councillor. Therefore, we would beg you to consider this matter of precedence carefully so that the views of our constituents are given ample opportunity of expression in this House.
Mr. Speaker: I have great sympathy with what the hon. Member has said. I try to do my best, and this is one of the most difficult tasks I have to perform. I had hoped to give an opportunity to as many hon. Members as I could, but there was a rush of questions from the Opposition Front Bench, and as a result I was unable to call as many back benchers on the Opposition side as I had hoped. However, I will bear in mind what the hon. Member has said.
The following is the communiqué:
The President of the French Republic and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom held discussions en tête à tête in Paris on 20th and 21st May, 1971. Mr. Heath also called upon Monsieur Chaban-Delmas on 20th May.
On the rôle of Europe following the enlargement of the European Economic Community the President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister had a thorough exchange which

49
showed that their views were very close. They expressed in particular their determination to contribute through the enlarged and deepened Community to increasing European co-operation and to the development of distinctively European policies, in the first instance principally in economic matters and progressively in other fields.
The discussion led to a complete identity of view on the working and the development of the Community.
The President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister considered the range of economic, financial and monetary problems which could arise as a result of enlargement. They also discussed the progress of the European Community towards economic and monetary union, and its implications for existing financial relationships. The Prime Minister reaffirmed the readiness of Britain to participate fully and in a European spirit in this development. These discussions produced a useful clarification of views which will provide a firm basis for the future.
The President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister took note with satisfaction of the agreements recently reached at the Ministerial meeting between the Community and the United Kingdom on 11th and 12th May on agricultural and industrial matters, and particularly on the application of community preference in the agricultural field.
The President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister considered that it was desirable and possible to reach early agreement on the main outstanding issues in the negotiations for British entry particularly the problems relating to New Zealand and the British contribution to the Community budget.
The President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister expressed their joint desire to resolve the problems which will arise from the renewal of the Yaounde Convention in a positive spirit and having regard to existing rights. It would equally be necessary to take account of the need to safeguard the interests of the countries who are, or will have the opportunity to become, signatories of that Convention and who are largely dependent upon the markets of the enlarged Community for their exports of sugar or other primary products.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [20TH ALLOTTED DAY],—considered

  STEEL INDUSTRY
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to move his Motion, I wish to inform the House that I have selected the Amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friends.
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the persistent uncertainty in the steel industry created by the pronouncements and policies of the present Government, and calls upon the Government to give steady backing to the British Steel Corporation in carrying through the greatly-enlarged investment programme in the industry which the national interest requires.
  Perhaps I could satisfy my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) by reminding him that I speak in this House not as a Privy Councillor. Therefore, I hope that I will be able to represent some of the views he might wish to have put on some of these questions.
  In moving this Motion, perhaps I may be permitted to suggest that there is a connection between the matter of supreme importance which the House has been discussing only a few moments ago and this debate which we are initiating on the steel industry. In seeking to illustrate the connection between the matter of Britain's entry into the Common Market and what might happen to the steel industry, perhaps I could quote a paragraph which appeared in the Sunday Times on 9th May in an article by Mr. Keith Richardson in one of the financial pages of that newspaper. In that article he discussed the connection, or alleged connection, between these two matters and the question, which has been mooted in certain quarters, that the Government might be eager to secure some foreign capital to be invested in the steel industry. What Mr. Richardson said at the end was this:
  "The possibility of foreign cash being used to buy off parts of the British Steel Corporation seems now more remote, however. One

  51
  British group has approached German steelmakers for financial support only to be told 'We see no point in investing in British steel, for once you are in the Common Market we shall put your steel industry out of business anyway'."
  I do not subscribe to that doctrine. I do not believe that anybody, not even the present Government, wishes to put our steel industry out of business. I do not believe it can be put out of business. However, I believe that, whether or not we go into the Common Market, it is of the utmost importance that we should do everything in our power to strengthen the British steel industry certainly. If, by any misfortune, we eventually go into the E.E.C., we will need a powerful steel industry to sustain our place in the Community, and, if we stay out, a strong steel industry will also be very necessary. Therefore, one of the reasons that we are eager to have this debate is in order to examine what has happened to the steel industry over the past year and to discover what proposals the Government are now to bring forward.
  The Government may well say that they would have preferred to have had this debate at a slightly later date when they could have come forward with the proposals which arose from the investigations which were announced by the Government in the debate on the steel industry on 18th March. But the settlement of the timing of this debate conforms exactly with the time available as laid down by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and his hon. Friends in that debate. They then said that they were undertaking an extremely urgent investigation into the steel industry and that they hoped they would be able to make their report to the House about this matter within six weeks or two months. The two months are now up.
  The Minister for Industry said in that debate that he hoped that it might be possible that the period would be shorter, and I am sure that he must recognise that every day that passes prolongs the uncertainty in the industry. There are the most powerful reasons for the Government to announce their policy as speedily as possible. Therefore, even though the Government have told us that they are not yet ready to make this statement, we thought it right to go ahead with this debate so that the Government should once
  52
  again have the opinions of those who represent the steel constituencies when they go forward with their plans.
  Although of course we regret the delay, we would like to have the right decisions after Whitsun than the wrong decisions before Whitsun. Therefore, if after Whit sun the Minister comes along with comprehensive proposals for removing the uncertainty which the Government have created in the steel industry, and if he outlines the long term proposals as a penitent sinner but as one who wishes to reform, there will be rejoicing on these benches and also, I gather, in celestial quarters as well. Therefore, we look forward to the statement to be made by the Minister, and it is in that spirit that we initiate this debate.
  I am sure that the Minister will hardly wish to quarrel with the first part of our Motion, which deals with the present feeling of uncertainty in the steel industry. Anybody who has any knowledge of the steel industry knows that during the past weeks and months there has been serious uncertainty about Government policy and about what is to happen to the industry. Indeed, The Times Business Section in an article a few days ago described this uncertainty as "intolerable". The article went on to say that it hoped the Government in bringing forward their short term proposals would also bring forward their long term proposals. I will say a little more about that matter later.
  Mr. Campbell Adamson of the C.B.I., who knows something about the steel industry, has also stressed the unhealthy nature of the uncertainty surrounding the industry at present. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would not dissent from the proposition that he should end the uncertainty as swiftly as possible. If he cannot do so today, I hope he will recognise that we shall expect him to make his announcement immediately after Whitsun and that the Government will ensure that we shall have a further debate at that time.
  What are the Government's reasons for intervening in the way that they have? I shall refer to the matter briefly, but it is necessary, because these are the grounds which the Government have put forward for intervening in the industry. They say that their action was necessary because of the mistakes or grievous errors in the

  53
  British Steel Corporation's forecasting. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the figures on a number of occasions, as indeed have other Government spokesmen. Their charge has been that the British Steel Corporation was £150 million out in its forecasting.
  The way that the right hon. Gentleman quoted those figures was most unfair. The new structure of the steel industry had been in operation for a short period only when this Government came into office. In July, 1970, the Steel Corporation prophesied a profit of £33 million for the year 1970–71. In fact, I understand that there will be a loss of about £14 million. We have to take into account also the increased revenue which the Corporation had from increased prices during the period of, I gather, £21 million.
  If all those figures are gathered together, it means that the mistake in the forecast, if it can be put that way, amounted to £68 million on a turnover of £1,400 million. Of course it is a mistake. If the right hon. Gentleman examined the accounts of many other companies during the past year, I am sure that he would find that mistakes in forecasting had been about the same or worse. But the right hon. Gentleman has taken a figure of £100 million which had been mentioned previously by the Steel Corporation, which was certainly not an official figure and was hedged around with all manner of qualifications, and presented a picture or an accusation to the House and to the country that the British Steel Corporation have been most mistaken in its forecasting.
  The whole premise on which the right hon. Gentleman acted was unfair to the Steel Corporation and gave an unfair picture of the real state of its finances. I mention that partly because the Secretary of State has used the argument so frequently and because the Government, on the basis of those figures, have taken the most extraordinary action.
  Because of its difficulties, its financial situation, the general inflationary situation and difficulties with cash flow, the Steel Corporation had to go to the National Loans Fund to get extra cash in the latter part of last year. That is not an extraordinary occurrence. Indeed, the Corporation has a fairly good record in this respect. However, that is no reason for the Government taking measure after
  54
  measure to put the screw upon the industry. As I say, they took extraordinary action against this great nationalised industry.
  Since January of this year the Government have insisted that major investment plans should be submitted, and resubmitted in certain cases, for investigation before the Corporation was given the right to go ahead. Since the debate on 18th March a joint steering group has been established which has conducted further surveillance over the industry, so that for the whole of the intervening two months nobody could know for certain where responsibility lay in the conduct of the operations of the Steel Corporation. It is partly on that account that we have had such confused answers from different Members of the Government about the various investment schemes throughout the country which are of such importance to the steel industry and to my hon. Friends who represent steel constituencies.
  The right hon. Gentleman understands the situation perfectly well and he stated it fairly in the debate on 18th March when he initiated this joint steering group. He knew what was happening. He knew that the Government would hold up various investment schemes until they had examined them. We were not told how the process of examination would take place. The right hon. Gentleman understood that, but the Prime Minister and other Members of the Government did not, because when we put questions about the hold-up of particular investment schemes—for example, the investment scheme at Ravenscraig—we got contradictory answers.
  We need not have much dispute on this matter. When some of my hon. Friends and I went to see the right hon. Gentleman recently to discuss the matter, he received us, as is natural, most courteously and discussed it with us. I asked—I am sure that he will not mind confirming it in the House—whether he would give a clear confirmation that, when he gave the interim report of the joint steering group to the House of Commons on its findings about the future of the industry, he would give an undertaking that absolute authority would be restored to the British Steel Corporation according to the Act of Parliament laying down its rights and responsibilities. The

  55
  right hon. Gentleman said "Yes" to the proposition that when the interim report was made—we had hoped to have it now, but I presume that it will be made immediately after Whitsun—full authority would be restored to the Corporation to go ahead with its jobs and thus remove the uncertainty which has surrounded these various investment programmes. He told me that that was going to happen, and that was confirmation of the interference which the joint steering group has been conducting during this period.
  The Government held up all the major investment programmes of the Steel Corporation, but they have now released one or two. The Secretary of State for Wales announced the release of the Llanwern project, which had been agreed by the previous Government and by this Government, but which was held up by them. They have now revoked that hold-up.
  We were told that Ravenscraig was held up under the same kind of arrangement, but the Government have not yet made any statement about their decision, so confusion remains. I have no doubt that my hon. Friends representing different steel constituencies will go through the list today and put questions to the right hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will have clear indications for my hon. Friends about the position.
  Prior to the establishment of the junior steering group, or prior to the establishment of the surveillance which the Government made over the investment programmes of the industry at the beginning of the year, under the arrangements which had already been announced by the Steel Corporation, and confirmed by the Minister for Industry when he visited the area, Ebbw Vale was to have a new pickle line and the plans for going ahead were ready. When we get the single word, "Yes", the plans can be put into operation immediately. That is another project which is held up by the process which the Government have established for surveying all the different investment projects of the Corporation. Even a new precipitator for our open hearth furnace, which is essential for ensuring that we conform to the rules and regulations laid down by the inspectors who deal with these matters, is held up by the Government's restriction on the various invest-
  56
  ment programmes which should be going forward.
  I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the following specific questions. First, will he reassure us that when he makes the interim announcement absolute full authority over all investment programmes will be restored to the Steel Corporation? Secondly, will he answer the question which I put to him in the debate on 18th March by telling us how much money has been wasted by the holding up of these programmes during these two months—the period will be over two months by the time he makes the announcement—because many of these programmes have already increased in quite heavy cost in the interim period?
  The pickle line in Ebbw Vale will make a profit, and the quicker that we can get on with it the better for all concerned—better for the finances of the Corporation, better for our prospects in Ebbw Vale, and better for the nation as a whole. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give us an estimate of the extra cost that has been added to the burden which the Corporation has had to bear because of the Government's intervention.
  The joint steering group which has been in charge of the steel industry over the last few months is a kind of constitutional monstrosity. It is a most curious arrangement that governing the investment programmes and influencing the pricing policy and recommendations about hiving-off of this great industry there should be a body on which sits representatives from the Treasury, from the right hon. Gentleman's Department, and from the British Steel Corporation, including Lord Melchett, the Chairman, himself. I think that if such a body had to be established the right hon. Gentleman himself should have presided over it. To have civil servants in charge of such a body is a most curious way to proceed, particularly when they are able to shuffle off responsibility from one to the other.
  I am not claiming that the relationship between Parliament and the nationalised industries is perfect—I think that we have a great deal to learn about it—but every report that has been presented to this House in recent years, and in particular reports from the Select Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member

  57
  for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), has emphasised how important it is to draw the lines absolutely clearly between the responsibilities of the Government and those of the Corporation. That is the only fair way to proceed. If those responsibilities are muddled up and the decisionmaking body is partly Civil Service, partly Treasury, and partly the Corporation itself, nobody knows whose is the responsibility for different matters.
  It may be that one reason why that has been done is that the joint steering group has discussed, in some measure, the hiving off proposals. I am not sure whether that is the case. The Minister shakes his head, and I am glad to note that he dissents. Is he confirming that the hiving off proposals are not to be discussed by the committee that is to examine other matters, and that there is to be a quite separate body to examine that issue? That, too, is a curious constitutional arrangement, if there is a joint steering group to govern the whole of the immediate conduct of the Steel Corporation, and another body to discuss the hiving off proposals.
  Whether the joint steering group has been discussing the hiving off proposals or not, I think that what the Government have been seeking to do in this respect is to persuade the Corporation to give some sort of support, backing or power, to the hiving off proposals which they wish to bring forward, because they need some support. The Government realise that they would have the greatest difficulty in getting any hiving off proposals through on their own recommendations, because everybody knows how prejudiced they are in their actions. They therefore want some support from the Corporation itself so that they can put the proposals forward and say that they must not be too strongly opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite because they have the approval of the Corporation.
  I hope that the Minister will not proceed in that way. I hope that he will take responsibility for any proposals for hiving off that are put forward. I hope that he will not try to implicate the Corporation in those proposals, because he knows as well as I do—and he can confirm it today if he likes—that the Corporation has, from the beginning, been opposed to all the proposals which have been made by some hon. Gentlemen
  58
  opposite for splitting up the Corporation. The Corporation has been opposed to the proposals for taking away whole sections of the industry, such as special steels, constructional engineering, chemicals or tubes. It has opposed all those proposals, and I hope that the Government will not try to conceal that fact.
  What the Corporation has said—and there is no secret about this, because this is what it proposed to the Labour Government during their last few weeks of office—is that there should be a little hiving off in certain areas, and a little hiving on. That is a different process from the one which has been recommended from some other quarters. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will make it clear that there will be a statement in the very near future, which will carry forward the statement that he made in April, to the effect that bulk steel-making is not to be split, and that he has abandoned a large part of the hiving off or splitting up process which he had previously proposed. I hope that the Minister will undertake to make a statement on that subject, as well as on the financial questions which have been discussed by the joint steering group.
  I do not want to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman. It may be that in this respect he has been fighting a good fight. He may have been somewhat late in coming to his conclusion, but I think that he has difficulties with which he has to contend—the Prime Minister, and some of the people in his Department—and some people say that we must regard the right hon. Gentleman as a good man who fell among Powellites. It may be that that is the position that he occupies in the Conservative Administration, but I hope that he will give a clear undertaking that the hiving off programme has been abandoned. I believe that that is how the Government's mind is moving, and I should like to assist the right hon. Gentleman in carrying through these proposals. I should like to assist him by what is known as the Kutuzov strategy of offering a golden bridge by which he can escape from the territory which he should never have tried to occupy.
  We remember the Napoleonic flourishes of the right hon. Gentleman at his conference last autumn. We remember him talking about disengagement, hiving off, splitting up and selling off, but the more

  59
  he considered the question the more he realised that it was a hopeless cause and so he made his announcement of two or three weeks ago. We hope that very soon he will clear up the whole question, and thus avoid wasting time, energy and money on this whole business of hiving off.
  To assist the right hon. Gentleman further, I ask him for an assurance, which I am sure he will wish to give me, about the steel industry. When we discussed the Coal Bill in Committee and in the House, we secured from the Government an undertaking that if any proposal was made for hiving off a part of the coal industry the matter would come before the House, and we would be able to debate it. That provision is written into the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman approved. I suggest, therefore, that he should give that kind of undertaking in respect of the steel industry. I do not want to celebrate a triumph too soon, but I hope that we shall be allowed to forget the whole matter once the right hon. Gentleman says that the sections of the steel industry which were not dealt with in his April announcement will be dealt with in his announcement after Whitsun.
  Mr. Frederick Lee: My hon. Friend is speaking in the future tense. Does he realise that we are confronted now with the virtual hiving off the wire section of the steel industry, which is highly profitable? Irlam Steel has made profits for the last few months, and we have a problem now, let alone what might happen in the future.
  Mr. Foot: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says and the feelings of his constituents from Irlam, many of whom I believe are in the precincts of this House today making their representations. As my right hon. Friend will recall, when we had a meeting with Lord Melchett, the Chairman of the Steel Corporation, he made it clear that that was not a closed subject but was one on which representations could still be made. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that much the best solution, if it can be secured by some different method, is for the Irlam works to be kept in being, as many of us would wish to see, under the Steel Corporation. That would be the best way to do it, but that is a matter for consultation between the unions, those
  60
  who work there and the Steel Corporation according to the undertakings given by the Corporation.
  Mr. Churchill: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Corporation has no interest whatever in continuing its steel-making capacity at the Irlam works, and it has made this clear. In these circumstances, could the hon. Gentleman tell us where Her Majesty's Opposition stand if private enterprise was willing to make a bid which would safeguard the jobs of approximately 4,000 men who live with their families in that area?
  Mr. Foot: There have been different statements of the kind of proposition put forward about the Irlam works. As I have said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee), the proper way for this matter to be dealt with, immediately, is by further consultations between those concerned in Irlam, the unions and the British Steel Corporation.
  If the hon. Gentleman turns to further questions of what would be the attitude of the Opposition or anyone else to propositions for maintaining the works or for fresh investment in different parts of the industry, I would not think it right for me to pronounce on any individual project without looking at the details. [Interruption.] I will come to the case put by the hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman in his statement made a proposal about inviting private capital into the industry and said that he would not impose severe or unnecessary restrictions if private capital was to come forward. He welcomed the idea of such private investment in the industry.
  It was a very strange announcement to be made by a Government who at that time were holding up a whole series of investment projects in the publicly-owned section of the industry, projects which had been subjected to far more severe scrutiny, as I understand it, than any of the projects put forward about Irlam or anywhere else, for introducing private capital. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that he is eager to invite private capital into the industry for investment. By doing that he is going back, not merely on what was decided when the industry was nationalised, but on the general proposition accepted by everyone

  61
  who knows anything about the steel industry in this country, that there must be some central Government control of some kind, or some central board control over the various investment plans of the industry.
  Without such control we will run into the trouble that we have had many times before in the industry whereby investment is begun in one area and then in another and one investment project cuts the other's throat. To some extent that is what happened between Llanwern and Ravenscraig, as many people will understand. Anyone who appreciates what has happened in the steel industry before would be very chary of thinking that the ideal way to solve the problem is to have increased private investment, particularly uncontrolled investment as the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting in his April statement.
  It would be a retrograde step which could do great injury to existing projects and which could injure the whole, careful and ambitious investment plan which has been drawn up by the Corporation. When such proposals are made as the right hon. Gentleman has made, I wonder whether they are motivated by the desire to assist the industry or by a desire to injure public ownership.
  Let me turn now to the question of prices which has played a big part in all these discussions. In some respects the most arbitrary action taken by the Government in interfering with the affairs of the steel industry was the way in which they interfered with the fixing of the prices. According to newspaper reports, the right hon. Gentleman is again on the side of the angels, if I can put it that way, The Sunday Telegraph of 16th May said:
  "The Prime Minister vetoed a demand in April for a 14 per cent. increase. The Cabinet halved it. Mr. Davies was convinced that the Corporation's case was just but he was overruled."
  I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to reveal when he was overruled or how, but that is the general supposition. To do the right hon. Gentleman credit, he did examine the case of the Corporation very carefully. He took some time to do it, but I suppose that was justified and certainly we on this side are in no position to argue that there should be no intervention at any time in the fixing of the prices of the Steel Corporation or other
  62
  of our major industries. Some of my hon. Friends, when they were in government, intervened to keep down the price of the industry's products. We could not argue that there should never be such intervention and I do not argue that.
  I do say, however, that if there is such intervention that has to be taken into account in judging the performance of the industry. It is not fair to say, "We will restrict your price in what we regard as the national interest" and then to pillory the industry for not making a substantial profit. That is what has happened with the steel industry. If it had not been for the prices fixed by the Labour Government, the Steel Corporation would have made a handsome profit throughout the whole period of public ownership, which is more than could be said for some of the parts of the Corporation when they were privately owned.
  That is the first argument. It might be that if it had not been for the prices fixed by the Labour Government the Steel Corporation would have made something like £200 million more during those few years, and that would have meant making a considerable profit in that period. The further reason why we believe that this intervention was unjustified is that it was discriminatory. If the Government are taking action to deal with fuel prices, cement prices or oil prices, seeking to restrain prices in those areas, there may be a case for saying that they have a right to do it with the steel industry. There is, however, no case for picking out the steel industry for particularly vindictive and discriminatory treatment, which is what has happened here.
  There are no grounds for action which injures the position of those in the steel industry. What does the right hon. Gentleman think will be the effect of this interference with price on negotiations and relationships between the Corporation and its workers? Interference with the price interferes with the whole prospects of the industry. We say that the right hon. Gentleman should certainly look again, and immediately, at this question of the price which the Corporation was demanding. Apparently it was reported that he was in favour of the full increase or at any rate a larger increase

  63
  than the Government eventually conceded and I hope that he will give us an early statement on that point too.
  The price affects not only the wages of steel workers and the profitability of the Steel Corporation and morale in the industry. There is also the question of what was raised by Lord Melchett and others long before this argument on price—that what the steel industry needs in Western Europe is greater freedom in making price decisions, and that if it is to be required to compete and to carry out huge investment programmes, it must have the power to makes these decisions as well. It is grossly unfair first to deny the industry this freedom which is exercised by practically every other industry in the country and then to assault and attack it because it has not achieved great profits.
  Let me give a further reason why some of us regard this question of price as of major importance. What worries us about this arbitrary intervention on top of all the other actions which right hon. Gentlemen have taken with the steel industry—the clumsy way in which they have dealt with the investment programmes, the manner in which the joint steering group has operated, the way in which the affairs and energies of the Corporation have been distributed by the hiving off programme and the arbitrary intervention about the price and many other items which we have debated before, such as the abandonment of investment grants—all these matters which injured the profitability and financial position of the Corporation, is the effect that they may have—I do not say "will have" because we want to avert the catastrophe—on general investment programme of the steel industry.
  I could quote the statement made by The Director, a paper I do not normally study with great care. In an article on 11th May it confirmed what I said about the way in which the Government had in effect taken over control of the industry, saying that by this action,
  "… the Government has committed itself to the active management of the British Steel Corporation."
  The article dealt with the interim report which is expected by the Government as a result of the investment, and concluded:
  64
  "The Government's urgent study of the financial structure of the steel industry must not result in Ministers becoming so preoccupied with today that they forget about five or ten years hence."
  Mr. John H. Osborn: Would the hon. Gentleman also comment on the early part of the article, which says that the steel industry
  "… would not be in the mess that it is today had it not been nationalised after a long and bitter political battle."?
  Would he read the whole of that article?
  Mr. Foot: It is not really astonishing that some of the people who produce The Director are opposed to public ownership. They have been for years. The extraordinary fact is that, even though they have been opposed to it, they have now come around to the view that what is required is a long-term plan for the steel industry, which is something that the industry never had under private ownership. One of the reasons that it is in such difficulties today is because the hon. Member and some of his friends starved the industry of proper investment when they were in charge. The record of investment in the steel industry over the previous 10 years was a disgrace to this country and I am amazed that any spokesman of the steel masters should dare to raise his voice in the debate at all.
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: I was only drawing to the hon. Gentleman's attention at this stage the content of the article to which he had referred. I will deal with the other matters if I am called later in the debate.
  Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman was drawing my attention to the false premise; I was drawing attention to the correct conclusion—and it makes quite a big difference.
  I say again to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have anything to do with the steel industry—not that there are many—that no one who bore direct responsibility for the low investment programme of the years before 1967 has much right to lecture the Steel Corporation today.
  One of the achievements of the Corporation during this period has been to draw up a plan for the development of the industry over the next 10 years, to raise the figures of production—I will not go through the figures; right hon. Gentlemen know them—from £25 million to

  65
  more than £40 million. This ambitious and intelligent programme will cost a lot of money. There are many people in the steel industry who want to see this plan go through successfully. It is extremely delicate——
  Mr. David Lane: The hon. Gentleman might at least do the House the courtesy of doing his homework before he lets loose a speech like this. He was accusing the former industry of having no long-term plan. Has he overlooked that, in the 15 or 20 years after the war, despite the threats of nationalisation from the party opposite, at least three long-term plans were drawn up and put into operation by, the industry?
  Mr. Foot: I understand that, but the three long-term plans were derisory, compared with what was being done in most other countries. The percentage increase in production year by year in the steel industry for the 10 years prior to nationalisation was something like 2 to 2½ per cent. a year—a miserable record. There are people in the Corporation, whose names it would be improper for me to give, who were opposed to public ownership and who are now ready to admit that it is only through the combined, far-seeing, centralised programme that they can draw up a sufficiently bold investment programme.
  There are people in my constituency and in the other constituencies represented on this side of the House who wish that programme put forward and pressed through successfully; so even more important than the interim announcement which the Secretary of State was to make is the statement which he will make later on about the whole future of the industry. We should like that announcement brought forward to a much earlier date, because we fear the consequences of continued uncertainty.
  What the Steel Corporation is seeking to carry through is not a programme for feather bedding but a programme which will involve a considerable reduction in the total numbers of people who will be employed in the industry over these 10 years. That is a very difficult operation to carry out in a civilised manner, but if it is to be done, the workers in the industry must be assured that, as parts of the industry are run down and as
  66
  some closures may be made—some closures will have to be made—at the same time the development part of the programme is going ahead at a steady and improving pace.
  So every time, when there is an intervention which causes redundancies, without the guarantee that the plan is going ahead, this causes difficulties. I know what happened in my constituency, and it is the same in all the other steel plants of the country which are to be sustained as part of this programme. We must give the workers in the industry an assurance that the industry itself will not be run down—rather, the industry will be raised to a peak which we have not known before. That is what the Steel Corporation has planned for and that is what the Government should back. That is where the Government should be giving their encouragement and support.
  The opposite will happen. My fear is that, if the Government continue with all these impositions, restraints, restrictions and interferences in the industry, there could be in the steel industry the same kind of situation as there was in the coal industry, which was run down too fast, in my opinion and those of the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board. It was a decision taken by the previous Government, which some of us contested. But they ran it down too fast, and now there are problems in building it up again. In the steel industry we can learn from that. We can combine the two processes. At the same time, if we can carry the confidence of the people in the industry, we can carry through the great transformations which have been needed over the last 20 years and the great expansion which we have needed as a great industrial nation. We could carry it through. That is the prospect on one side.
  The prospect on the other side is that demoralisation in the industry will go so deep and the interference of the Government will be so continuous that morale will be broken. That would be a catastrophe not merely for the steel constituencies but for the country as a whole.
  Therefore, what we fight for in the debate, and what I hope the Government will support, is that we should give the British Steel Corporation one of the great

  67
  advantages in carrying through this programme—that the leadership of the Corporation commands support and confidence amongst the people who produce the steel up and down the country. If the Government destroy that confidence they will have done the greatest possible injury to an industry on which all other industries depend.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his Government will start approaching the affairs of this industry in a very different mood. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman has learned a great deal about it during the past year. I hope that when he comes forward with his interim statement, if not today, he will be restoring to the British Steel Corporation the power and authority and the financial backing to carry through the great expansion of the industry which the national interest requires.
  5.12 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. John Davies): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'endorses Her Majesty's Government's decision to undertake thoroughgoing reviews of the financial performance of the British Steel Corporation and of the structure and future development of the British Steel Industry'.
  Before coming to the real meat of the debate, I deal with three questions, all of which have been raised, in one form or another, by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). The first relates to the complaints that the first phase of the review now being carried out has not given rise to a statement before this debate or during the course of it. The second matter is the charge that the institution of the review which has been put in hand has led to a serious deferment of investment plans within the industry. The third matter is the imputation which has arisen that there is a deterioration in the relationship between the British Steel Corporation and the Government and that the discussions which have taken place have been in an atmosphere of hostility.
  On 18th March, during the debate on the steel industry, I said that I hoped that the first phase of the review would be completed within six weeks to two months. In fact, the results of the study
  68
  were put before me only last Thursday and that represents a slippage of two days only with regard to the target I set. I should not have thought that that was too bad. The predictions that I made in other debates and at various Question Times are also borne out in exactly the same terms. I cannot accept that this review has been late in coming or that the House has not had the chance of a sight of it which it expected.
  I made it perfectly clear that once I had the first phase in hand I should need to devote some considerable time to considering the recommendations put before me. In any case, if account is to be taken of points to be raised in this debate, obviously there has to be a certain amount of time before I can make a statement.
  During questions on the Business statement last week, the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said that, in discussions with a group of Opposition Members, I had given an undertaking that I would make a statement before Whitsun. This is not correct. I said to him and to other hon. Members that I hoped very much to do so but that I could not give an undertaking. As things have turned out, I am not able to do so and take into account what may go on today.
  A word on the subject of deferment of investment plans. This has been a subject which has created a great deal of heat, and I fear that the situation is still not perfectly clear. First, the terms of reference given to the joint steering group were given in mid-March, and they do not in any way relieve Ministers of their responsibilities. The object of the joint steering group is to analyse the problem and to make recommendations. This they are doing, and it is these recommendations which Ministers have to consider.
  What I said on 18th March was that I would need to call for a deferment of all starts of new projects from that date until this first phase had been completed. Equally, I said to the Corporation that I wished it to inform me of any new projects which it wished to start before that first phrase has been completed so that I could consider them. I did not conceal for a moment—I accept what the hon. Gentleman said—that that was

  69
  a limitation on the chairman's normal authority. In other circumstances, he would be entirely entitled to proceed with the investment project in accordance with the programme laid down and agreed with me last autumn to the tune of £185 million. I did so because it seemed that with this major review in hand, it would be wrong to proceed willy nilly with all the projects approaching without further consideration.
  Lord Melchett understood the reasons for my request and readily accepted them. Since then—this is the point about which I must give some clarification to the hon. Gentleman——
  Mr. John Mendelson: He had no choice. You imposed them.
  Mr. Davies: I simply say that he readily accepted them. I hope that the hon. Member will not question the fact that he did. I assure the hon. Member that he did so.
  The point which is, perhaps, slightly clouded is that since that time, Lord Melchett has put to me only one new start which, because of the hold-up that I had requested, would not have proceeded—that is with regard to Llanwern. It took us a few weeks to reconsider that and to give the go-ahead. The extent of deferment, such as it is, revolves around that single project. The Ebbw Vale pickle line, for instance, has not been submitted to my investigation.
  In a more general sense, it would be quite wrong to imply that the Government's attitude will bring about a fall of investment in the industry. On the contrary, the curve of investment in this industry during the period since nationalisation shows that relatively low figures occur in the early years—£62 million in 1968–69, £81 million in 1969–70, and £140 million in 1970–71. With a programme agreed of £185 million for 1971–72, a large part of which, in any case, is in course of commitment, it can be expected that e investment this year will also be very considerable.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Is this £185 million, before price escalation, what the Corporation anticipates spending this year, or is it the cost of projects some part of which will be spent next year? Is this money to be spent during this financial year?
  Mr. Davies: Yes, it is the amount anticipated to be spent in this financial year, including, therefore, the continuation expenditure for projects already in course and the institution of new projects.
  As regards the question of hostility between the Corporation and the Government, I am very conscious of the frequent allusions to these alleged tensions. I want to refute them. It is obvious that, when one is consulting on these quite difficult issues, there are undoubtedly differences of opinion. How could it be otherwise, and what would be the use of consultation were it otherwise? It would be very misleading to read into them any great sense of hostility between the Corporation and the Government. It simply does not exist.
  Moreover, I would refer in the same sense to the question of uncertainty. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale had much to say about the state of uncertainty which had been created in the industry. Any uncertainty which has resulted from the reappraisal which we have set in course pales into insignificance in relation to the uncertainty which was caused in the industry throughout the whole of the decade of the 1960s and the suspense in which the industry was held as a result of the policies of the Labour Government.
  We have had over the last few months a considerable number of debates and discussions on the steel industry. I certainly make no complaint about them. I believe that it is an absolutely key industry in many respects, whether it be in respect of manpower or investment, and particularly, perhaps, in the way it permeates every other part of British industry. It warrants a very special place. It warrants very close attention. It is certainly getting it.
  We have in past debates covered very largely the question of the B.S.C.'s financial and operating performance and its manpower policies and decisions in relation to that. I do not propose to go over the ground again.
  The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale sought to correct the figures which I gave some time ago on the subject of the apparent deficit—the turn-round in the performance of the finances of the Corporation. I realise that there can be contention as to what figures were given

  71
  as positive estimates and what were given as generalised indications. What was of fundamental importance was to get a proper forward estimate for this year's out-turn—the out-turn for 1971–72—rather than for the past year to which the hon. Gentleman was referring. Therefore, I would not propose now to go over all that ground again. It relates largely to the past, and what I think we are all concerned about is the future.
  I want to say a few words on the reasons, because the hon. Gentleman questioned them, why we decided to carry out a very complete reappraisal of the Corporation's future, both in terms of its development and of its structure. I do not think that there could be any real disagreement that over the post-war years the industry has failed to undertake the level of investment and to rationalise its operations in a manner allowing it to retain its position as a leading steel industry in the world league.
  That a major factor in bringing this about has been continual changes in status and great uncertainty cannot be seriously disputed. Although so much of the former Government's 1965 White Paper contained unwelcome views to my right hon. and hon. Friends, who were then in Opposition, we can only concur with its objective, which was to secure a positive development of the industry as a whole, even though we entirely deplore many of the methods which were advised in that White Paper as being the ways to achieve it.
  It is interesting to recall the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in the debate on the 1969 Act, when he commented as follows:
  "The corporation took over the industry at a low point in its fortunes … already, we can see a distinct improvement …"
  Referring to the introduction of public dividend capital the right hon. Gentleman said this:
  "Looking at the next few years as a whole, there would seem to be ample justification for this further experiment … an experiment I feel confident will succeed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 685–6.]
  Yet as we have taken stock of the situation since last summer we found an industry which had continued to operate in deficit, whose forecasts gave little prospect of doing otherwise without disturbingly
  72
  high price increases, and whose long-term investment programme to put it back at the top of the world league was enormous and would make vast calls on public funds.
  Faced with this paradox of unprofitability on the one side, and vast investment plans, on the other, it was only right that the first line of action should be to carry out a very penetrating reappraisal of the industry's future both in respect of its financial and its investment objectives—long and short-term—and in respect of its structure, to ensure that it was organised in the best way possible to face the future, There was certainly nothing doctrinaire or prejudiced in either of these lines of inquiry: quite the reverse. The whole object was and is, after years—almost decades—of change and dislocation, to set the industry on a new and resolute long-term course determined only on the score of its own best interests.
  This penetrating reappraisal is composed of four inter-related but separate studies. The first is that which has just come into my hands—the financial review for 1971–72. The second is that which constitutes the next phase of the economic review and seeks to chart a strategy for the industry for the present decade. The third, which runs in parallal with both, is the structural examination of the industry with a view to defining on a rational basis what broadly should remain in the public sector, what should be in the private sector, what should stand between the two, and how it should be done.
  Mr. Michael Foot: When does the Secretary of State expect that the Government will come up with final proposals on the final matter? How long will that cause of uncertainty be allowed to continue?
  Mr. Davies: I intend firmly to do so.
  Mr. Foot: When?
  Mr. Davies: I intend firmly to answer the question. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether this was being carried out by the joint steering group. It is not. It is carried out directly between the Ministers concerned and the Corporation.
  The fourth part of the re-appraisal is the reorganisation of the relationship between Government and Corporation aimed at ensuring to the former an ability

  73
  properly to discharge its responsibility to Parliament and to the public and to the latter the freedom to manage its own affairs within agreed authorities and for the attainment of agreed objectives.
  I should like to say something about each of these four parts. As to the short-term review, here we are concerned with achieving the best result we can in this current year—1971–72. We will take all relevant factors into account, including price factors and including not only home price factors but competitive prices abroad. As I have said, I plan to make a statement to the House after the Whit-sun Recess to make known the decisions I have arrived at in the light of that study.
  Mr. Michael Foot Mr. Michael Foot rose——
  Mr. Davies: May I continue and perhaps answer the hon. Gentleman's questions almost as he poses them?
  These will cover, first, the expected out-turn of the Corporation's operations in this financial year; second, the investment programme authorised to be undertaken, bearing in mind the previous figure to which I have referred of £185 million; and, third, the extent of funding from public funds as opposed to those generated from within the Corporation.
  An indication of the size of the figures involved is to be seen in the White Paper, Cmnd. 4635, where a figure of £289 million as a call on public funds was indicated for one year.
  The second part—the longer-term review—is a question, as I have said, of charting a strategy for the industry. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that this had never existed under private ownership. The hon. Gentleman may have forgotten that in 1966 Sir Henry Benson produced a complete forward study of the industry's investment requirements. What is certain is that during the course of the previous Government's tenure there was not such a positive long-term investment programme. This longer-term review will be difficult, ambitious and complex. It will form the framework within which this great industry will evolve in the future, in both its national and international context. It will require a very great effort and—this may prove a disappointment to the hon. Gentleman—I shall be surprised if all those concerned can bring it into my
  74
  hands any earlier than I have indicated already. I said the autumn. I am confidently hoping to have it before the end of the year. It will be a mammoth task to perform.
  It will cover the following matters: the expansion of, and consequent investment by, the Corporation at home, including the principle of a major new green field site; the means by which the Corporation will secure in the long-term adequate supplies of ore and coking coal, with particular concern for the forecast short-fall of world supplies of the latter; the assessment of the desirability of undertaking a greater manufacturing operation at the source of raw material supply, perhaps in Australia, by pelletisation or some such process.
  It will take into account the general assessment of the impact of major technological changes which are taking place in the industry. It will consider the scope for international partnerships in manufacture or in raw material procurement or in capital provision. It will concern itself with the critical importance of the industry to the Government's regional policies, bearing in mind that, today, about 50 per cent. of the Corporation's manpower is employed in development areas. It will deal with the manpower consequences of alternative solutions. That those consequences entail a considerable reduction in the ratio of numbers employed to production is known to all. As with the coal and textile industries in the post-war years, to which the hon. Member referred, it is no good concealing that the re-creation of a dynamic and prosperous steel industry in this country will not be attained without rationalisation of the same kind, if not on the same scale.
  What is essential is to see the future clear and to be able to plan for it: to ensure that redundancies are anticipated and preparations made for them in good time; to ensure that the imaginative and effective provisions of the Corporation and the Government, in consultation, in forewarning and in shielding those concerned are brought into play at an early date and in an effective way.
  That will be the broad area covered by the longer-term review. It will be a major exercise, and it will form the framework within which, I hope, the steel

  75
  industry will attain again the kind of importance which it has had in the past, to, which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  Mr. James Callaghan: That list of criteria did not touch on one question: how does the British Steel Corporation determine what the growth rate is to be? Is it advised by the Government? In other words, how does it determine the level of demand it is supposed to aim at over the next ten years, or whatever the period be?
  Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in terms of defining major development, this industry is not subject to very fine tuning arrangements. It moves forward in rather large bounds. This is particularly so at present. Although forecasts of likely development of demand are of great importance, they are not, perhaps, as easily tuned to in steel as in some other industries.
  Mr. Callaghan: How does it find out?
  Mr. Davies: It finds out as a result of the consultation which it has with the Government. This is one of the purposes of the review.
  Mr. John Morris: I do not follow the point which the right hon. Gentleman is making. I fully understand the difficulties in tuning to particular needs or demands, but how is the British Steel Corporation to be told over the next 10 years, say, what is the estimate for that period?
  Mr. Davies: Clearly, forward estimates of demand for steel and its various products are a necessary part of the estimation. The right hon. Gentleman probably knows that forward estimates of this kind are made in broad brackets of alternative levels of supply. This, clearly, will be part of the basis of the appraisal.
  Now, the structural examination of the industry. I have already announced what I think was the major conclusion of this work, namely, to leave the bulk steel making activity intact within the frame work of the British Steel Corporation. We are now making progress in reviewing with the Corporation the remaining parts of the industry. The hon. Gentleman asked when I hoped to be able to make a statement about this subsequent part of the review. I hope very much to be able
  76
  to make this statement also shortly after Whitsun. It will give an indication of the arrangements which have been discussed and agreed—agreed with the British Steel Corporation, despite what the hon. Gentleman may think—and I shall thereafter continue to keep the House informed on any subsequent developments.
  I come now to the fourth part of the reappraisal, that dealing with the relationship between the Government and the Corporation. As the House knows, I am anxious to disengage from excessive involvement in the management problems of the Corporation. A whole series of circumstances have combined to procure a closer involvement than I should wish, notably the scale and the scope of the reappraisal which I have been describing. When the reappraisal is completed, the course will be charted for the future, and the final section of this very great undertaking will come into play, namely, the guidance and control mechanism which has itself been the subject of careful and prolonged study. This will allow for objectives to be set, for programmes to be agreed, and for both to be monitored in an orderly manner so that the management can proceed on its way in confidence and the Government can be sure of how the Corporation is progressing along its planned path.
  By the time that is finished, the reappraisal will have constituted an enormous task of prediction and planning appropriate to the scale of this vast industry. It will, I believe, have set the industry on the course of regained prosperity and confidence in its own future.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. James Tinn: Although this is not my maiden speech, hope to be forgiven if I say a few words about my constituency. From time to time, I have found a certain misconception or misunderstanding in some people's minds, and the thought that Cleveland is in the State of Ohio in the United States. Lest there is any hon. Member under that misapprehension, I should make clear that Cleveland lies on the northern aspect of the lovely Cleveland hills, on the coastline stretching from a few miles north of Whitby, including the old ironstone mines, of which the villages and settlements have new gone, Skinningrove iron works being the sole remaining outpost of steel in that

  77
  locality. Swinging then north and west to the Tees, one comes to the tremendous steelworks on the south bank of the river, including the development at Lackenby.
  To a visitor, Tees-side must seem to have an air of purposeful prosperity. He will see the tremendous physical investment there, the largest petro-chemicals complex in the world at the I.C.I, works at Wilton and Billingham, the oil refineries on both sides of the river, the tremendous port development, and the land reclamation works; and he may have heard that this is the only area of the northern planning region which has over the years experienced an inflow of population rather than an outflow.
  A visitor may in that way form a favourable impression. But what he might not see, unless he looked closely, would be the length of the dole queues. Paradoxically, and sadly, although Tees-side and Cleveland have seen the injection of scores of millions of pounds of capital, the dole queues seem to have grown longer all the time.
  The oil refineries do not employ many men. I.C.I. has been shedding labour by what is euphemistically called natural wastage, which, in practice, tends to mean that the older workers are shown the door even more brusquely than usual, while school leavers and others find the door closed against them.
  As a result, on Tees-side, despite the impression that a passing visitor might have, we already have an unemployment rate which is only marginally lower than that of Tyneside. In terms of numbers, we have more men unemployed than even on Wearside. It is no consolation to an unemployed man to know that the unemployment rate in his area is a little lower than in another. Yet Tees-side, for some reason, is excluded from special development area status.
  Our concern today is to look at the steel industry, especially in the light of recently announced plant closures. As I mentioned a moment ago, our unemployment rate is already tragically high, but by the end of this year it could be disastrously higher, because of the area's dependence on steel, for the reasons I have endeavoured to outline. Estimates which take account of previously announced steel closures, in addition to those more recently announced, show by the end of 1971 unemployment on Tees-
  78
  side could be over 8 per cent., and, in the nearby Hartlepools area, approaching 15 per cent. Surely, by any measure, in any year, by any standards, those figures must be regarded as appallingly and unacceptably high. If those figures had already been reached we should be pretty near the top of the unemployment league. But in this year who knows, when the time comes, what area will be able to claim that dismal distinction.
  On Tees-side, however, as I have hinted, there is at least one immediate and practical step which the Minister could take and which lies to his hand. That is to grant the area special development status immediately. Its exclusion can no longer possibly be justified. It is the least the Government can do, and it is something that people of all parties and none on Tees-side unit in demanding. In this I am sure that I have the support of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe). I ask the Minister for some assurance on this point. The need is already urgent; it cannot wait.
  With regard to the general state of the steel industry, those of us who have worked in it for years have a depressing feeling of having been here before—in fact, of having been here several times before. It has been a traditional problem of the industry that when there is a shortage of steel it is blamed for having failed to lay down sufficient capacity to satisfy the excess demand; yet, in no time at all, it seems often to find itself with a fall-off in demand, with excess capacity resulting in many families losing their livelihoods. It is a spectre that has always haunted the industry and inhibited its planning. But we had every hope—and now I am speaking from the point of view of the trade unionists in the industry—that the Corporation was trying to break free from this crippling cycle, that it was looking ahead, taking a long-term view, the broad international view, in terms of competition and of technological development.
  We believe that it was planning to provide this country with a steel industry equipped to cope and compete with the best in the world. That is why the steel-workers, to an extent I believe to be unparalleled and without precedent in British industry, have co-operated with the Corporation in its plans for the future.

  79
  Inevitably these have meant savage redundancies. The right hon. Gentleman does not need to tell us that; it has been long appreciated in the industry.
  Even though the Corporation did its best to improve consultation and to take social factors into account, as it is required by Statute to do, the impact on the men and their families is bound to be savage. It is not easy for those of us more comfortably situated to appreciate what it means to a man who has worked hard on a 24-hour shift system, on bank holidays, at Christmas and at New Year as a matter of course, with skill and responsibility, in an arduous industry where poor working conditions and danger usually go together, but who has, nevertheless through the years managed to attain a position of some responsibility, to find that those years have been wasted and that he can be thrown aside in his mid-forties or fifties as "surplus to requirement".
  There is a special quality about the average, typical steelworker. It is an industry which almost seems to breed its own kind of man. Fathers and sons tend to tread the same path—to the blast furnaces, to the melting shop, to the coke ovens, to the mills. They are hard men, yet generous; tough, but friendly; steady, loyal to each other and to their industry; loyal to their firm, even when they are cursing the day they set foot in it. These men, committed to and dependent upon, British steel, have co operated in its plans for its future which threatened their own.
  Let me give the House some idea what the cold phrase "technological development" means in real terms to these men and their families. The basic oxygen steel-making process now being introduced can produce an amount of steel in a period measureable in minutes which previously would have taken many hours. It can replace 14 open hearth furnaces with two or three of the new units. It can reduce a labour force of over 2,000 to under 400. These are the facts that were faced up to. It can produce catastrophe in just as many homes if nothing is done, and done in time, to replace each job lost with another gained. The fact that the men and their unions have co-operated in this
  80
  and similar developments puts a heavy responsibility not just on the Corporation, but on the Government and the country; otherwise, let us stop the cant and hypocrisy of blaming those workers who are sometimes less ready to accept new methods. Let the community face up to its responsibilities in good time, or let the workers and the trade unions look after themselves and their interests alone.
  These men are not whining that the country owes them a living; but it does owe them a decent job. We owe their sons and daughters the same range of jobs and career opportunities as they would have had if they had lived in economically more favoured areas. I am sorry to say, even after what the Minister said, that there are disturbing indications that the Government do not fully accept, and are not fully prepared to honour, their obligations in this regard. I hope that we shall have further reassurances on this later.
  I will not take up time in repeating criticism of the Government's action over the proposed price increase. But I take the Minister up strongly over his reference to the monopoly position of the industry. Steel can never be a monopoly as long as its customers can buy abroad. But why should they buy abroad when British steel is cheaper than steel on the Continent, as it has been in most cases? As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, had the Corporation charged European prices when demand was high, it would now be £200 million better off and would not have needed to put itself and the industry in pawn to the present or any other Government. The critics of public ownership should bear that in mind, and that cheap prices to private enterprise are subsidies in reverse.
  But the industry is in pawn to the Government. Its ambitious £3,000 million modernisation programme is undergoing review. The slide rule is being run over it. I am not sure who is doing that, but someone is doing it. The Minister assures us that Lord Melchett has been very co operative. If Lord Melchett and the Corporation have lain down so quietly under this treatment, it is not only capital but a good shot of adrenalin which the Corporation needs to make a more vigorous response to this kind of interference.

  81
  I hope that the danger of making a long-term review at a time when the future seems clouded by the present state of trade will be fully borne in mind. The Minister referred to the world shortage of coking coal. At a time of depressed demand for coal, the Labour Government—and I recognise that—closed mines in my part of North-West Durham which produced some of the finest coking coal in the world. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) nodding agreement. They were closed because of what the experts said. Some of us did not agree with them. I am afraid that the same calibre of short-sighted experts, with their slide-rules, will be telling the Minister that, from today's viewpoint, the future demand for steel will be much lower than eventually proves to be the case.
  I have spoken with some feeling of the sacrifices that the steel workers and their families have been prepared to make to ensure the future of their industry. Now much of it has been called into question. On Tees-side we were braced to accept heavy redundancies—although we did not expect them so soon—but we had promises of vast new development based on the iron ore terminal. Cannot the Minister give us some assurance, even before the long-term review is completed, that these developments will go ahead and that we may have a completely new brown field site based on Tees-side? I assure the Minister that if he has doubts about the viability of British steel on Tees-side he is calling into question the viability of British steel as a whole, because this deep-water site is perfectly situated, and will have the most modern ore-handling equipment, a labour force ready to hand and all the locational factors in its favour. If British steel cannot prosper in that area, then perhaps we had better give up and start buying elsewhere. I believe that it can and will prosper. I hope that the Minister will do his utmost to give some of the assurances for which I have asked.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is as aware as I am that when discussing this particular subject in the House it is dangerous to pay compliments. The steel industry will be relieved that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale
  82
  (Mr. Michael Foot) has not its destiny in his hands and will greatly appreciate the statement made today, in addition to the one which was made on 27th April, by my right hon. Friend.
  I intervene in the debate with some trepidation as I have not spoken on this subject for two years, largely because, it has been claimed, I have an interest in the private sector, which is in competition with the public sector. There are trade associations and professional bodies where management, technologists, scientists and engineers from competing organisations in the public and private sectors meet. I have continued to attend their meetings, and many have claimed that I had as much right to speak for the public sector as for the private sector, because my interest lies in the steel industry and my constituency is concerned with the public and the private sectors.
  There have been continuing discussions in Sheffield and elsewhere about what should be the right balance of plant, the economics of manufacture in this new age and how much more rationalisation should take place. As an outcome of that, Sheffield Rolling Mills—a combination of the Tinsley Mills of the English Steel Corporation, Balfour Darwin and Hallamshire Steel—was created by the Labour Government.
  In my discussions, particularly with those who work in the industry and those connected with the trade unions, including B.I.S.A.K.T.A., I find that there is an increasing realisation that our productivity is still way behind that of many other countries. I have been told that the modern plant is capable of producing 700 tons per man per year. Some of the better plants in America are producing 300 tons. The American average is 200 and the United Kingdom average is 100 to 125 tons per man per year. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to comment on the productivity in other countries compared with that in this country.
  Trade union leaders are aware of the need for modernisation. As someone involved in the industry, I have emphasised in the House over the last 10 to 12 years the need for continuing capital investment in industry, as well as in the steel industry. Those who have spent their working

  83
  lives in the industry want a healthy bulk steel industry and a healthy carbon steel industry as well as a healthy alloy, special and stainless steel industry. They want to see a healthy private and public sector activity. It is generally regretted—and I made this point when I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—that as a result of nationalisation so much rests with the Government and that so much decision-making is not being done outside Government. There is resentment that steel is being debated with such intensity in the House, because it is thought that these issues would be more effectively dealt with outside the House and away from Whitehall.
  I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a few questions. The first concerns the headquarters of the British Steel Corporation. It was reasonable to move from a regional to a product basis, but the result was another round of musical chairs within the Corporation, and this led to greater bureaucracy combined with a policy of centralisation. During the Committee stage of the 1966 Iron and Steel Bill—the Iron and Steel Act, 1967—hon. Members on both sides hoped that a massive headquarters would not be erected in London but that it would be situated outside London. May we have more information about the size of the headquarters in Grosvenor Place, how many staff are employed, the annual salary bill and what it is costing to run?
  I ask that because a retired manager of a plant in Sheffield, which, in my view, probably has a turnover of £20 to £25 million a year, said that, of his total overheads of £3½ million, £2½million represented plant overheads and £1 million went as a contribution to the headquarters in London, and he wished to know what good it was doing. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to try to give an answer, as this is but one example of the unease which is developing in Sheffield.
  Of course, at local and plant level there is need for greater autonomy. There is a view, which is prominent now, that at the headquarters with all its complexity, there are too many economists, statisticians and whizz kids. Therefore, I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that there is growing resentment in Sheffield, in the public sector, of course,
  84
  but in the private sector, too, that the real decision-making has been taken from the city which knows how to run its own affairs and that the real decision-making is now in London, and even the special steels division has not the autonomy which many in that division would wish to see.
  The new Sheffield management in the steel industry, public and private, realises the value of the corporate plan, modern management techniques, including computer technology, but holds the view that more of the decision-making should be at local level. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend is aware that Sheffield wants to be allowed to manage the industry which it has known for years, and wants to see less decision-making being done in London, in Whitehall and Westminster.
  Mr. Thomas Swain: The hon. Gentlemen is expounding the management's point of view, but is he aware that this is not a view shared by the trade unions?
  Mr. Osborn: May I read the next sentence in my notes? This view is shared by the shop floor as well as management to an increasing extent. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will show him my notes, if he doubts me. I read from page 7 of my notes.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Will the hon. Member allow me?
  Mr. Osborn: Let me finish this please, otherwise I shall make a longer speech than I intended.
  The United Steel Company, for instance, perhaps the most progressive steel company in Europe, and highly profitable, some five to ten years ago, now finds morale from top to bottom at a low ebb. In Sheffield there has been reported the highest unemployment figures for 30 years.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that the shop floor supports the view for autonomy in Sheffield. Will he accept from me that shop stewards and shop floor representatives at Firth Brown sent a resolution to the Labour Party headquarters demanding that Firth Brown, which has probably the biggest private sector plant in Sheffield, ought to be nationalised?

  85
  Will he also accept the view that we are being inundated regularly by demands from Shepcote Lane rolling mills that the Corporation should take over 100 per cent. of that plant?
  Mr. Osborn: I think that what shop stewards say does not necessarily reflect the view of the shop floor.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Just misguided.
  Mr. Osborn: The fact is that there is unease, and, firstly, the blame for this must rest on hon. Members opposite and their decision to nationalise, and then to renationalise after denationalisation. Secondly, there is some responsibility on management of the British Steel Corporation at the present time.
  At a private gathering I was talking about the difficulties facing Lord Melchett and Mr. Finneston, and the scale of activities which they must resolve. The Minister should know that there is growing unease not only by some in the public sector but by its customers and suppliers, that if there are difficulties it was Lord Melchett's and Mr. Finneston's responsibility for taking up this impossible task given to them by the past Government. It has been to my surprise that I have been criticised for understanding and supporting this task which was placed upon Lord Melchett. But my right hon. Friend should bear in mind that Lord Melchett and those running the British Steel Corporation are subject to growing criticism.
  Because it brought about more certainty I welcomed the statement of 27th April that the industry should remain intact. It is quite obvious that I would wish Lord Melchett to stay in this position, but I think that that outside anxiety should be noted. I shall read my right hon. Friend's pronouncement about the future of the industry with very great interest, because obviously we are not going back to separate companies as pre-1967.
  The question of fair competition arose in our debates on nationalisation and the public sector is competing with the private sector, not only in steel, but throughout industry, for capital. Fair trading and fair competition will, I hope, be looked at, but what is important, and my right hon. Friend pointed it out, is that we
  86
  are talking of an investment of £185 million this year and an investment to build up to £290 million, I think my right hon. Friend said, in future years. This is an immensely greater investment than had been undertaken by the steel industry, even in the years of the Labour Government.
  With this investment the question of pricing arises as well. It would be useful if we could have some indication about international prices compared with those now being set as a result of the increase of 7 per cent. instead of a 14 per cent. addition after the April discussions. It is fair to say that the average increase in steel prices from June, 1969, to April, 1971, has been 23 per cent. It is not as great in the case of alloy steel, much of which is made in the private sector. Carbon billets, I am assured, have gone up by a much greater figure than this; namely, 36 per cent.
  In the private sector there are many companies which have to purchase material, including billets, from the public sector. It is possible that with the best will in the world, manufacturing suppliers are tempted to supply to those who carry out finishing operations in competition with their own subsidiary activities at unfairly high prices unless there is competition. When the industry is restructured it would be right for my right hon. Friend to be aware that the private sector desires an alternative supply to the public sector for its billets, so that there can be competition. This, no doubt, will come out in the November Memorandum, but I hope my right hon. Friend will comment on this.
  As regards prices, the British Steel Corporation must be given freedom, but if it is to have freedom of prices, then not all the capital it requires should come from the Government. Whilst I welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend that more capital should be generated from the steel industry's own resources—of course the steel industry should make profits and plough back profits for its own capital development; that is the reason for the Question which I tabled today—at the same time it could sell off capital assets which are not directly concerned with what it is in business for, and it should be encouraged to take part in joint ventures with outsiders. I am very glad that this encouragement is being given by my right hon. Friend.

  87
  My right hon. Friend spoke about international activities, including the manufacture of pellets. I went to a flotation and briquette plant in Venezuela at the Sidor works some months ago, where pellets of 86 per cent. iron content are being manufactured for the steel industry in the United States of America. It is right that there should be a British investment in these activities.
  I hold the view, which I have held throughout our debates on steel, that the British Steel Corporation is too large and too diffuse. I think it right that we should review the structure of the Corporation. Some activities could well be part of international activities, perhaps based on the United States of America, and this might even involve a whole product group; and other activities could be in a European context. All this, I understand, will now be part of the long-term review, and I look forward to hearing of the outcome of this review when it is made public this year or early next year.
  There are many more observations which I would have liked to make in this debate, but there is not time. Undoubtedly the debate is taking place as a result of the decision to nationalise steel. Many of the issues which we are now discussing should not, in my view, be discussed in the House of Commons. In some cases the Government should act as referee, and there should be outside agencies for achieving this.
  In the British Steel Corporation there is a new management learning how to run an industrial dynosaur. It is still learning, and the bankers—namely, the Treasury, which will have to provide the necessary—are right to investigate every activity and undertaking, because the Corporation is running on an unprofitable basis.
  No private concern would bring 14 large companies together in one fell swoop as was done on the nationalisation of steel without expecting the most ghastly and complex——
  Mr. Skeet: Mess.
  Mr. Osborn: As my hon. Friend says, "mess". Today's difficulties are the inheritance of measures taken by the Labour Government when they decided to nationalise the industry. But my right
  88
  hon. Friend has given us a blueprint for the future of the industry, and I welcome the content of his early contribution to the debate, and beg to support his Amendment in the Lobby this evening.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mr. George Lawson: It is strange for a representative of the steel industry to welcome intervention by the Treasury. He is calling upon the Treasury and the bankers to scrutinise the plans of the British Steel Corporation, to decide what those plans should be and to approve or reject them. This is rather comical, coming from an hon. Gentleman opposite.
  The line taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite is that the Labour Government caused it all and, had it not been for the threat of nationalisation, the steel industry would have been well ahead of that of any other country. Hon. Gentlemen forget that the steel industry of Britain was on its knees during the inter-war years, when there was no question of a threat of nationalisation. In many ways the war saved the steel industry. Long before the threat of nationalisation became a political proposition, the State was called in at the behest of the steel industry to protect it. Even after the steel industry had been nationalised, and denationalised, during the 13 years of Tory Government, there was no suggestion that the industry should be returned to a private enterprise form of control. There was a disguised restitution of private enterprise, but the industry functioned under many controls and protections. It is a long time since we have had a private enterprise steel industry.
  When nationalisation is used as a reason for the state in which the British steel industry now finds itself, hon. Gentlemen should remember that this situation is not unique to that industry. It is characteristic of a large part of private enterprise. For example, the shipbuilding industry was one of the industries of which we were most proud. The term "Clyde built" was enough to warrant that a ship was one of the finest ships ever to sail the seas. That industry was not nationalised, yet the state it reached was such that a Minister could say to a Select Committee that the shipbuilding firms on the Clyde kept no proper accounts. They did not know what the ships they were tendering for would cost,

  89
  and they were in a state of hopeless muddle. This is characteristic of large areas of private enterprise.
  The nationalisation of the steel industry was an attempted rescue. The industry has not yet been properly rescued, because the process of putting it on a sound competitive basis has been interrupted. We hear much about the deep-seated review which the Government are undertaking, and this is comical coming from hon. Gentlemen opposite. I can remember how they mocked at the National Plan propounded some years ago by Lord George Brown. They mocked at the idea of long-term planning, but here is long-term planning with a vengeance.
  Every aspect of this great industry is to be looked at by civil servants, gentlemen from Whitehall. They will no doubt consult the industry, but the gentlemen from Whitehall will have the last word. The gentlemen from Whitehall will tell the steel industry what size it should be. When the industry produced plans for building up capacity by 1975 to 35 million tons, these plans were interrupted and halted. We are told that they have not been halted. I and other hon. Members have asked questions about the plans, for example, for 1971–72, and have been told repeatedly that Ravenscraig has not been halted.
  The Secretary of State for Employment gave the House a categorical assurance that the Government were not holding up the Ravenscraig plan or any other plan, apart from Llanwern. The Government said that things must stop until we have a short-term review. Presumably, nothing was halted except Llanwern. Yet they cannot go ahead. I do not know what is being reviewed, unless it is an abstract amount of £185 million upwards beyond £200 million, and whether the country can afford to spend this amount of money on steel investment. I cannot make any sense out of this position. To my mind the Ravenscraig scheme was held up, and so were the others and the Steel Corporation has repeatedly said this.
  The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) spoke of the objections emanating from the shop floor in Sheffield about the decisions concerning special steel being taken elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen
  90
  (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) and I could go to our constituencies and find men on the shop floor objecting to decisions on special steel which are being taken in Sheffield. They object to a section of the special steel industry, which they always assured us was—and still is—a very profitable section, being under threat of closure to benefit a section of the special steel industry in Sheffield. They put it to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and myself that if the special steel industry is making money there is no reason why it should be closed down to benefit some unit in Sheffield. I have a fair measure of sympathy for that.
  We have to remember that only a relatively small part of the special steel industry has been nationalised. I looked at the position of that industry vis-à-vis overseas competition. According to figures in the Financial Times, in 1955 the United Kingdom was second highest among the seven principal producers of stainless steel in the free world. By 1969 we had dropped behind every one of those countries except Italy, which was rapidly moving ahead. Probably by now Italy is substantially ahead of us. When we measure this against what has happened elsewhere we cannot preen ourselves on how well we have been doing.
  The Minister talked about decades and he was right to do so. There has been something characteristic about British industry, and not just the steel industry, for decades which has resulted in us falling behind. Those of us who backed the nationalisation of steel hoped that we might stop that and build the industry up. We listened a few weeks ago to Lord Melchett talking about the state of the industry when it was taken over. I am not betraying any confidences when I say that Lord Melchett said that not only had there been inadequate investment but there had also been inadequate maintenance.
  Lord Melchett said that merely to replace the industry on the basis of existing capacity, which is now very small compared with its principal competitors, would cost something like £2,500 million. So much of the industry has dropped behind any ordinary measure of efficiency. When we consider this figure we begin to appreciate that unless substantial expenditure is undertaken rapidly we can forget any ideas that we will

  91
  become one of the principal industrial nations of the world.
  This is the principal accusation which I level against the Government. They have interrupted a programme which has been worked out by those who know much more about steel-making and the possibilities of development than the genelemen from the Treasury. They have interrupted what many of us on this side of the House thought was a modest development programme which would build up capacity by 1975 to 34 million tons and then take it beyond. Look at what is happening elsewhere. Let us take the Common Market countries. In a recent publication from the European Community research and development organisation the modest annual rate of growth for the steel industry for the Six of 4·7 per cent. was given, rising, if things improved, to 6·2 per cent.
  That substantially exceeds the level of growth that the Corporation has set for itself by 1975. The Corporation's aim is not over-ambitious. It gives us a chance of maintaining a position among the steel producers of the world but by no means the foremost position.
  It was hoped that by taking certain measures the industry would become more efficient. The brownfield sites scheme was to utilise various sites, and there were relatively few, which gave the opportunity of speeding up the advantages accruing from the capital invested. This was one of the reasons for selecting Ravenscraig. It had a steel-rolling and finishing capacity about twice its steel-making capacity. The idea was to step up the making of steel so that the industry could utilise to the full its finishing capacity.
  The Government have interfered and taken upon themselves the rôle of the judge and the rôle of the expert, who scrutinises and decides what has to be done. They must recognise that by itself the industry cannot find the means of developing the kind of capacity that we all agree it must have, irrespective of whether we agree about nationalisation. Without this level of efficiency we will not be one of the world's leading producers.
  We need less interference from the Treasury and more backing. I am sure
  92
  that on this basis the industry will show that it has the capability to achieve 43 million tons by 1980. There is no question but that the men in charge of the industry know how to produce results speedily. This is being shown in the Scunthorpe area. Figures have been achieved at Lackenby which could be achieved elsewhere. On this basis the industry can become a thriving industry.
  I want to deal now with Lanarkshire, where we have a contracting industry. A few years ago it represented about 20 per cent. of the steel-making capacity of the United Kingdom. That has steadily reduced to about 10 per cent. and it has been running at about 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. for some time. On the Scottish steel-making industry depends a large part of the remainder of Scottish industry, and if we are left with a fragment of a steel industry, with that industry unable to develop fully along with the rest, then there will be very strong feeling in Scotland.
  Scotland has played a large part in the building of this nation. It has many great advantages—and I will not develop the theme of the deep-water ore terminal or the possibilities of the green field development area. There are rival claimants. We expect to see the developments earmarked for Scotland, notably Ravenscraig, to be carried through as promised. My understanding was that we were to have a statement before the end of this month. In any event, we expect to hear from the Government very soon that those schemes will go ahead.
  The Government have taken upon themselves the rôle of judge, the rôle of the body which can say "Yea" or "Nay". Upon the Government will rest the onus if the nation is not able to get ahead speedily with solving the problems facing it, which are so well understood by those who are in charge of the steel industry.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I make the comment, and I do not do so in a critical sense, that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) spoke for over 20 minutes. In the remaining 2½ hours, there are at least 10 hon. Members on the Opposition side and several on the Government side who wish to speak. I must ask for shorter speeches.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. David Lane: I have no direct constituency interest in steel. Cambridge wants more industry, but not a steel works. Nor have I to declare a personal interest in steel, in the normal parliamentary sense. However, I worked for the British Iron and Steel Federation in the late 1940s and throughout the 1950s, and no one who has had any connection with the steel industry can fail to have a permanent interest in its fortunes or to feel admiration and concern for those who work in it. I am very well aware of the anxieties in the steel communities and constituencies today.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we are concerned mainly with the present and the future. I regret that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) persists so often in taking off from reality into extravagant flights of fancy and distortion, for I do not quarrel with some of what he says. However, before coming to the present and the future, we must take a glance at the past.
  Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have a nerve when they accuse this Government of causing uncertainty. Since 1945, when the first nationalisation proposal came forward, hardly a year has passed without those in senior positions having to keep glancing over their shoulders at what was going on in the political arena. The Labour Party must be held primarily responsible for that distraction. It does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite to accuse my right hon. and hon. Friends of causing uncertainty.
  I hope that the House will endorse the Government decision to carry out these reviews. Any new Government taking over in the circumstances that my right hon. and hon. Friends found last summer were bound to undertake reviews of this kind. Intensely difficult problems face them. There is the relationship between Government and nationalised industry, which has not been solved in the postwar years by either major party. We want more commercial freedom, of course. But, so long as the Government have to provide most, if not all, of the capital, it is inconceivable that the Government can wash their hands of what
  94
  any industry is doing. We are still groping for the right relationship.
  There are peculiar difficulties in steel. Production is sluggish because of world recessions. Customers are discontented, and, regardless of what the Government may do, the British Steel Corporation should take action to improve its customer relationships. The financial results are poor. The industry is losing money at the rate of about £1 million a week. Meanwhile, the technical revolution goes on, with which many hon. Members are far more familiar than I am——
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Is not it a fact that the industry is losing £1 million a week because the hon. Gentleman's Government refused to allow the increase for which the Steel Corporation asked?
  Mr. Lane: I do not accept that. The Government's decision has had some effect, but to nothing like the extent of the figures that we are discussing. For a number of reasons, the financial climate has turned bad for the industry in the last year or two. Instead of rushing to censure the Government, fair-minded observers should have sympathy with the inheritance that my right hon. and hon. Friends took over last summer and show more understanding of the real problems.
  I have three brief pleas to make. The first is that the Government should carry out these reviews with maximum speed and urgency. I know from correspondence with Ministers, especially with my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Industry, that the Government are aware of the problem of morale at the present time. A number of my friends and former colleagues in the industry, who have never advocated nationalisation, are worried by the continuing uncertainty. They have had nationalisation; they had the reorganisation two years ago into product groups; now there is the possibility of more. We all want to see a secure basis for the future as soon as possible.
  Secondly, the Government should make a firm declaration, and my right hon. Friend virtually did so today, that British steel will stay in the front rank among the world's steel producers. We should

  95
  not aim to be 100 per cent. self-supporting in steel. We never have been. Equally it would be a mistake to rely to any substantial extent on imports. We know that the industry, for a variety of reasons, is suffering from overmanning and under-investment. These matters have to be put right. Total capacity must be expanded further. Even more important, the percentage of modern plant has to be increased greatly in the next few years. We have a fine tradition of skill and pride in the industry. We have the foundation for the future, and the best of our plant is as good as any in the world. On this foundation, we can hold our own, to the benefit of the British economy and not least the balance of payments, if a major investment programme can be sustained for many years ahead. We want to concentrate on a few very large integrated plants in Scotland, the North-East Coast. Immingham—Scunthorpe and South Wales. The pattern is already developing. My right hon. Friend spoke about a new greenfield plant, and there has been talk of the Thames Estuary. I hope that that will be considered by the Government. We shall also need cold-metal plants at suitable sites inland. Above all, let us have growth and optimism and not decline and doubt.
  My third plea concerns the structure and ownership of the industry. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends keep in mind what we said in our election manifesto. The Government are already busily carrying out their election pledges, as the House recognises. In our Manifesto we said:
  "We will progressively reduce the involvement of the State in the nationalised industries, for example in the steel industry, so as to improve their competitiveness. An increasing use of private capital will help to reduce the burden on the taxpayer, get better investment decisions, and ensure more effective use of total resources."
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend was right in the decision he announced a month ago that the main stream of bulk steel making should stay in one total organisation within the present British Steel Corporation structure. To carry out that election pledge, the most urgent need is to restore the main stream of steel making to profitability at the
  96
  earliest date; then it will be increasingly attractive for private capital to come into the industry, to bring the extra disciplines of private capital, to reduce the strain on the Exchequer, which at present has to find the whole of the new money required, and, not least, because this is the germ of an eventual solution that we all want, to remove the industry from politics once and for all.
  There has been talk of a B.P. solution. I hope that something on those lines can be worked out. It may not be precisely parallel to the structure in B.P., but I hope the Government can evolve some system where, progressively, more private capital is injected into the main stream of bulk steel-making, which must first be restored to profitability.
  My view about hiving off is that this should not be a case of major surgery. It is more one of rearrangements on a fairly modest scale. Anybody connected with the industry knows that it is impossible to draw tidy boundaries around it. That was one of the main reasons against the Labour Party's original nationalisation. There are, of course different sectors of the industry, including tools, special steels and the rest, which cut across the dividing lines between manufacturing and fabricating. Sometimes on one site there is a wide spread of functions and sometimes there is total integration. I hope that we shall see some rationalisation and tidying up of the boundaries between the public and private sectors, but the first objective must be to keep the mainstream of steelmaking profitable.
  I hope that in the central organisation, as it develops, there will be a slimming-down of what many people regard as an undue increase in the non-productive, administrative and overhead sides of the industry. If there is to be rationalisation among those engaged in operations, as there surely must be throughout the iron and steel making sectors, this must be matched by similar rationalisation on the non-productive side of the industry.
  The Government are being unfairly criticised where they should be supported. I hope that within a few months major decisions will be taken so that the industry is set on a new course towards an expanding and profitable future, with an increasing rôle for private capital. Above

  97
  all, I hope there will soon be reassurance about the future for the men and women who are devoting their talents and efforts to the industry and whose livelihoods and those of their families are at stake.
  6.42 p.m.
  Mr. Barry Jones: I understand your request for brevity, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to take up quite briefly what was said by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane). He raised the matter of possible green field sites. It rather seems that he had a pin hovering over the map of Britain, but he did not seem to indicate any likelihood of such a site going to North Wales. Since I represent a large steel making constituency in North East Wales, I am sure the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I mention—I shall not go into the matter in detail, since none of us wishes to conduct an auction about green field sites—that the Shotton works in Wales are adjacent to the M6 spur, have access to a deep water port and are part of an area which is brilliantly administered by the Flintshire County Council. The works are also adjacent to the steel-hungry Midlands. I will not pursue that point, although one could make a good case for locating a green field site on the banks of the River Dee, possibly on reclaimed land.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: Would my hon. Friend also bear in mind that there are green fields in South Wales as well.
  Mr. Jones: I am well aware of that, and there are also green valleys, too. I have come here not to bury the British Steel Corporation but to praise it. I believe that the Chairman heads an impressive conglomerate. I feel that the Corporation has often been somewhat unfairly criticised. It has a quarter of a million employees, it is the seventh largest corporation outside the United States, and it has direct exports of some £200 million a year, and its contribution to the industrial scene of Britain is second to none. Yet at this stage it is, to use a boxing term, reeling like Cassius Clay in the fifteenth round. The denial of £100 million in investment grants in future might be termed as something of a vicious kidney punch and, as an additional bit of eye-gouging, it has to suffer from the relaxation of the scrap import controls.
  98
  I should like to make one point about stockholdings. Everybody wants to see the Corporation a little more "in the black" and a little less "in the red". I believe that an examination of the steel stockholding would indicate a possible line of action that the Government might take. I recollect that the stockholding business in steeel has waxed fat since vesting day and the Continental producers are considering whether they might take over one or two of these steel stockists in the United Kingdom. The Government might consider allowing the Corporation to have a little of the steel stockists' gravy. I believe that the figures of the steel stockholders' turnover amount to some £300 million a year. There is surely food for thought in that sphere.
  There is gathering gloom and apprehension in my constituency about the steel industry. The sooner that decisions are taken the better and the sooner they are made known the better. I would instance what has happened about the future of the Shotton steel works in my constituency. We assumed that, with luck, we would get a green field site development. We assumed that, if we were unlucky, we might end up with a heavy site being closed down and with rolled steel being taken from Scotland and South Wales where there are other green fields. We consider that it might be possible, if the Government do not go ahead with a green field site, that Shotton might have new electric furnaces and have therefore the right to exist in the generation that is ahead. It is already being said by the younger people that there is no future in the steel works at Shotton, and that it is likely to be run down. It is time to pose the question whether there will be an announcement soon as to the future of the steel works there.
  It would be proper in such a debate as this to indicate the qualities of the steelmaker himself. He tends to be overlooked. I would not say that steel men in East Flintshire are very different from steel men in South Wales or Scotland, but they have a very special quality. It is a quality of human warmth and comradeship and brotherhood in the making of steel. Perhaps it is to do with the heat and warmth of the metal on which the men work. It is therefore extremely disappointing that the Corporation, and ultimately the steel workers, have had to

  99
  suffer the uncertainty and climate of doubt which has bedevilled the situation. Therefore, I hope that in the very near future, many of these doubts and fears may be put at rest.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: When I made my maiden speech in 1964 I chose the subject of the steel industry, which I had then recently left. At that time the then Labour Government, which had recently assumed office, were making extravagant pleas that, with the British steel industry in the hands of the State under nationalisation many of its problems would disappear. However, here we are some years later taking part in this debate having heard from the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) in his opening speech that he feels that the Government are interfering too much. The simple fact is that there is no simple answer to the problems of the British steel industry. There is no particular magic about private enterprise, nor about public ownership. This industry used to be described by the Labour Party as a commanding height, but now those people who work in the industry must realise how vulnerable is the fortress which they are defending. It is this industry above others which is so subject to the vicissitudes of life.
  Therefore, the Motion before the House is utterly wrong in that it talks of a persistent uncertainty over the last year. This uncertainty has lasted not only for 20 years but for almost as long as anybody in the House can remember. The reasons are simple. We are as an industry all the time facing changes in the economic climate. In addition, there are various other challenges which the industry has to face, not least of which is the increasing supply of steel from countries other than the major steel producers of the past. One of these countries is Japan. We see from the figures that in 1955 steel production in Japan reached a figure of 9½ million tons, whereas in 1970 that figure went up to 98 million tons. That is an upward trend of something like 12½ million tons every year in the recent past.
  On the other hand, looking at United Kingdom capacity, whereas this year we have a planned capacity of about 26
  100
  million to 27 million tons, a figure which has not altered considerably over the last 15 years, and in 1975 we are planning for a figure of approximately 33 million to 35 million tons, depending presumably on the outcome of my right hon. Friend's survey, we can see that Japan has swept forward as a great major steel producer.
  Why? Japanese home demand for steel has gone up by 15 per cent. a year whereas our home demand for steel has gone up by little over 3·5 per cent. Our steel industry is dependent almost entirely on the performance of the economy as a whole. It is always a very good yardstick for any economy to see how the British steel industry is doing in relation to our economy. It is impossible to lay at the feet of any individual Government the reasons, and I do not intend to do so, but I make the point that the British steel industry is a victim, not a cause, of the situation with which it is faced.
  The British steel industry has had to face three major challenges since the war: technological, economic and political.
  Technologically, the situation facing the British steel industry—indeed, perhaps all steel industries—was when in the late 1940s the first major oxygen converters were tried out in Austria. When they became the relevant modern way of making cheap bulk steel the open-hearth furnaces in Britain were out-of-date overnight. There are still 15 major works in Britain, of which Irlam is one, with old open-hearth furnaces. If those works are to be brought up to date they will have to be completely refitted or there will have to be a new rationalisation.
  We had the oxygen converters coming in in bulk in the late 1940s the electric arc furnaces, and so on; but technologically at the end of the war the industry faced big challenges. Because there was so much investment already in old open-hearth plants it was not economic or perhaps even politically right to make a major change.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Many of the open-hearth plants are obsolete, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many are unfortunately in the wrong geographical places to cash in on large B.O.S. plants?
  Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) has completely taken my

  101
  point. I can think of many plants in the position which he has described.
  We have had other developments which are well known to hon. Members, like continuous casting and perhaps even direct reduction, which I have a feeling may be coming along ultimately. It may be that with pelletised ores this will happen.
  Then there is the economic challenge of the desire for new large investment At the moment we have one 3 million ton plant at Port Talbot, one 2½ million to 3 million ton plant at Appleby-Froding-ham-Redbourn, and five 1½ million to 2 million ton plants at Ravenscraig, Lackenby, Shotton, Llanwern, and Steel Peach and Tozer. The last represents the biggest thing we have in steel making. When we set that against the developing pattern in Japan, Russia and the United States, we see how far down the ladder we are.
  It is now becoming clear that the kind of figure at which we should be aiming is a plant of approximately 10 million tons. That is an enormous plant. We have not got anything even a third that size. That will cost approximately £1,000 million to construct. One can immediately set that in the context of the figures of investment about which we were talking earlier. For instance, by 1980 Japan will have the N.K.K. plant at Fukuyama producing 16 to 20 million tons, and Italsider at Taranto will be producing 9 million to 10 million tons, and we are already into the 1970's. If we desire to go for this big plant we must make sure that it will be fully utilised.
  One problem is that at Llanwern and Ravenscraig this has not been the case. This point was brought forward by the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). The siting of those two plants, even though done by a; Conservative Government, was a judgment of Solomon—it pleased nobody and provided no answer. This was, with hindsight, a wrong decision. So we have the problem of size and the cost of the investment.
  We then have to look at where these sites should be. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would like sites in their constituencies. I can understand that. However, we have to think of the deep-water terminals where we can bring in the big ore carriers
  102
  if we are to get the economy of size. The hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) made a plea for the deep water terminal in his constituency. This is a matter which I am sure my right hon. Friend will be locking at.
  In the economic challenge we must consider prices. I do not wish to go into this matter in detail, but I am not sure that we are right to control prices if it means passing on any increased cost or losses to the taxpayer. If we truly want the industry to be an economic unit, then we must allow it to charge the right price for its product. Last year we had the ridiculous situation of rationing structural steels because our price was too low, and this year we are closing plants. Therefore, we must have the price level which truly reflects the cost of the product we are making.
  The third challenge is that of politics. The British Steel Corporation is unlike all the other big units in the world in that those big agglomerations came into being because of commercial need. The British Steel Corporation came into being because of political expediency. The two do not make happy bedfellows. To get the best commercial entity or commercial unit, political expediency is unlikely to provide the best answer.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) pointed to the time when he was in the British Steel Federation and the attempts which have been made since the war to nationalise the industry. In every case they have created the uncertainty to which my hon. Friend referred. I believe that the British Steel Corporation will have a more difficult task than almost any other steel industry in the world merely to overcome this political problem which was created when it was brought into being.
  Rationalisation is never easy or pleasant. It often means a restructuring of the labour force. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale pointed to the lesson of the coal industry. We have to be very careful. There is a bright future for the coal industry, but we may have realised that too late. I hope that we shall not do that with the British steel industry. There is a real place for this industry. It is bound to feature in political discussion. For the sake of those earning

  103
  their livelihoods in it, I hope the Goverment will not make it a plaything of politics.
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. David Watkins: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for the New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson). I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow too closely along the well informed line of argument which he has developed although in my speech I may touch on some of the points he made.
  I thought that the speech of the Secretary of State was notable for its omissions rather than its commissions. The right hon. Gentleman is a member of a Government whose negotiations to take this country into the European Economic Community are at an advanced stage. He introduced from the Government benches a major debate in the House on the steel industry, which will be vitally affected one way or another by the success or failure f our application. Yet, in his speech, there was not one word about the steel industry in relation to our application to join the Common Market.
  When we consider the position, the omission is the key to much of the Government's action which has caused so much uncertainty in the industry over recent months. In spite of the noises being made in some quarters, and no less in spite of the noises not being made in some quarters, the fact remains that the size of the British steel industry is one of the major problems of this country's application to enter the E.E.C. The Common Market Commission has repeatedly shown that it is wary of allowing a steel company, or group of companies, to produce more than about 12 per cent. or 13 per cent. of the total steel output of the Community, because it reckons that any company, or group of companies, which produces more than that distorts the pattern of competition which is written into the principles not only of the Treaty of Rome, but of the Treaty of Paris which brought the European Coal and Steel Community into existence long before the Treaty of Rome came into being. The British Steel Corporation currently produces about 18 per
  104
  cent. of what would be the total steel production of an enlarged Community should this country's application, and that of the associated countries, prove successful.
  I am aware that on 5th May one of those mysterious, anonymous spokesmen announced from Brussels that it was not expected that the size of the British steel industry would be any problem in regard to this country's application to join the Common Market, although there would be concern about certain of the marketing methods of the British Steel Corporation. I shall come back to say something further about the anonymous spokesman. I want, now, to touch upon some of those marketing practices, because they would complicate this country's entry into the Common Market.
  One of the complicating factors is the dominating position of the Corporation in the British market. Another is the Minister's powers, which can be exercised, over the industry. A third is the very existence of the Iron and Steel Consumers' Council because, in terms of the Common Market ideology, the Iron and Steel Consumers' Council detracts from the independence of the industry in determining its own marketing and other policies and puts intervention in the industry into the hands of a body established by the Government themselves.
  Those factors being present, it is perhaps not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman was so silent because, when the Government made their intervention in the pricing policy of the Corporation, they used the Consumers' Council in their manoeuvres to cut down the applied for increase by half. By doing that the Government have made the economic operation of the Corporation impossible. They have put the Corporation in the position of subsidising the consumers of its products, many of whom are not subjected to the same degree of control over price increases, by which they are more than able to make and cover the additional cost to them of increased steel prices. Above all, by their interference, the Government have seriously under mined the Corporation's ability to assist in the financing over the next decade of the necessary capital investment for the growth, expansion and modernisation of the industry.

  105
  One of the supreme ironies of the use of the Consumers' Council by the Government in the price structure of the industry is that this has been done by the Government who are committed to entry into the E.E.C., yet they could not have done that had we already been in the Common Market. I think that we are entitled to ask whether this interference by the Government, who are supposedly dedicated to non-interference in industry, together with the hiving-off threats, about which we continue to hear so much, was a backstairs move to break up the Corporation and thus facilitate the acceptance of the British Steel industry by the Common Market Commission. Having listened to some of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, my suspicions are not allayed, but increased.
  Mr. Skeet: Is the hon. Gentleman correct? Italy has interfered with the price of steel, and also with the price of oil. I should have thought that it was compatible with the Treaty of Rome to interfere with prices.
  Mr. Watkins: The industry in Italy is not in the dominant position that the Corporation is in the market in this country, and that is one factor which explains the difference. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman nodded when I referred to the ideology of the Common Market, so I presume that he would not disagree with my analysis of the situation.
  Mr. David Crouch: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that from his side of the House there is no suggestion, and would be none, of Government oversight of vast increases in prices? Does he not remember the Prices and Incomes Board which was set up by the Labour Government to do just that? Is he saying that it is not the Labour Party's policy to oversee prices?
  Mr. Watkins: I am saying nothing of the sort. The Prices and Incomes Board was established to carry out a thorough investigation into prices in a completely independent manner, but it was wound up by the Conservative Government, who have therefore done away with that kind of machinery.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the Prices and Incomes Board dealt with applications,
  106
  without fear or favour, from both the private and the public sector, whereas the Government's policy is fear for the public sector, and favour for the private one?
  Mr. Watkins: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has succinctly and accurately summed up the Government's approach to this matter.
  I said earlier that I would return to the question of the anonymous spokesman who, on 5th May, said that the size of the British Steel Corporation presented no difficulty in regard to this country's entry into the Common Market. Viewed against the background which I have outlined, and bearing in mind the principles embodied in the Treaty of Paris and in the Treaty of Rome, I find it difficult casually to brush aside, in the almost offhand manner of that spokesman, the problems confronting our steel industry. This is not a debate on the Common Market, but the Common Market is casting long shadows over the British Steel Corporation, and I am bound to say that the Government have been less than frank with the House on its effects upon the steel industry.
  My position, and that of many of my hon. Friends who represent steel constituencies, is that we represent divisions in which the steel industry plays an enormously important rôle, not only in the economy of our constituencies, but in the economies of considerable areas around our constituencies, and affects many industries. The Consett Steel Works in my constituency employs between 6,500 and 7,000 people. The very existence of those works is vital to the economy of a large area of North-East England.
  When the industry was nationalised, the old Iron and Steel Federation produced the Benson Report, to which the Secretary of State referred in rather more than glowing terms. That report was produced as a so-called alternative to nationalisation. It envisaged the phasing out and closing down of the Consett Steel Works, with all the effects that that would have had, not only upon the constituency, but upon a large area round about. There is no doubt that the steel works were saved by being taken into public ownership, and today, five years later, we have there one of the most modern and viable steel plants in Europe. The hon. Member

  107
  for the New Forest spoke about investment, and I take up the point made by him because, notwithstanding the modern and vital nature of that plant in my constituency it still needs, not uncertainty, but further investment. If the Government have any plans to break up the steel industry in pursuit of entry of the Common Market or any other doctrinaire objective, they will face the implacable opposition not only of my constituents but of all my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: It is strange to hear hon. Members opposite complaining of too much Government interest and involvement in steel when their party made this a Government responsibility by nationalising it. I wholeheartedly support the review of the industry which the Government are undertaking, so that this vital and basic industry can be rationalised, modernised and—I am sure hon. Members on all sides would agree—substantially expanded to meet strong overseas competition.
  The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) said that the Common Market was casting a long shadow over the future of the British Steel Corporation. I cannot accept this, because to be part of a free trade area with a home market of 270 million people, as the enlarged Community will be, will give efficient steel production in this country colossal opportunities.
  The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) attacked the Government for cutting the steel price increase in half. I cannot follow him in that, because Trafford Park in my constituency—where 40,000 people go to work every day—has a great preponderance of heavy engineering and heavy industry, and steel is a basic primary material. The 14 per cent. increase on top of several swingeing increases in the price of steel that have taken place since nationalisation would have very seriously affected the overseas competitiveness of many of the products there and have made the employment situation even worse.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) mentioned the burden of nationalisation on steel in Sheffield. Lancashire Steel would not be in its present situation, and 4,500 people would not be facing redun-
  108
  dancies, but for nationalisation. Lancashire Steel would have had to continue its steel making plant as well as the wire works, but the B.S.C. has no interest in continuing steel production at Irlam. This is why B.S.C. is throwing 4,500 people out of work.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman cannot categorically say that there would be steel making at Irlam today but for nationalisation. My guess, which is more informed on steel than his, is that Irlam would have been closed before now.
  Mr. Churchill: I cannot accept that. An independent company like Lancashire Steel would not have wished to depend on other plants or the Japanese while it could still profitably produce steel at Irlam. This could still be done, if the open-hearth furnaces were replaced, with a fairly modest investment programme.
  I must declare an interest, because 750 of my constituents in Stretford and Urmston are among the 4,500 threatened in the Irlam closure. About 1,900 are threatened with redundancy this year, although no final details have been announced. This uncertainty is causing a good deal of anxiety among my constituents. There is at least the prospect of a bid by private enterprise which not only would continue the re-rolling at Irlam and the wire making at Warrington but would not wish to be dependent on the monopolistic control of the B.S.C. for its supplies, and so would carry on an independent steel-making capacity. This would go far to mitigate the 4,500 threatened redundancies.
  But there is a difficulty which I hope the Government will recognise, in that this interest which has been expressed from private quarters has met a very frosty response from the Steel Corporation, which, one can understand, has, as a monopoly, no interest in seeing anyone set up business in competition with it. I understand that it has been unwilling to supply the figures of production and profitability which any responsible bidder would need to enable him to bid for the whole of the works.
  I believe that the Government will accept that they have a certain wider interest in this matter than the Steel Corporation itself, since the Irlam Steel

  109
  Works is such a major local employer. It provides about 60 per cent. of the employment of the people of the village of Irlam and extends fairly wide into mine and neighbouring constituencies. What do the Government intend to do about this? It has been suggested that the B.S.C., through its associate, John Finlan Limited, will set up new industries in Trafford Park and Irlam and this will mitigate the effects of some of the redundancies. But this will inevitably take two, three or even four years to establish: it is no good to men being thrown out of work this year.
  I am grateful that the Government have said that they will look with renewed favour on the area when granting industrial development certificates, but this is not enough. The Irlam Action Committee, which includes the local unions, the local authority and other interested bodies, has made it clear that it does not care who carries on steel making in Irlam, provided the jobs are saved.
  Will the Government lean on the Corporation and tell it to supply figures on which a private enterprise bid could be based? If such a bid is then forthcoming and is realistic, I hope that the Government, in order to safeguard the jobs of so many hundreds of men and their families, will require the Corporation to give up the two relatively small—in terms of employment—but highly profitable parts, the bar mill at Irlam and the wire works at Warrington, which the Steel Corporation wishes to retain.
  On the wider question of the future development of the steel industry we have had many suggestions for the siting of plants, and, naturally, every hon. Member is rooting for his constituency. There seems to be an assumption that a coastal site is the only way of producing steel economically. There has been a great deal of talk about this, but there seems to have been little investigation of the cost of an inland site in what are the traditional heavy industrial areas of the country. If we are to close down inland steel-making plants—and Irlam is but one of several in the greater Manchester area—and opt for coastal sites, we must consider the effect of this on the established industrial centres where heavy engineering and other heavy industries have in the past been close to their steel.
  110
  In the long term many of these industries would undoubtedly wish to be near their primary raw material, and this could disastrously accelerate the decline of traditional industrial areas. I ask my hon. Friend to consider the possibility of a deep-water ore terminal off Liverpool which could take the largest of the present day ore carriers and perhaps a pelletising plant as well, on site, and the practicability of transport by heavy duty railway or a modern system of barge-trains up the Manchester Ship Canal to an inland site. That site need not necessarily be Irlam—it probably is not big enough—but it could be somewhere in the greater Manchester area.
  I would like to put some figures in my right hon. Friend's mind when considering this, British enterprise is heavily involved at the other end of steel production; namely, getting the ore out of Australia One British company has built a 180-mile railway from Mount Tom Price in North-West Australia to Port Headland. The ore is transported in 100-ton railway trucks, 180 at a time making a total of 18,000 tons per train. The cost of this is one third of an old penny per ton mile.
  Mr. Skeet: Would my hon. Friend not agree that instead of having the pelletising plant on Merseyside, it would be much cheaper to build the pelletising plant in Australia?
  Mr. Churchill: There are already such plants in Australia, but we do not want to be totally dependent on our good friends there when we are facing such competition for their materials from the Japanese. If we are to be free to choose our source of raw material from Africa, Latin-America and other places, it might be convenient, and a source of employment, to have a pelletising plant in this country. Now that we have a supply of North Sea gas, the problems involved with an inland site are greatly reduced. I would ask my right hon. Friend to give serious consideration to the implications for the future development of heavy industry in this country which would result from a commitment to coastal sites alone.
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hardy: I can understand the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) making reference to the need for a consideration of

  111
  inland sites but I cannot understand hon. Members opposite who refer to our disapproval of the Secretary of State's review. If the Secretary of State had decided last autumn that there should be a balanced review of the steel industry and its problems perhaps we should have been suspicious rather than critical. There would probably have been grounds for suspicion. I am sure that many people in my constituency and in the steel industry share the view that the Secretary of State is engaged not so much upon a balanced appraisal of the steel industry as a panic reaction to the very sharp downturn in trade which occurred not long ago.
  I will not follow what was said by the hon. Member for Stretford any further, because I was rather touched by a comment made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), who I regret to say is not here now. He said that he regretted that this debate was taking place at all. Sheffield, Hallam is quite close to my constituency and I do not regret that this debate is taking place. It is right when there is profound anxiety in our constituencies, when there is growing unemployment, that this House should hold debates on relevant subjects. Having heard the hon. Member for Hallam express such regret, I feel that the majority which he secured over me at the 1966 General Election ought to have been even more greatly reduced than it was.
  The Secretary of State said that he wanted to see the steel industry put back to the top of the world league. I have been scratching my head trying to find out when we were top of the world league. We were certainly not top of that league in the last 10 years before the steel industry was renationalised. In the last 10 or 12 years when the industry was in private hands Britain's share of world steel markets dropped by one-third, from 12 per cent. to 8 per cent. If we are to reach the top of the world league we certainly cannot afford to talk about, think about, or play with ideas of hiving-off.
  I prefer the comment of the Secretary of State in the debate on 18th March when he gave a pretty fair analysis of the problems facing British Steel Corporation's management at the time of
  112
  re-nationalisation. He said that the industry was not planned and integrated, that it was developed from a series of disparate decisions, later aggregated, and that the chief task of the British Steel Corporation was to create order out of that disparity. It had to integrate and prepare the industry for a sound future.
  It has obviously done a great deal in these directions, apart from establishing a good pattern of labour relations which I regard as extremely proper in view of the responsible and serious nature of the industry's labour force. It also engaged in a considerable appraisal of new industrial investment. This is the greatest need, because if we are to get high in the league table we must have investment. When we began to experience the short-term pressures of a slight recession in industry at the beginning of the year the Government's reaction was to panic and to apply political tactics because, faster than the downturn, came the leap of the hiving-off gang who have done a great deal to create the anxiety which is one of the most serious problems in our society.
  Obviously the question of the pricing condition and costing of British steel was serious, but the Government's reaction was fundamentally wrong because not only did they stop investment at a time of inflation, which seems to be undesirable, but they brought to the steel industry a great anxiety. In the long term this can have dangerous consequences. I can understand the Government wishing to control prices, attempting to seek popularity. This is understandable in view of their fractured vows of last year. If price restraint was part of the general policy I could understand and to some extent support it. Unfortunately, this is a very lonely restraint; it is more a case of shifting the burden to the public sector than giving assistance to the consumer.
  If the Government were serious about restricting prices in these ways perhaps we would have seen the West Riding County Council, which introduced a record rate increase, being told to collect only half of that increase in respect of the British Steel Corporation's hereditaments in my constituency. That did not happen. The Corporation often has to shop in the same market as everyone

  113
  else. The increases which it proposed would not have made the industry any less competitive. They seem to have been very realistic.
  The price of steel plate, for example, rose by 10½ per cent. to £69·55 per ton. The Government murmured words about maintaining competitive capacity when this price increase was announced. Yet the price of steel plate in West Germany is £86·35 per ton. The price of steel plate in France is £84·30 per ton—or it was when the British Steel Corporation announced the recent price increase. If the right hon. Gentleman had allowed the Corporation to charge the higher price that it wished, the Corporation would not have been in the same difficulty today and British industry would still have enjoyed a very competitive position in respect of the products of our steel industry which it has to purchase.
  Perhaps the Government failed to see that if they want the British steel industry to pay for or contribute towards its own investment, then it must charge a reasonable price. The Government may have been reluctant to see us breathe down the necks of our continental competitors who charge a higher price, or they may have been prepared to see the British Steel Corporation struggle while the private sector enjoyed steel products at a lower price than that which their competitors in Europe have to pay. It may be that some hon. Members will say that I have selected the example of plate steel deliberately and that it is an isolated example. There may be steel products which are not so competitive. But every one that I have seen is reasonably competitive, at least with the steel products of other countries. For example, the price of our cold-reduced coil, which I understand is used considerably in the motor car industry, is £73·50 per ton. In West Germany, at the time our price increase was announced, the price was £73·30, in France it was £75·70, and in the United States it was £88·50.
  I do not know about the American situation but I am told that the price of European cold-reduced coil has been increased or is about to be increased, so our steel of that particular kind remains competitive, as does another very important product, re-rolled billets, where the price of the United Kingdom product
  114
  is £47·10 and for the West German product it is £49·90—and this is likely to increase.
  Some months ago the Secretary of State and his colleagues may have been delighted at the idea of restricting increases in the price of steel to assist private industry, especially the motor car industry. That may not have been the act of a very efficient business man, but it would have been a reasonable assumption of the Government two or three months ago. Attitudes have changed since then. Indeed, we want now to be offensive to the motor industry and not to help it. Perhaps that is because the industry has not been quite as co-operative as the right hon. Gentleman would have liked. It has given very high wage increases and has enjoyed cheap steel. Its workers receive high wage increases whilst the workers of the British Steel Corporation have to put up with very much lower wages. We are subsidising the private sector at a very unjust cost placed upon the steel workers and the public sector generally.
  All this would not have been so bad if we had been able to get on with the investments we need. We have to accept that if we are to get anywhere in the world's league tables we have to increase investment considerably to enable the Steel Corporation to reach the target of 40 million tons plus by the end of the decade. This can be done only by massive investment. Conservative Members of Parliament and their supporters may shudder at the size of the investment programme, but if this so basic industry is to get anywhere this programme has to go ahead. If it is to go ahead, we have to accept that there will be a reduction in the labour force of one-fifth as a result of new plants, and if we want the steel areas to co-operate in that reduction we ought not to lay upon them the burden of the severe anxiety which they are experiencing today.
  In my area we fully understand what this means, because a great deal of change in the industry has already taken place. Our people know that it means that a very large number of jobs will be lost and many people will be affected by change. More people will change jobs than will become redundant. They are accustomed and prepared for this. The management and unions in my area are

  115
  capable of handling the problem. But it becomes more difficult if there is the present uncertainty.
  Our local newspapers have always taken a properly independent line in politics and they are a very good barometer at present. Week after week we are now finding reports and comments which are extremely alarming. Only this week the Rotherham Advertiser, in a special leader on the front page, pleaded with the Government and with the British Steel Corporation to end the uncertainty which was casting a considerable blight on the lives of thousands of men, women and children in South Yorkshire.
  This uncertainty is extremely harmful. It is dangerous because it will destroy the good relationships and the responsible attitude which the steel industry has enjoyed in my area throughout modern history. This is an example of the Government behaving in a clumsy and panic-ridden way. I plead with the Government to take a more cautious and wholesome line and, perhaps, less panic-ridden, by allowing the investment we need. If the Government do this our people will be prepared to accept the redundancies and the contraction because then they will see the new developments which South Yorkshire needs.
  7.37 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bray: In deference to your wish, Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief in my intervention.
  Earlier my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry refreshed the House's memory on the Government's policy for the steel industry. We learnt again that the bulk producing plants will remain within the central public sector and that the other units, which were smaller, and, perhaps, the processing units, would be considered for purchase by private investment.
  I welcome this action because it will release funds which would otherwise have to be provided from the Treasury for development of the central and larger bulk producing steel plants. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also said that relationships with the Corporation were essentially good. I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend will receive full co-operation from the Corporation regarding the disposal of
  116
  certain of its redundant plants where sale to private industry or, alternatively, scrapping is to be considered. I have in mind the position where there may be ample capacity, let us say, on the East of England for a certain product within the scope of the Corporation but where in the West we shall have an older and perhaps less efficient plant which has been making an identical product over the years. Will there not be extremely serious resistance to the older plant being offered to a third party? I envisage that occurring. The Corporation will logically pre-empt for that plant to be demolished rather than offered on the open market.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) cited the case of Irlam, a typical case in point. Does the Steel Corporation propose to offer its plants openly and equitably, or will it hold back any plants which may, under private enterprise, prove to be strongly competitive?
  Looking into the question of private capital further, I think that the source of capital is irrelevant. It may be foreign investment. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that foreign investment would not be attracted to the steel industry. The more capital we can attract from private investment the less the strain on central Government finance. For that reason, I commend an international stake, provided that it is an acceptable one, in the British steel industry.
  Next, redundancies. I have had a good deal of experience with the steel industry. I go a long way with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) about the steelworker being loyal, hard-working, and very keen on the product of his industry. I regret to see such people getting an unfair deal. Although it is said that the Corporation has projected an investment of £7 million on industrial estates, I am not satisfied that that is anywhere sufficient. Only 4,000 new jobs are projected or are in the pipeline. I ask the Minister to give this matter his most serious attention, bearing in mind the needs of certain inland areas.
  The pattern as laid down by the Government will relate the pressure on capital and make the industry appreciably more discerning in the matter of customers' needs, rather than allowing the customer to take the "nth" place down

  117
  the line as appears to be the case at present with the motor industry. I understand that when the motor industry is in full production it will be almost essential for it to purchase some of its deep drawing steel for pressings and the like from overseas, possibly from Japan, a country which itself is now feeling the pressure on its capital resources for the steel industry and whose steel industry is not working at full capacity.
  When the vote is taken later I ask that all support be given to the Government's long-term programme for the industry.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: In our last debate on the steel industry those in whose constituencies redundancies were occurring sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and those who succeeded got their points home. I hope that I shall not mention Sheffield more than twice in my speech tonight.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) is not in his place. The hon. Gentleman popped in, made his Irlam speech, and popped out again. That is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman's deep interest in our great steel industry. The great problem facing the Government and the Corporation alike is the pattern for the future. We are all in favour of rationalisation until we have to be rationalised. Then we start kicking over the traces and making representations here, there and everywhere. I have noticed an increasing interest in Irlam in terms of looking towards private enterprise for salvation. I personally do not believe that such salvation is at hand.
  On Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill in 1969 the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said this:
  "What a bitter paradox it is that, but for nationalisation, many of the changes necessary in British steel would already have occurred spontaneously. I will tell hon. Members how they would have occurred. Some of the private companies would have flourished, some would have faltered and some might have gone REPORT. 8th May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 698.] enterprise system should work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May, 1969; Vol. 783, C. 698.]
  Anyone looking to private enterprise for salvation would do well to study those words.
  I want to consider the industry's past, its present, and its future and put some
  118
  questions to the Minister in an effort to get some further clarification of statements made by the Secretary of State today and previously. One of the stories of the industry's past can be summarised quickly by these words—too little investment, too little capacity, in particular capacity at the wrong time, and badly balanced plants.
  Today we have heard of the outstanding examples of Llanwern and Ravenscraig where, because of political intervention, the Government of the day decided to split the two plants. The plants are separated by a considerable distance, each with small melting capacity and a large finishing capacity. This was a great financial liability for the Corporation when the plants were taken over. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said that capital investment was required at Ravenscraig to bring the melting capacity up to match the finishing capacity. This in essence is what will happen at Llanwern, which the Secretary of State for Wales announced and not the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
  One of the few political points I want to make is that on nationalisation we made a big mistake. I believe that the compensation was far too generous, because, to put it crudely, we took over quite a few clapped-out plants. The Corporation's invidious job has been to examine these plants and to recognise that they would have to be closed once the boom was over.
  Nationalisation brought 14 companies together. That was a major job. There have been two reorganisations starting with regional organisations. This was superseded by the product division. One of the problems that has plagued the Corporation in the two years from the back end of 1968 to the back end of 1970 was that although there were boom conditions in Britain—a great demand for steel products at home and a great demand internationally for steel products—we did not have the working capacity to meet the demand. We had to go round the world shopping for steel ingots and slabs. In the Rotherham area the embarrassing situation was that although the order books were full production had to be reduced because not enough scrap could be found to keep the electric arc furnace going.

  119
  During this period the Corporation has been plagued by the price problem. I do not often criticise my own Government, but on this point I lay strong criticism at the feet of my Government. When the Corporation said, "We want a price increase. Trade is good. Our prices are too low. We can get the price we are asking for", the Government sat on the request for months. The Corporation got too little too late. It has been estimated that, in the two years to October, 1970, the Corporation, it it had had the price rises it wanted at the time when it asked for them, could have earned another £200 million, which would not have brought it into the red as it is now.
  I come now to the present state of affairs. When the Government came into power, we were told by the propagandists that they were a Government prepared to meet the challenge in every facet of industrial, commercial and social life, and that their plans were ready. They have been in power now for nearly a year, and all we have had, in effect, apart from the past week or so, have been vague indications of their intentions for the industry.
  I feel most upset at the events of the past eight weeks. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted, both at a private meeting and in the House today, that the British Steel Corporation was more or less put in the hands of the Government's receiver in the sense that, every time it wanted to spend money, every time it wanted to develop, make capital investments or raise prices, it had to come cap in hand to the Government. I find this very disturbing, especially in the light of the attitude of right hon. and hon. Members opposite when they were in opposition. I quote from the Third Reading debate on the Iron and Steel Bill in 1969, just under two years ago:
  "I strongly approve of their desire to become fully commercial. But, sadly, as hon. Members opposite so often reminded us, the Act of nationalisation is passed and steel has fallen victim to Socialist dogma. Having Ministers and their civil servants constantly breathing down the back of their necks must be infuriating and time-consuming for the Corporation's managers".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 1737.]
  Those words were not mine, though I should accuse the present Government of doing precisely that now. They came from the hon. Gentleman the Member
  120
  for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), who sits alongside the Secretary of State and. I assume, advises him on steel matters.
  There were many other hon. Members—I could easily quote another four now—who, when in opposition, criticised the then Labour Government for interfering in a nationalised industry. The present Secretary of State and his Department have not stopped at interfering. In setting up the steering committee, a committee to look into the affairs of the Corporation, they have gone much further. Let us consider the people on the steering committee who are carrying out the short-term review. I am told that there is someone from the Ministry, there is Lord Melchett from the Corporation, someone from the Treasury, and a consultant. May we be told a little more about the consultant? I should be interested to know his or her background. Does he come, perhaps, from Guest, Keen and Nettlefold—or would that be to make too much of a political point? I should be interested to know who the consultant is and what part he is playing in the recommendations to the Secretary of State.
  The Corporation moves into this year facing a potential loss of about £50 million because commercial freedom has been taken from it. It is not allowed to charge the prices which it feels commercially it could get away with in the industry. It has no other means of raising money. I should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman develop a little further how he proposes to get the Corporation out of the read in the coming year.
  Now, the problem of closures. Unfortunately, because of Government policy generally in the country and the stagnating economy, the redundancies are occurring at a time when we have about 800,000 unemployed and job opportunities are very slim. The redundancies are occurring in areas where there is unemployment of 4 per cent. to 5 per cent. already, and the chances of these workers finding another job are fairly remote.
  Looking to the future, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will state clearly that he will give back to the Corporation the authority which, I believe, the Act of nationalisation vested in it. As I understand it, a nationalised industry is

  121
  subject to Ministerial control applied directly by the Minister and not by a steering committee appointed by him, and it is also accountable to Parliament. We are witnessing a new departure now from the two established principles. The idea seems to be, "If you get a bit in the red, or if we want to sort you out, we shall set a steering committee on you, scrutinise you from top to bottom, and see exactly where you are going and what you are doing". I hope, therefore, that we shall hear this evening that the Corporation is to be given back its freedom.
  When will the Corporation have the right to make its own commercial judgments on prices, on the size of the industry as it sees it, and on the development of markets? Although the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the question of the size of the industry came in his long-term review, I suggest that it should be seen as the responsibility of the Corporation, not of the Government of the day.
  If the right hon. Gentleman and his Government are not prepared to give the Corporation commercial freedom, they must accept the alternative, namely, that they are responsible for the capital investment required to put the industry in a competitive stance.
  I come now to two or three questions on the Secretary of State's statements both today and a month back. He said that the integrated bulk steel-making plants would remain in public hands. Where those integrated units have sophisticated processes at the end of their plants, will those processes remain part of the set-up and remain in public hands?
  Semond, does the right hon. Gentleman envisage bringing private capital into bulk steel making, either on its own or in partnership with the Corporation? Also, when he refers to consideration of a green field site, does he intend that this would be part of the Corporation's plans or that any plan which the Corporation had would be in competition with investment which might come from the private sector in this connection?
  When the right hon. Gentleman says that bulk steel making is to remain in public hands, does he mean for all time, or does he mean that at any given time, assuming that there is a Conservative
  122
  Government, that Government can be free to bring in private capital if and when they can attract such moneys?
  Now, the question of special steels and other sections of the industry. Am I to understand from what we learned from the right hon. Gentleman at a private meeting which he had with several of us from this side that he does not envisage it as part of Government policy that a "For Sale" notice will go up on every plant in the special steels division, the tubes division, the engineering division and the chemicals division? Does he, rather, see that the Chairman of the Corporation will be invited to have discussions with the private sector, or a potential buyer, and that if the commercial deal is satisfactory and to the advantage of the Corporation—on the basis of a willing seller and a willing buyer—he will be quite happy if they have discussions?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman also look at the position of Brown Bayley's? This firm appears to be rather a rogue elephant. We have the public sector owned by the Corporation and the private sector held by private shareholders. But we also have the firm of Brown Bayley's in Sheffield which was taken over by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation. After the demise of the I.R.C. the Government took its shares over and now own a substantial part of the firm. Right hon. Members have been talking about duplication in management at the top. The obvious and logical thing for the Government to do is to pass Brown Bayley's into the Corporation, and not duplicate senior and higher management.
  A number of my hon. Friends have mentioned the position of steel workers. I was a steel worker for 16 happy years. One of the reasons why I came to the House was that I thought that I could serve the steel industry better as a politician than as an industrial chemist. I am probably as much in contact with steel workers as any hon. Member. I feel that the morale generally is low, because of uncertainty about the future and about the Government's attitude, because the Government have not made clear what the future size of the industry is to be. The workers feel that there is little security in the industry. Many of

  123
  the private firms used to build up the aura of a family concern. I believe that the Corporation has built up that feeling within the Corporation in a short time.
  I was at a dinner some time ago when the general secretary of the main union, the union to which I belong, the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, told Lord Melchett, who was the guest of honour, that he would not have to look over his shoulder at what was happening behind him, that the steel workers within the Corporation were right behind Lord Melchett in the stand he has taken over the Corporation's position. I believe that that stand will succeed in the end. I was present at an executive meeting of the Confederation, which passed a unanimous resolution, covering steel workers throughout the industry, that any move to hive off profitable bits of the industry will be fought with all the determination and strength within the power of that organisation. Its power is not wielded recklessly. It has a reputation second to none for industrial relations. But when the livelihood of steel workers and their families is threatened, when the future is made insecure through the political meanderings of a Conservative Government who have lost the confidence of the country, I believe that it will fight and fight to the end.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I must remind the House that long speeches inevitably mean that some hon. Members will be cut out of the debate.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. Hamish Gray: I, unlike the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) do not have a direct constituency interest in steel. But much has been said this afternoon about green fields and deep water, and I would point out that in my constituency, in the north of Scotland, I have more and bigger green fields and deeper water than anything mentioned today.
  It is important that the steel industry should be made aware that many hon. Members do not have a direct constituency relationship with the industry but are extremely anxious about the industry, and look forward to the day when it will
  124
  prosper as we all believe it should. I realise that it has a vital rôle to play in the economic future of this country and that there is need for expansion of the resources within the industry and for improved performance at many levels within it.
  I welcome the review, because we are talking about big money, big investment. It would be unwise for any Government to contemplate investment of such magnitude without making absolutely certain that the basis on which that investment was to be placed was sound. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has seen fit to carry out such an expensive and exhaustive review. I am also glad that we have an opportunity to debate this subject before any statement is made in the House, because I am sure that this afternoon some misplaced beliefs will be put right. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister winds up he will be able to allay the fears expressed in certain quarters.
  The amount of investment which takes place in the steel industry over the next 10 years will be absolutely vital. If we are to remain in the world market, money must be ploughed into the industry. Many people believe that if we are to remain in the steel business at all considerable investment is essential. We have taken a decision, and it has been announced that the bulk iron and steel work will still be carried out within the B.S.C. Now that we have taken that decision it is even more important that we show good will and willingness to invest at a very early stage. Japan invested more in the one year 1969 in her steel industry than we in this country did in the five preceding years, and both Germany and France outstripped us in investment over a similar period. Therefore, we must look seriously at our future policy. Admittedly, between 1964 and 1967 the threat of nationalisation was hanging over the industry, and this could well have deprived it of certain potential investment.
  If we look at our investment expenditure related to our crude steel production, we see that the performance is even more disturbing. Our ratio was lower than that of any of our 12 leading competitors over the same period. This trend must be changed.

  125
  Private investment in steel would naturally be welcomed. In return for investment, whether Government or private, the whole industry must take a long hard look at itself and at its structure. I believe that there are portions of the industry which could be hived off—and here I disagree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside—without any great realignment being necessary within the industry generally. But I caution the Government not to fall into the trap that the Labour Party so often fell into when it was in Government, that of being doctrinaire. There is nothing doctrinaire about any of the moves we have made so far, and there is certainly nothing doctrinaire about the review which my right hon. Friend has decided to have carried out. But we must be careful not to be tempted to hive off if to do so could lead to disruption of planned growth within the industry.
  The Government must accept that investment in the industry should be of a long-term nature. There will be no quick appreciation of capital investment, nor will sufficient capital be obtained from hiving off subsidiaries. That can help, but vast capital will be necessary if we are to develop the industry so that it is world competitive. If hiving off of any of the subsidiaries must take place, it should take place fairly quickly because the people working in the industry will want to know where they stand. For too long the industry has virtually been a ping-pong ball in a match between nationalisationists and liberationists, and a period of stability is now essential.
  Certain situations occurred when the Labour Party was in power. For instance, in 1968–69 a reduction of 12,000 job opportunities was announced. It is therefore hypocritical of the Opposition to suggest that the Government are unnecessarily creating unemployment by bringing about the rationalisation which has to take place. In January, 1970, the Corporation announced an expected loss of 40,000 jobs by 1975. A similar situation has arisen in other industries, and it has taken a considerable time to rectify.
  The industry must consider whether its management structure is an effective as it could be. It must analyse the work being done and those who are doing it. It must make absolutely sure that, unlike
  126
  many other nationalised industries, it has not created within itself an unnecessary layer of semi-management staff.
  Recently a friend of mine closely connected with the industry visited an American tube mill. His appointment was made with the vice-president of the company at starting time in the morning. When he arrived he was accompanied by the vice-president who was in a boiler suit; he was close to the men working for him, and his relationship with them was excellent. I am not suggesting that relationships in our steel industry are not good, but, as in a great many other industries, management must take a close look at itself as well as those employed by it.
  The unions can help. They have a proud record of co-operation in this industry. This should continue, because only by co-operation can the necessary increase in production be achieved which will help to make the whole project competitive. The unions can no longer stand aloof from the problems facing management. There is a genuine will in the industry to co-operate, and this must be given every encouragement.
  The steel industry is virtually fighting for survival. The livelihood of many depends on it—for example, the small sub-contractors supplying the industry, who perhaps are not large enough to diversify in the event of the orders from the Corporation diminishing. These people must be taken into consideration, and a planned system of ordering in the Corporation must be encouraged.
  I need say very little about the steel industry in Scotland because it has very good spokesmen in the House with constituency interests. However, I sincerely hope that the Government will look very closely at Scotland's claims for any future steel development. The facilities, labour and reputation are there, and I hope that the investment will be forthcoming.
  My contribution to the debate has necessarily been brief. However, I hope that my observations will be carefully considered by the Government, together with those of many other interested parties.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Alex Eadie: The trend of this debate has confirmed the

  127
  suspicion which I had when I took a deputation to meet the Secretary of State not long ago. Parliament is based on debate, and what concerns me is the little influence that we shall have in determining the policy which is followed. The right hon. Gentleman said that his steering committee of civil servants is examining the industry. We shall have very little influence on policy because there is no Minister on the committee. That is regrettable, particularly when we remember that the Conservative Party, when elected, said that we would have open government and that the Government would consult the people. Yet the right hon. Gentleman has confessed today that a bunch of civil servants will predetermine the industry's future and that Parliament's say will be of little significance.
  I was more than concerned when the Minister told us that in the second phase of the steering committee, which would consider the long-term investment of the industry and project the industry's rôle, the question of coking coal would be discussed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be advised by the same civil servants who advised the Labour Government on the fuel policy which should be pursued in relation to the demand for coal and coking coal. It is well known that the 1967 White Paper dealing with the future demand for coal, including coking coal, is looked upon as a farce in mining and energy circles. I hope that the Minister will be forthcoming and will tell us the people who will project the future of coking coal and demand in the steel industry.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has mentioned the question of Ravenscraig at Question Time and in debate in the House. The Secretary of State confessed that he had interfered in the workings of the British Steel Corporation in relation to Ravenscraig. Because of this, there has been delay. Therefore, the Minister must be specific and tell us why, in logic, he confesses that he has interfered with the Corporation in relation to its capital expenditure and then says that the Corporation is responsible for the delay concerning Ravenscraig.
  The question of Ravenscraig is of great moment to Scotland. There are 25,000
  128
  steel workers in Scotland, and the unemployment rate there is a scandal—over 120,000. We have the highest unemployment rate among young people under the age of 18 in Great Britain. We therefore need not be surprised that the steel workers in Scotland are wondering what the Government are playing at because of the uncertainty that their policy has created.
  We are entitled to ask what is the Government's steel policy? Is there delay in relation to the steering committee because of the Common Market, for example? Are the Common Market negotiations tangled up with the hesitancy in allowing the Corporation to determine the industry's future? It might have surprised hon. Members when they read last weekend that when the Government first went into the negotiations it was said that there would be a transitional period of one year in relation to the European Coal and Steel Community.
  I endeavoured by questions to the right hon. Gentleman who is carrying out the negotiations to find out why one year was decided for the transitional period in relation to the iron and steel industry. He was not able to tell me. I asked him: whom did he consult? Then we read in the papers only last weekend that the Government have decided in the negotiations that there will not be any transitional period. Do the Government wonder that the steel workers are anxious? They are anxious because of the uncertainty with which they are faced.
  What is governing Government policy? Do they try to influence policy in relation to the capital investment which will be required to be spent on the steel industry? Are they looking at a situation where it will be easier and cheaper for us, once we are in the E.E.C., to import steel, rather than remain the major steel-producing country that we are at present? It is right that the right hon. Gentleman should be asked and that he should answer these questions because they are being asked by steel workers all over the country, and he has a responsibility to come clean on the issue of the Common Market and on why the Government decided to abandon the transitional period.
  At the outset of my remarks I talked about Parliamentary accountability and about people and organisations being

  129
  able to influence the policy of the Government and their steering committees. We are entitled to be told, for example, what the Government's view is of a submission which has been made by a body well known in Scotland—the right hon. Gentleman is aware of it—the Scottish Council (Development and Industry).
  The Council made a submission to the Government on the British steel industry and its future in Scotland. In that submission, it gave a devastating analysis of British steel production, and it looked to the future. It showed annual totals of actual investment expenditure in steel since the mid 'sixties, and it included figures from Germany, Belgium, France, Italy and Japan, comparing them with those of the United Kingdom. In every item in that table we were well below in the league. There was an analysis of investment expenditure related to crude steel production, and figures were given from Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Spain, Sweden, Canada, Japan, the United States, Germany, France. Again, we were at the bottom of the league.
  In that submission, and arising from those facts, the council said:
  "One may conclude that unless this situation is changed in the years immediately ahead it will become increasingly difficult for the British industry to compete profitably with the new plants being constructed by overseas competitors."
  In the cross fire of the debate nationalisation has been used as an alibi for the problems of the steel industry, and some hon. Gentlemen opposite like to say that all the troubles and all the ills which at present confront the British Steel Corporation and the steel industry are because of nationalisation. I want to quote someone very authoritative in the steel industry, Mr. Arthur Bell, a divisional officer in Scotland of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation.
  Mr. Bell gave an effective answer to the allegations about nationalisation. He said of the present situation, and the future, that it is
  "A time that could see the demise of steel making in Scotland within this decade. Not because the Scottish steel workers are strike happy, not because the Scottish steel worker has not the initiative, skill and ability to make steel or roll it into its various products, be it rods, billets or sections, as has his counterpart throughout the world, not because, as
  130
  some people critically point out, that this is the result of nationalisation, or that, as some people in high places would have us believe, the Scottish steel worker is too highly paid and that his wage demands are pricing us out of the market. No. We must look somewhere else, and, just as in many other industries, the steel industry is reaping the reward of the lack of foresight by those who owned the industry for more than fifty years and who failed to invest enough of the economic wealth created by the steel worker."
  Returning to the submission by the Scottish Council, the Minister ought in this debate to reply to that part of the submission about Hunterston and the new steel complex, because in this submission the council argues that case, giving effective figures, and the people of Scotland are entitled to know what the Government's long-term policy now is.
  I finish on this note. I was critical of my right hon. Friends when, in Government, they set up the big Ministry of Technology. I had great doubts whether such a big Ministry would be able to work efficiently, considering all the responsibilities it had. When the present Administration formed the Department of Trade and Industry I expressed anxiety again, because it has such wide-ranging responsibilities, and I felt that the issues of steel, of energy, of trade would be buried within that Department and that it would be administratively difficult for that Department to carry out these vast responsibilities, I do not want to be unkind to the Secretary of State, but I think it has got to be said: I believe that, because of the massive size of this Department, due time and attention are not given to the wide-ranging responsibilities which the Department has. I think the responsibilities are so numerous and great as to make the Department accident prone. Some of us on this side of the House who have had responsibilities in industry itself have sometimes had to tell workers that they were accident prone and to advise them to look for some other posts than those in which they were accident prone. I would say that the way the Department of Trade and Industry is handling the steel situation shows that the Department is inclined to be accident prone. A change is required in the administration so that the steel workers and the energy workers and trade can all get the kind of treatment to which they are entitled from the Mother of Parliaments.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr. John Spence: At the risk of being caught in the cross fire of argument, I must refer to the opening speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). Whilst no one could accuse him of being a shrinking violet or one who lives by the rule that an able man shows his spirit by gentle words, he showed, in spite of some muddled thinking, the direction in which the industry may be pointing and the direction in which he, like ourselves, would wish to see the industry point in the next few years. He said that he would like us to look at the future of the industry over the next 10 years, and I hope I shall be able to do so in a few brief remarks.
  I was gratified that my right hon. Friend outlined the form of the study of the future of the steel industry, but I was surprised and somewhat dismayed that the nature and extent of the strategy over the next decade was not given in more precise terms. I propose to address myself to the other factors which my right hon. Friend should take into account when looking at the future structure and development of the steel industry, and which would be to the benefit both of the study and of the industry which we wish to serve.
  For generations the steel industry has produced the universal material for our industrial advance. It has been one of the great engines of economic progress and development. By its very nature steel is a multi-purpose material, and rarely is steel the ideal material for the job for which it is used. This has been highlighted by the great developments in metals technology. The explosive expansion of world steel capacity has hidden from view the fact that steel has been overtaken by other materials in a great number of a specialist uses.
  We all know that steel oil drums have been the monopoly of the steel industry ever since they were first invented, but now an alternative material, plastic impregnated paper, is used for oil drums. Another homely example is pre-stressed concrete, which has an ever-widening use. Even more important is glass-fibre and concrete used as a composite material, thereby considerably reducing the use of steel in the construction industry.
  132
  In the past 25 years steel, unfortunately, has become closer to being a marginal industry, and there is every appearance now that it has been overtaken in much the same way as the great foundation industries of the past—cotton, coal and the railways—have been overtaken by technical, scientific and technological advance. Steel has become marginal for two reasons.
  The first reason is the challenge of the new materials industries to which I have referred. These involve not just a substitute material for steel but a completely new concept. There is a shift in concept from what industry provides to what man wants to accomplish, a shift from a general purpose compromise material to a specific product material. Man decides what he wants, and what he wants the material to perform, and the scientists and technologists duly produce this material. Although this is happening in other directions, the greatest economic impact of this shift is on the modern steel industry.
  The second reason why steel has become marginal is that modern science has made steel a compromise material. Steel comes under pressure when a new material is developed which has the physical capacity to perform in excess of the compromise material. This is happening with great rapidity. No examination of the structure of the industry, no future investment and development policy, will be either responsible or worth considering if it ignores the challenged and changed position and prospects for steel as a commodity, when it is under pressure from new materials. It is irrelevant whether the responsibility for this lies with this Government or the previous one: any uncertainty in the steel industry over the next 10 years lies with neither Government but with the metallurgists, molecular scientists and chemists, with the men who have developed and are developing new specific purpose materials.
  This is not to say that steel cannot have a new lease of life. Over the next 10 years, there might be an increase as well as a diminution in demand. But unless we are prepared to adopt new manufacturing processes it is doubtful whether we can make the industry as valuable as we should like, even in the short term. Even if we adopted the most advanced techniques we could not put steel back

  133
  into its former position, or enable it to win back all its markets. But if we adopted the most modern production processes, we could arrest the decline.
  The present uncertainty to which the Motion refers cannot be placed, as an economic and technical fact, at the door of my right hon. Friend. He should take as long as necessary on his deep study of the new materials and fit steel into a materials policy. That will be in the best interests of the nation and the industry and all who work in it. I hope and trust that the House will vote against the Motion.
  8.40 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Hughes: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Spence) into the realms of the marginality of steel as a product. Almost every speaker has agreed that the steel industry is a vitally important and basic one and, what is more, that it is a fair indicator of the health of the economy, though perhaps a better one is unemployment. There are approximately 800,000 unemployed at the moment, and the steel industry is not in a healthy state.
  In the part of the world from which I come, these two factors are very much related. It is fair to say that, if it were not for the present relative boom in the mining industry, the employment situation in Wales would be catastrophic. As it happens, the steel industry employs some 80,000 people in the Principality, and this almost doubles the number employed in the mining industry. More than a quarter of the Steel Corporation's productive capacity is based in Wales, and much secondary employment is generated from it. Therefore the crisis in steel is the biggest threat to the employment and prosperity of people in Wales. Thousands of jobs are at risk.
  I was interested to read an article in The Economist of 13th March which questioned the wisdom of a British steel industry at all. It argued in favour of importing great quantities of steel. However, in turn, that would mean that we were no longer masters of our fate. We have seen how we have been held up to ransom over oil in recent months. A similar situation could arise over steel. In that event, of course, what would have
  134
  to be taken into consideration is the effect on the balance of payments. It would do tremendous damage to our economy, and I can hardly believe that such a proposal could be seriously discussed at high level.
  To return to the immediate situation, we have the Steel Corporation's announcement of 20th April that 7,000 people were to be made redundant, and that there were to be a further 12,000 redundancies, bearing in mind that this might include a portion of the 7,000. However, from the point of view of Wales, it is inevitable that thousands of jobs will be lost. At present, morale in the Welsh steel industry is very low. The same applies to the country as a whole. Many workers are looking over their shoulders wondering whether it might be their turn next, especially when they see the sort of headlines that have appeared recently in the Western Mail. That on 20th April read:
  "Britain's 814,000 jobless worst for 31 years."
  The heading of the editorial was in similar terms:
  "Heading towards a million unemployed."
  That is the state to which this Government have brought our country in the matter of about 11 months. For South Wales, it is a case of being back to square one. But this is expected of a Conservative Government. The Conservative Party has always been associated with unemployment.
  Industry and commerce rely essentially on confidence in order to function. What chance has the British Steel Corporation had? Immediately this Government came to power, there were rumours about hiving off special steels, the construction sections and the chemical and engineering sections. This uneasiness has gone on for 11 months, and the morale of the industry is very low.
  It is true that we had better news in the announcement by the Secretary of State on 27th April that bulk steel making was to remain in the hands of the Corporation. However, this still leaves in balance the other sections to which I have referred. I have felt for some time that the Government are pursuing a vendetta against the British Steel Corporation because they resent public

  135
  ownership and wish to sell off its profitable sections.
  This is in line with the philosophy of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden), who will be winding up this debate. He believes that public enterprise should be allowed to do only what private enterprise cannot reasonably be expected to do. In other words, he wishes to leave the profitable part of the industry to the private concerns and to leave the loss-makers with the publicly-owned concerns. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the Steel News of 22nd April, which pointed out:
  "Critics of the Corporation's pricing policy need to bear in mind that in the last year of private ownership, the steel companies comprising the B.S.C. would have made an aggregate loss of £56 million on the Corporation's present accounting basis."
  Then there is all the hullabaloo about prices. It must be remembered that until a few months ago the steel industry had had three years of relative boom. It is fair to say that the Labour Government deliberately held back price increases. Had the industry been allowed to put up prices, its financial resources could have been built up. The Economist on 13th March said, in defence of Lord Melchett:
  "… if he had been allowed to charge more during the steel boom of the past three years the B.S.C. could have netted a £200 million profit instead of heading for a deficit".
  Those are the real facts of the situation. We know that the application for a 14 per cent. increase has been reduced to 7 per cent. That application was necessary to pay for raw materials and to balance the books of the Corporation.
  The Government show no consistency whatever in their attitude to price increases. I presume that most hon. Members drive motor cars, and we all know how many increases have taken place in the price of petrol in recent months. Are the Government saying that only private enterprise will be allowed to act commercially? If the B.S.C. prices are allowed to rise by the 14 per cent. which is asked for, then car makers and shipbuilders will still be paying lower prices than almost every other country in Europe. It is obviously beyond doubt that the B.S.C. needs capital for future investment. This is absolutely essential. During many years of private control
  136
  of the industry investment was allowed to slip back.
  I should like to end by being a little parochial and making a constituency point. One hundred yards or so outside the boundaries of my constituency is the great Spencer works which employs about 8,000 people. Although it is outside the town, it is the pivot of the economy of Newport. The announcement by the Secretary of State on 18th March postponing the large investment there of the £50 million cast a gloom over the whole area. This was alleviated later by a statement from the Secretary of State for Wales in the Welsh Grand Committee which said that the development, after all, would be allowed to go ahead. This is a logical extension of this great works and it should never have been held up. The original announcement created harm and despondency in the steel industry.
  There are three other medium-sized firms, employing approximately 6,000 people, in my constituency. There have been redundancies, admittedly small, in two of those firms. One could speculate that this is the tip of the iceberg, but it adds to the already heavy unemployment in South Wales.
  It is becoming clear that this is the first Government since the war to use unemployment as an instrument of economic policy. Mr. Peter Jay, the economics editor of The Times, on 20th April, said:
  "A high level and a rising trend of unemployment are, it is emerging, an integral part of the Government's short-term economic plan rather than just a regretted side effect of past output trends."
  In addition to unemployment we have inflation. What do the Government do about it? They look for a scapegoat. The scapegoat they have found on this occasion is the trade union movement. It could be said that if there were no trade union movement, the Government would have to invent one.
  Our economic life in post-war years might be called the Keynesian era. He taught that the level of employment was decided by the level of demand. Therefore, it could be argued that the claims of the trade unions are stimulating the economy and that, if it were not for these wage claims, the situation could be much worse.

  137
  There is certainly a great need to restore confidence in the economy and a start could be made in the steel industry. On 20th May the Times Business Supplement carried an article headed,
  "Fair Play for the British Steel Corporation."
  This can best be done by the Government allowing the 14 per cent. increase for which the Corporation is asking. The Government should also state categorically that there is to be no hiving-off of the industry, and they should allow the investment programme to proceed. I should be surprised if the Government decided to do that. They seem intent on wrecking this great industry. All that they disagree about is the way that it should be done.
  On 22nd April my local paper, the South Wales Argus, pointed out:
  "Having helped to promote conditions in which the present steel industry cannot be viable, the Government will no doubt make great capital—literally and figuratively—of the need to de-nationalise, which means creaming-off the profitable bits to private ownership: surely the shabbiest bit of political trickery of modern times."
  I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments.
  8.54 p.m.
  Mr. David Crouch: The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) should not use such phrases as "the Government are trying to wreck the steel industry". He knows that that is not true. It is misleading and extremely foolish to make such an observation. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's sincerity and knowledge of his constituency and the industry, but that kind of misguided phrase does not help the debate.
  The debate has produced good contributions from both sides; it has produced much better contributions than the last debate, when there was a higher generation of emotion, led, perhaps, by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). However, I understand his emotion in the matter. I, too, have some emotion.
  Concerning rising prices in, and the state of, the steel industry, last year the British Steel Corporation faced a situation of almost catastrophic dimensions. Rising costs of over £200 million hit it like an avalanche. For that reason it
  138
  wanted to make massive increases in its prices. The Government were right to pause and say that they must consider the whole future of the industry against the background of our national problem and the economy of the world, particularly the economic and industrial problems facing the steel industry throughout the world today.
  I feel that for too long steel has been political. We must get down to seeing it again as an industrial and commercial problem. We have to learn to live with this nationalised industry and, in order to return the necessary measure of confidence to the industry, the country and the economy generally, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear in the House that it is his intention not to weaken the industry but rather to strengthen it to enable it to go forward in the short term, in the middle term, and in the long term, and it is in the consideration of going forward that I wish to address the House tonight.
  I ask the House to consider the problem of the run-down of the industry, and the run-down of the number of men employed. What seems to me strange is that this should have come as such a surprise to the House, to the public, to the industry, to the towns, and to the works in the towns where this rationalisation is taking place.
  We have been accustomed to the rationalisation of our major industries since the war. We have seen the rationalisation and run-down, in order to' improve efficiency, of the coal industry, where about 30,000 men a year have found work in other industries after being retrained. Somehow we have been able to cope with a run-down in the coal industry of 30,000 men a year, sometimes rising to as much as 51,000 a year. That was too much. We are now talking of the run-down of manpower in the steel industry from 255,000 to 195,000, a total of 60,000 men, which is equal to two years of rationalisation in the coal industry. All I am saying is that it is strange that this should have come as such a surprise both to the Opposition and to the Government.
  I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that enough concern has been shown about the problem by all the Departments concerned—the Department of

  139
  Employment, the Department of the Environment and, of course, his own Department—and that plans have been prepared for the retraining and redeployment that will be necessary to cope with this sizeable problem. We are talking about redeployment in the steel industry, and I do not wish, in this House, to minimise the seriousness of what redeployment means to anyone faced with such a problem. Nor do I wish ever to appear detached from the severity and anxiety of such a situation. I should therefore like an assurance from the Government that they are satisfied that the energies, expenditure and activities of the Departments that I have mentioned are capable of coping with this problem in the towns that will be hit by such rationalisation.
  Mr. Eddie Griffiths: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. In a normal employment situation the point that he is making would be valid, but what can the Government do when there are 800,000 unemployed, and areas such as Rotherham and Irlam already have high unemployment figures?
  Mr. Crouch: I accept that there is nothing so difficult as rationalising an industry in an attempt to modernise it and enable it to match the competition that it has to face when rationalisation means putting men out of work temporarily while they are redeployed and retrained. This is a testing time for the Government, but they cannot afford to duck it and say that we should put off modernising such an important industry as this one. A return of confidence in this industry is vital—not only among management and men but in the country at large—a confidence that the industry is on the way forward again as the backbone of our industrial economy. We must give the whole country the clear message that we see a future for the industry.
  Suggestions have been bandied about tonight that perhaps this industry is not so great, that it may suffer from competition and imports. It must be seen as still the backbone of our industrial expansion. I do not accept the view that we shall be blown about by the winds of competition and may even have to give in and receive steel from abroad.
  140
  We should look ahead and show that we have a real plan for the development of the industry to cope with the future competition which we are beginning to hear more about all the time.
  Part of the present Heritage Plan of the Corporation is to modernise and rationalise the industry up to 1980, to replace obsolete equipment. It is not a big expansion plan but a modern expansion plan. Will this Heritage plan be effective in meeting competition at the end of the '70's? How effective will the industry be?
  What new structure is planned for the industry to enable us to compete with the Japanese? My hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) spoke interestingly but frighteningly about the future plans, present investment and actual production in Japan at its fully integrated coastal site. If we look ahead, it must be with confidence that we are not only modernising what we have but preparing for tomorrow and that kind of competition as well.
  My hon. Friend said that the investment for such integrated sites might be as much as £3,000 million. These are very big figures which one can easily throw across the Chamber. Has the Minister such figures in his mind for the next 10 or 20 years? If so, how will he finance it? I believe that he can find this money, but I want him to be sure that there is a future for such investment and that he can find such finance. It may seem strange for a Conservative to say this, but the finance may have to come first from the Government.
  This is a nationalised industry, and we have to make it successful. Let us see it run properly and effectively. I hope that there will not be too much interference. I was glad of my right hon. Friend's assurance that he did not intend to look over the shoulder of the Corporation too much. In this way he will give great encouragement to the restoration of confidence in management and men from top to bottom.
  A first priority must be to produce in the next 10 years a modernised, viable and competitive industry. This is not an unprofitable industry. Let us think of investment with a view to producing a profitable industry, which is a laudable

  141
  aim for any Government looking at a nationalised industry. This is how we should look to the British Steel Corporation of the future. We on this side of the House have a tradition for sometimes fighting shy of the nationalised industries. We must not fight shy of this industry; we must restore confidence in its future. If we do, we may well find that private investment will come into it willingly.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. John Smith: I congratulate my hon. and right hon. Friends upon bringing forward this timely Motion demonstrating their deep concern over the future of this basic industry. I have a direct interest in the steel industry because of the situation within my constituency of the Gartcosh strip mill which is an integral part of the Ravenscraig steel complex. Hon. Members without specialised knowledge of the steel industry are right to be concerned over the future of this basic industry. Most people would be satisfied with the programme of expansion which the British Steel Corporation had announced—suggesting that the industry would move by 1981 to producing 43 million tons and that over that period of time there would be expenditure of £4,000 million.
  Concern has arisen because these ambitious expansion plans have been thrown in doubt because of the Government's decision to institute a general review of the steel industry. Concern has been felt by those interested in the industry's future about the Government's attitude to the price increase. The way in which this was handled, by a last-minute intervention on the part of the Prime Minister, hardly indicated that it was a well-considered decision. More important is the criteria which the Government are to apply during this general review. I am suspicious that this is not just an objective view to take stock of the future of the industry and to work out its development. There is being confused with a general review the Government's interest in hiving-off certain parts of the industry to private interests.
  I was disturbed to read in the business section of yesterday's Sunday Times an article headed "Signs of a truce in steel battle." The article speaks of a difference of opinion between Lord Melchett
  142
  and the Government and goes on in the final paragraph:
  "… the Government, while determined to secure some measure of denationalisation, is anxious to avoid Melchett's resignation. Still less would it like to have to legislate to enforce any sales. But it can offer the bargaining counter of finance for B.S.C. expansion plans. So talks have settled down to simple horse-trading. So much development cash will be swapped for so much denationalisation and a truce for the steel industry may at last be within reach."
  I hope that that article is inaccurate and that the Minister can tell us that the future of the steel industry is not being decided on the basis of horse-trading between the doctrinaire policies of the Government and the genuine needs of a development policy for the industry. To confuse the doctrinaire politics of the party opposite with the urgent need for a proper development plan for the industry is acting contrary to the national interest. I hope that there is none of this horse-trading going on and that the attitude being taken is that Britain needs a steel industry of the size envisaged by the Corporation and only if it reaches that size will there be any question of their being a green field site anywhere in the United Kingdom. There will be disputes between different parts of the House as to where the green field site should be. At this stage of the development of the steel industry we have to unite to make sure that there will be an expansion big enough to have a green field site anywhere in the United Kingdom. The matter is as serious as that. We must fight to ensure that the Government have a sufficient expansion plan, otherwise there will be nowhere in the United Kingdom for a green field site.
  A great deal is said by Conservative Members about the criterion of profitability and that if there is to be any expansion of the industry it should be done only on a profitable basis. There is some elasticity in the meaning of the word "profitable", I hope it will not be thought to be a narrow, commercial criterion of short-term gain to be applied to the future of the steel industry. The notion of profitability should be looked at in a wider sense in the future, including the national interest. The sums of money involved to make the industry the great industry of the future are so large that to apply short term commercial criteria is to apply completely the wrong test. If ever there was an industry where

  143
  the Government has to combine a concern with the industry's future with the national interest as a whole, it is this particular industry at this particular time.
  I do not care where the money comes from, whether from private or public sources, but the money should be found for the industry's expansion. Hon. Members opposite should abjure their doctrinal attitudes to public, as opposed to private, finance and units behind the proposition that we must enable this basic industry to reach a level at which we shall be a major steel-producing nation. If we do not do that, in the 1980s we shall find ourselves not only a minor steel-producing nation but a minor industrial country.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. Eric G. Varley: Like the debate which we had on 18th March, this debate has inevitably centred a good deal on the impact of the redundancies announced in the steel industry, and my hon. Friends have again related the hardship and problems in their constituencies. They are right to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) said, with the unemployment position worse than at any time since the 1930s, the situation is one of desperate seriousness. Redundancies at any period are of great concern, but when they come at a time when the Government are taking no action to reflate the economy and when the Chancellor's Budget judgment is seen to do nothing to restore business confidence, every announcement of laying off of men is a double blow.
  The debate also, quite rightly, has been concerned with the steel industry's future. One has only to talk to those who work in the industry to realise that morale is at a very low level. I was surprised when the Secretary of State said that there was no hostility between the Government and the British Steel Corporation. When the Government have subjected the Corporation to the sort of review and intervention that they have, and when the Corporation has these arm-twisting tactics inflicted upon it, it is stretching words a little, to suggest that there is no conflict. There is no doubt that a year ago people working in the industry had confidence in the future and the co-operation between men and
  144
  management had never been greater. But over the last few months all this has been shattered, and certainly in the last two months, since the last debate, there has been a further deterioration. For this situation the Government must take the entire responsibility.
  The industry's workers and their unions realised that the restructuring of the industry was to take place. That has been mentioned by hon. Members opposite. But the crucial difference, and one which it is necessary to spell out, was that the co-operation and trust of all those who worked in the industry had been won. The whole package had been accepted by those in the industry.
  The package consisted basically of a fundamental belief in an expanding steel industry; an expanding industry with secure employment prospects for those retained in it, an industry which was adequately capitalised, an industry capable of meeting the country's long-term needs in terms of output and balance of payments, an industry in which—if rationalisation were to take place—it would be done without panic and in a humane and civilised manner.
  I do not think that that has happened over the last few months. In the past months the Government have subjected the industry to the most remorseless degree of intervention, something that the Secretary of State said he wanted to get away from. It would not be so bad if the intervention were based on a wish to get a better industry and not on political prejudice.
  I am not saying that the political prejudice has come from the Secretary of State, but I think that there were others within his Department who were prejudiced against the Corporation. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) mentioned the Conservative Party election manifesto, which contained these words:
  "We will progressively reduce the involvement of the State in the nationalised industries—for example, the steel industry."
  There has been unprecedented intervention in this industry.
  We had expected that the Secretary of State would have made a statement by today about the first phase of the review. On 5th April he said that the first part would be ready within six weeks. Today

  145
  he said that that had slipped by only two days. But 5th April was seven weeks ago.
  Mr. Hardy: My hon. Friend has mentioned seven weeks. In fact, we are now in the tenth week since the Secretary of State gave that undertaking.
  Mr. Varley: I do not place it exactly as my hon. Friend does. I calculate it as being about seven weeks. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that we had expected that by this time the Secretary of State would have made an announcement. Now the Government have got themselves into a tangle over the future of the industry. A statement was essential, because of the vital need to confirm the future of the industry's other product divisions, in the same way as the Secretary of State appeared to confirm the future of the bulk iron and steel making activities.
  I want to put a question to the Minister for Industry about the Hunterston project. We were told by the Secretary of State that the bulk steel making activity would be intact and would remain part of the corporation. Rumours and reports are circulating that the Government are encouraging foreign interests to come into bulk steel making. There is a report circulating in Scotland that the Government are encouraging a Dutch interest to look at the Hunterston site as one of the possibilities for a new green field site. If there is any truth in that we should like to know the facts.
  We were hopeful that at least the Secretary of State would have been able to confirm that the special steels, construction, chemicals and tubes would remain intact. We were specially hopeful that the Secretary of State would by now have had something to say about the additional price increase of 7 per cent. which was refused by the Government in April. Even in advance of the announcement that the right hon. Gentleman has promised about the review, the House is entitled to a statement from the Minister for Industry tonight about this price increase. I was encouraged when the hon. Member for the New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson) made it plain that the steel industry should be allowed to have the 14 per cent. or at least that other steps should be taken to tell us how the industry will cope.
  146
  We are told by the Press, at least, that the Secretary of State is, in principle, in favour of an additional price rise for the British Steel Corporation, but we know from other events that he cannot decide this matter in isolation. The Prime Minister has intervened. To a great extent, the evidence shows that the Prime Minister has taken over the pricing policy of the steel industry. The confusion becomes deeper and deeper. In its election manifesto, the Conservative Party said that it would reduce the involvement of the State in the steel industry, and, as I say, the Secretary of State, at meetings which we have had with him and again in the House today, seems to confirm that he too, is anxious to get away from this intervention. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, boasts that the steel industry is one of the props of his economic strategy.
  On 15th May, when he addressed the Scottish Tories in Socialist Aberdeen, the Prime Minister had this to say:
  "When we acted to cut the proposed steel price increases in half, there was a howl of opposition."
  There was a howl of approval at that; it was stirring stuff for the Scottish Tories. But the Prime Minister gave it all away when he blurted out at Question Time on 4th May:
  "What I do know is that the interference with those prices"—
  that is, steel prices—
  "will give the whole of British industry a better opportunity of competing in world markets."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 1169.]
  So that is it. The Prime Minister says that that is part of his economic strategy, it is one of his economic props. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport said, we thought that the only economic weapon which the Government had was unemployment, but now they have this other weapon, the use of the steel industry to subsidise our country's exports.
  There may well be those who say, "Fair enough", who would welcome the Prime Minister's conversion to the principle of manipulating publicly-owned industries as an instrument of Socialist planning. But, if that be so, two fundamental questions arise. First, is it fair to the steel industry to expect it to subsidise privately-owned industry at the expense of its own workers' wages, as my hon.

  147
  Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) said, and its employment structure? Second, if the steel industry is now such an integral part of the Government's economic strategy, is it not utter folly not to allow it to go ahead with its long-term plans to establish and secure its own future? The Prime Minister, with that sort of stuff in Aberdeen and in answer to Questions in the House, may get away with it on the spur of the moment, but he should not be allowed to get away with it without an explanation from the Government.
  There is another side to the question. I do not dispute that there is something to be said for the Government taking action to stop price increases. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said, if the Prime Minister and the Government want to be taken seriously, and if they are intervening to improve the competitive position of British industry, it is about time they started taking action in other respects. When they take action, for example, to stop a price increase in the oil industry, which seems to put up its prices before the ink dries on the contracts it signs with the sheikhs, we may begin to take them seriously.
  The House is entitled to know what the Government's attitude is now to the financial position of the British Steel Corporation. Is it, for example, the Government's firm intention to hold the price of steel down to a level below that which the market will plainly stand, below the level of European prices? If it is, the Minister should say so plainly when he winds up He should tell us whether it is the Government's policy, whether it is the Prime Minister's policy, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested on 4th May, to subsidise our export industries.
  At the same time, let us be told what action the Government intend to take to stop comparable price increases in the private sector. Half the Corporation's turnover is accounted for by raw materials and the purchase of equipment. It is a section of its business over which it has only marginal control. The equipment and materials it requires have gone up by about 20 per cent. Everyone knows that that is a burden it cannot afford for long without encountering serious deficit. So before we have any more sort of
  148
  "Aims of Industry" howls about inefficient nationalised industries, we are entitled to be told by the Government exactly how they propose to deal with that matter.
  We were hoping at least that the right hon. Gentleman would confirm that profitable parts of the steel industry would not be hived off. From time to time we hear from hon. Members opposite that the steel industry should be restricted to bulk steel making. That is most doctrinaire. Fortunately, today we have not heard that quite as much as on previous occasions. The hon. Members for Cambridge, the New Forest and Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) took quite a sensible view on these matters. They said that there would be a hiving on and a bit of hiving off, but they were reasonably flexible, unlike some hon. Members opposite who say that bulk steel making is for the Corporation and that the rest should be hived off. That is doctrinaire nonsense, and I am pleased to see a change of attitude among Conservative hon. Members.
  Every industry, whether publicly- or privately-owned, seeks to diversify. All our great firms seek to diversify, and not to have done so would have led to economic ruin. It would have been madness to confine the Corporation to bulk steel making, the most debilitating formula that could possibly be inflicted on management. It would also be disastrous for the nation. I wonder how much time leading people within the Corporation have had to spend in trying to combat the Government's attempts to weaken the industry. There must have been hours and hours wasted between officials of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Corporation in sterile argument and wrangles about the shape of the industry. I cannot imagine for one moment that the officials of the Department had any enthusiasm for that. They cannot have had much stomach for this kind of exercise. But loyally they must have tried to fulfil the prejudices of their Ministers. I do not think that the prejudice is so much on the part of the Secretary of State, but it is to a great extent that of junior Ministers in his Department.
  The so-called review is being carried out exclusively by officials, we understand. We at least expected a Minister

  149
  to head it. At least the Minister for Industry or the Under-Secretary ought to have been prepared to carry out this work, which I firmly believe they started.
  The Government would do well to take note of what the Confederation of British Industry has said on this matter. Mr. Campbell Adamson, speaking at Cambridge during the last 12 days, and reported in the Financial Times, said of the "unhealthy"—his own word—degree of uncertainty about the Government's intentions towards the nationalised industries:
  "Public corporations must be subject to the same disciplines as the private sector. Equally, Government should not interfere with the day-to-day operations of the corporations".
  He went on to say:
  "Government should stop using public corporations as instruments of Government policy. Public corporations should be operated in a commercial manner. Any manufacture undertaken or services provided at the request of Government for reasons of social policy should be treated separately in the accounts. If publicly-owned corporations were to operate commercially, and were to recruit and retain management of high quality, they must have some freedom to undertake ancillary activities in the same way as the Boards of private companies might decide to diversify".
  He continued:
  "… no industry can operate successfully if it is continually in doubt about its long-term future".
  That is the most damning condemnation of the Government. In all aspects that speech might have been delivered with the British Steel Corporation and its situation in mind and the Government would do well to heed it. We are told that the Director-General of the C.B.I. is to talk to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry soon. He probably talks to him much more often than I get to know about from my research. The right hon. Gentleman should heed Mr. Campbell Adamson's advice.
  Mr. Campbell Adamson seemed to have found support in The Times only four days ago. Under the heading
  "Fair play for the British Steel Corporation",
  The Times said:
  "Ministers must make up their mind once and for all whether they are going to allow the Corporation to set its own prices, or whether they will provide money in other ways to finance the industry's capital pro-
  150
  jects … ministers cannot on the one hand preach the gospel of less interference in state industries, and on the other peg the price of steel and castigate the corporation for failing to move into the black … ending the intolerable uncertainty to which the industry has been subjected for so long".
  If Britain is to strengthen its industrial position, if we care about the future standard of living and full employment of those who work in it and the future economic prospects for our nation, we must have a strong and secure steel industry. The Government must face this fundamental issue: do they really want a steel industry of the size and strength to meet our future needs? They must make up their mind whether they will continually niggle and harry the Corporation to suit basically the prejudices of the junior Ministers in the Department of Trade and Industry or the whims of the Prime Minister.
  Our very standard of living—that is the sort of level on which I put this matter—and, equally important, a high level of employment are dependent upon an expanding steel industry and not a declining industry bewildered and frustrated by Government intervention. We hope that eventually, even under this Government, the economy will get moving again and we shall have a strong steel industry. But over the past few months the Government have failed the industry and those who work in it, basically not to achieve a better steel industry, but out of political prejudice, and motivated for that reason, in direct contradiction of their election manifesto. They have replaced what I believe to have been a carefully phased plan with uncertainty, apprehension and confusion.
  For these reasons I call on the House to vote against this example of new-style Tory Government—Tory Government that we should regret.
  9.35 p.m.
  The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): Like other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate I welcome the fact that it is taking place. I agreed very much with the words which were used by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) who said that he felt that this was a more constructive debate than our last one. I am sure that that is so, and I am sure that other hon. Members who have taken part in it will feel the same thing.

  151
  I think that this fact owes very much—I hope not to cause any embarrassment to him by saying so—to the way in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) opened the case for the Opposition. He seemed to recognise that there has to come a time when, to use a phrase quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson), it would be helpful to bring to an end the political onslaughts on this industry. I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale was saying that largely because he realised as much as does every hon. Gentleman, I think, who has a steel industry constituency, or is in any way closely associated with the steel industry, that there are large numbers of people outside this House who have a very real concern in the decisions which this Government are considering, and are, therefore, watching very closely indeed the course of the debates and the nature of the discussions affecting this industry. I absolutely understand that, and I agree very much on this point with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Laine), who dwelt on this in his very constructive speech, when he reminded us here of the number of people who are affected by our consideration of this industry.
  It has often been used as a taunt against me that I do not have any steel works in my constituency, but this, happily, has not prevented me from becoming very closely associated with the industry. During the last few months I have been in Government I have had opportunity, as some hon. Members know, to visit many of the major works, and to meet many of the people concerned with them. I should like just to put on record—and I think anybody who has been through this experience will agree with me—that the great quality and the calibre of the people one meets in the industry is absolutely second to none.
  This is an industry which has, sadly for it, but understandably, I think, always been very susceptible to political pressures. Nationalisation was an extreme example of that, and to have inflicted it twice on the industry was really ideology gone mad Hon. Gentlemen opposite have frequently, during this debate and at other times, accused us during these last
  152
  few months of contributing towards uncertainty in the industry, but, as many of my hon. Friends have said, this is as nothing to the damage which hon. Gentlemen opposite did to this industry twice in recent years.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Minister is talking about nationalisation of the industry twice, but will he give any indication at all whether or not he would make the same comment if we re-nationalise once again some of the hived-off parts of industry, as he is proposing they should be hived off?
  Sir J. Eden: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better wait to see the course which events take and whether he or his party are ever again in the position to do some of the damage they did. I am sure that not even the most ardent advocates of nationalisation could claim that their hopes for it had been realised in the event.
  However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said, although we have always been opposed to the methods employed, there were, clearly, aims and objectives of which, broadly speaking, one approved. One of those objectives was to cut out uneconomic units within the organisation itself, and the other was to work towards larger, integrated production units. It was with these objectives in mind——
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Why was it not done under private enterprise? That was the whole point of nationalisation.
  Sir J. Eden: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has not studied the Benson proposals——
  Mr. Heffer: Never mind about the proposals.
  Sir J. Eden: If this industry had been left to develop in the normal course of events——
  Mr. Heffer:—we would not have one.
  Sir J. Eden:—we would have more than one unit of ownership at present and probably far greater profitability.
  The objectives which I have defined are broadly acceptable to both sides of the House, and it was with these objectives in

  153
  mind, and with an awareness of the nature of international developments, that we began our study of this industry. I was struck by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest, and I assure him that in our study we had a real understanding of what he described as the technological, economic and political influences at work in the industry. It was in pursuit of these same objectives that the closure programme was recently announced. It has always been made plain that substantial rationalisation of production facilities was essential if the Corporation was to become financially viable and achieve the level of efficiency necessary to meet international competition.
  This has been well understood and fully accepted. I agree with the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) that it is to the credit of the trade unions that they have understood from the beginning that a substantial reduction in our total iron and steel making labour force was the unavoidable result of this rationalisation process. This is still clearly understood, and everyone who has the future of the industry at heart knows full well that it has to go through this process, painful though it is to individuals affected by it, to achieve that degree of stability and viability which is the aim.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Will the Minister assure the House and the steel industry that the Government will adhere to the original plan proposed by Lord Melchett of spreading redundancies over five, seven, eight or ten years, and that, as part and parcel of these redundancies, new steel capacity will be brought into existence and new jobs created so that redundancies are reduced to a minimum?
  Sir J. Eden: I am coming on to these points. I would prefer to keep to the sequence I have prepared.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Before the hon. Gentleman claims, as is the case, that the unions agreed to the development plan, surely he must accept that they agreed only on the basis that expansion would go forward. We want to know when the Government will allow it to go forward.
  Sir J. Eden: This is the point made by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr.
  154
  John Mendelson). This is the whole point of the debate and of the review. These answers will be coming forward.
  I think the House accepts that this process of closure in the first stage is recognised as being essential in the progress towards viability. There is a clear need to base the order load on more modern, low-cost plant rather than aggravate the difficulties of the Corporation by keeping older, less efficient and more costly plant in operation when it can be closed.
  The closures which have been announced are to be spread forward over a period of years, the main ones taking place in 1971–73. The whole package of proposals for closures which it is within the power of the Corporation to make are subject to discussions with the unions concerned. These have already begun. The exact timing of them will obviously depend on the conclusion of the discussions in which the Corporation is engaged. Discussions are also taking place with regional planning authorities—and this answers a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury—with the local authorities and the Government Departments concerned on the total employment effects. Naturally we have to have regard to the level of unemployment in areas affected by other, more general economic pressures. We have this very much in mind, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had this in mind in his Budget proposals. We hope that these will lead to a considerable upturn generally.
  Mr. John Mendelson: What about the expansion of the industry?
  Sir J. Eden: I am coming to that. The Corporation has its own social policy unit which is working to achieve maximum redeployment, both within the Corporation and outside it. It will also do its best to assist in the creation of new jobs in areas affected by the closures. It is in this context that I shall refer to the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) and Rossendale (Mr. Bray) concerning the situation affecting employment at Irlam.
  Irlam is a particularly difficult decision for the Corporation, because here is an area where the employment prospects are very much dependent on the Corporation

  155
  or upon steel-making activities. The hon. Member for Stretford was careful to say that it need not rest solely with the Corporation. The point that really matters in a case like Irlam is not whether it is public or private sector but that there shall be some employment prospects for the people affected to this degree by the proposed closure. I hope that in giving consideration to this, the Corporation will make every effort to view most sympathetically any proposals which would result in continued employment for the men affected. I am sure that it will do so and I am sure that it would be in furtherance of the aims and objectives of the social policy unit if it was to do it as openly and constructively as possible.
  The main contention of the Opposition has been that closures, on the one hand, are all very well and it understands the need for them, but they must be balanced, on the other hand, by an investment programme in new plant and capacity. I understand this and it is not our purpose to bring the Corporation to a standstill or to bring the industry to an end. We could not do this even if we were so minded and it would be an absurd attitude to take. We have been confronted with the paradox of the prospect of unprofitability on the one hand and the very ambitious scale of the Corporation's investment plans on the other.
  These two factors coming together forced us into having to conduct a penetrating re-appraisal into four separate but closely inter-related studies. There is the short-term financial review affecting plans for the year 1971–72, there is the longer-term strategy for a decade, there is the review of the structure of the industry as a whole, and there is the relationship between the Government and the industry. Those are the four strands in one's whole study of the industry and the implications for its future development in the economy.
  The short-term financial review will cover the anticipated financial out-turn and, of course, implications for pricing. A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), and the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), as well as some of my hon. Friends, asked about pricing and the prospective future pricing
  156
  policy under this Government. I take this opportunity to remind hon. Members opposite of their own intervention when they were in office. When proposals for price increases were put forward by the Corporation, they were referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes and were subjected to abatement by the then Government. There is the additional fact that in October of last year the Government approved the full price increase requested by the Corporation. That was done against a large part of opinion in the country. That was fairly rapidly followed by the last price increase proposal, and we have to take account of views put to us by the independent sector and by steel users.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford said, many users of steel were concerned not only at the extent of the price increases proposed but at the speed with which they followed ones which had only recently been endorsed. We also had to take account of the fact that certain statutory procedures are involved as a result of the 1967 Act in the event of views being expressed by the Iron and Steel Consumers Council. That body made formal representations to the Government, and, as a result of measures brought into law by the previous Administration, we had no alternative but to react to them.
  The short-term financial review will also consider the investment programme in the context of the £185 million programme which was approved by the Government towards the end of last year. There is no justification for seeking to imply that in investment terms we are bringing the industry to a standstill. One has only to look back over the figures to realise that. In 1968–69 the industry's investment programme was £62 million; in 1969–70 it was £80 million; in 1970–71 it was £140 million; and that for 1971–72 approved at the end of last year is £185 million.
  It is in that context that one should see the Ravenscraig decision. Although we have tried patiently to explain this matter to the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), he still feels perplexed by it.
  Mr. Lawson: So does everybody else.
  Sir J. Eden: Then perhaps I should try to spell out the matter for the hon.

  157
  Member again. The Ravenscraig proposal was accepted by the then Government in early 1970 and was included in the Corporation's capital development programme. Approval was given in November, 1970, by the present Government for expenditure of £185 million in 1971–72. It is this which is now subject to the present review.
  As a result of this review, my right hon. Friend asked the Corporation to submit for his approval any particular projects with which it wished to proceed. Ravenscraig is one of the projects on which expenditure might be incurred by the Corporation in 1971–72, but the start on the projects during the course of the short-term review is subject to special approval. The Corporation has not brought forward a request to start Ravenscraig while the review has been in progress. Therefore, there has been no immediate proposal before the Government and the Government have not held back work at Ravenscraig. This matter is not in the same context as that at Llanwern. This is in the hands of the B.S.C. and I have no doubt that, in the light of the announcement of the decisions on the review, which my right hon. Friend has said will take place as soon as possible after Whitsun, it will then be for the Corporation to decide about the project within the approved level of investment. I hope that makes the matter abundantly clear to the hon. Member for Motherwell.
  Mr. Lawson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what I said earlier is correct—in other words, if we understand what he is now saying, there are no schemes whatever now being held up by the Government?
  Sir J. Eden: The hon. Gentleman has got the message quite clearly from the very detailed and careful elucidation I gave to him just now on the question of Ravenscraig. In addition to the short-term review, there is also the question of
  the long-term project side, which will bring into consideration all those matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury and others referred: the question of the extent of the expansion of the industry, whether or not to proceed with the green field site, ore and coking coal supplies, the greater degree of manufacturing operation to take place at the source of raw material supply, and we are bound to have in mind the views put forward in the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Spence). We will also have to take into account the regional implications and the question of developing technology.
  Mr. Tinn Mr. Tinn rose——
  Sir J. Eden: These are all matters which are bound up in the long-term review, and then are of fundamental importance to the nature of the steel industry.
  The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and others took us to task for the fact that the short-term review had been handled by officials. This does not in any way detract from Ministerial responsibility. Ministers have got to take the decisions, and we will take them, taking into account the full interests of the industry and the economy of this country. We will also take into account, since the opportunity has been given us to do so, the views expressed by hon. Members during this debate. May I finally emphasise to the House——
  Mr. Joseph Harper Mr. Joseph Harper (Pontefract) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 224.

  Division No. 371.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Batsford, Brian

  Bowden, Andrew

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Bell, Ronald

  Braine, Bernard

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Benyon, W.

  Bray, Ronald

  Astor, John

  Biffen, John

  Brewis, John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Awdry, Daniel

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Body, Richard

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

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

  Holland, Philip

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Buck, Antony

  Hordern, Peter

  Pounder, Rafton

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hornby, Richard

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Burden, F. A.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Carlisle, Mark

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Channon, Paul

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Raison, Timothy

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hunt, John

  Redmond, Robert

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Churchill, W. S.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  James, David

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Clegg, Walter

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Cockeram, Eric

  Jessel, Toby

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Cooke, Robert

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Coombs, Derek

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jopling, Michael

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Cordle, John

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Rost, Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Royle, Anthony

  Costain, A. P.

  Kilfedder, James

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Critchley, Julian

  Kimball, Marcus

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Crouch, David

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Sharples, Richard

  Crowder, F. P.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

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

  Curran, Charles

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Shelton, Willliam (Clapham)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Kirk, Peter

  Simeons, Charles

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Sinclair, Sir George

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

  Knox, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Dean, Paul

  Lambton, Antony

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Lane, David

  Soref, Harold

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Speed, Keith

  Dixon, Piers

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Spence, John

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Sproat, Iain

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stainton, Keith

  Dykes, Hugh

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

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Eden, Sir John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Steel, David

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Loveridge, John

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

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

  Eyre, Reginald

  Luce, R, N.

  Stodart, Anthony Edinburgh, W.)

  Farr, John

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stokes, John

  Fidler, Michael

  McCrindle. R. A.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McLaren, Martin

  Sutcliffe, John

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)

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

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Fortescue, Tim

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Tebbit, Norman

  Fowler, Norman

  Maddan, Martin

  Temple, John M.

  Fox, Marcus

  Madel, David

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

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

  Maginnis, John E.

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Fry, Peter

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Marten, Neil

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Gardner, Edward

  Mather, Carol

  Tilney, James

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maude, Angus

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maudling. Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Trew, Peter

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mawby, Ray

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maxwell-Hyslon, R. J.

  Turton, t. Hn. R. H.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gorst, John

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Gower, Raymond

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Gray, Hamish

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

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Green, Alan

  Mitchell. David (Basingstoke)

  Waddington, David

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Moate, Roger

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Molyneaux, James

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Grylls, Michael

  Money, Ernie

  Walters, Dennis

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Gurden, Harold

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mudd, David

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Murton, Oscar

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Neave, Airey

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wilkinson, John

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Normanton, Tom

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nott, John

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Onslow, Cranley

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Havers, Michael

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Hawkins, Paul

  Osborn, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hay, John

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Hicks, Robert

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hiley, Joseph

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Jasper More and

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

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  160

  161

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Albu, Austen

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Oram, Bert

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Orbach, Maurice

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Horam, John

  Orme, Stanley

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Ashton, Joe

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Paget, R. T.

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Barnett, Joel

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Beaney, Alan

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hunter, Adam

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Bidwell, Sydney

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

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Janner, Greville

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pentland, Norman

  Booth, Albert

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

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Bradley, Tom

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Price, William (Rugby)

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

  John, Brynmor

  Probert, Arthur

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rankin, John

  Buchan, Norman

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

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

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

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Richard, Ivor

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Judd, Frank

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Kaufman, Gerald

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

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Kelley, Richard

  Roper, John

  Concannon, J. D.

  Kerr, Russell

  Rose, Paul B.

  Conlan, Bernard

  Kinnock, Neil

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Lambie, David

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Lamond, James

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Latham, Arthur

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

  Cronin, John

  Lawson, George

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

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Leonard, Dick

  Sillars, James

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Silverman, Julius

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Skinner, Dennis

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Small, William

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Spearing, Nigel

  Deakins, Eric

  Loughlin, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Delargy, H. J.

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Dempsey, James

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Doig, Peter

  McBride, Neil

  Strang, Gavin

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McElhone, Frank

  Summer-skill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Driberg, Tom

  McGuire, Michael

  Swain, Thomas

  Dunnett, Jack

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Taverne, Dick

  Eadie, Alex

  Mackie, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackintosh, John P.

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Ellis, Tom

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Tomney, Frank

  English, Michael

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Torney, Tom

  Evans, Fred

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

  Tuck, Raphael

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Varley, Eric G.

  Foot, Michael

  Marquand, David

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Ford, Ben

  Marsden, F.

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

  Forrester, John

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Watkins, David

  Freeson, Reginald

  Meacher, Michael

  Weitzman, David

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mendeison, John

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Golding, John

  Mikardo, Ian

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Millan, Bruce

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Molloy, William

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Woof, Robert

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hamling, William

  Murray, Ronald King

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Ogden, Eric

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Hardy, Peter

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Mr. Alan Fitch.

  Harper, Joseph

  Main Question, as amended, put.—
  The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 223.

  Division No. 372]

  AYES

  [10.13 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Fox, Marcus

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

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

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Alison, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fry, Peter

  Maddan, Martin

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Galbraith, Hn, T. G.

  Madel, David

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Gardner, Edward

  Maginnis, John E.

  Astor, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Marten, Neil

  Awdry, Daniel

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mather, Carol

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Maude, Angus

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Gorst, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Batsford, Brian

  Gower, Raymond

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gray, Hamish

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bell, Ronald

  Green, Alan

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Benyon, W.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Biffen, John

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

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

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grylls, Michael

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Moate, Roger

  Body, Richard

  Gurden, Harold

  Molyneaux, James

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Money, Ernie

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Mudd, David

  Braine, Bernard

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Murton, Oscar

  Bray, Ronald

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Neave, Airey

  Brewis, John

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Havers, Michael

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hawkins, Paul

  Normanton, Tom

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hay, John

  Nott, John

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Heseltine, Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

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

  Hicks, Robert

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Buck, Antony

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Osborn, John

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hiley, Joseph

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Burden, F. A.

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

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

  Holland, Philip

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hordern, Peter

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Channon, Paul

  Hornby, Richard

  Percival, Ian

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Churchill, W. S.

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hunt, John

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Clegg, Walter

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Cockeram, Eric

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Cooke, Robert

  James, David

  Raison, Timothy

  Coombs, Derek

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Redmond, Robert

  Cooper, A. E.

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Cordle, John

  Jessel, Toby

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Costain, A. P.

  Jopling, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Critchley, Julian

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Crouch, David

  Kellett, Mrs. Elaine

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Crowder, F. P.

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Curran, Charles

  Kilfedder, James

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Rost, Peter

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

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Royle, Anthony

  Dean, Paul

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kirk, Peter

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Sharples, Richard

  Dixon, Piers

  Knox, David

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

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Lambton, Antony

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lane, David

  Simeons, Charles

  Dykes, Hugh

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Eden, Sir John

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

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

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

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Soref, Harold

  Eyre, Reginald

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

  Speed, Keith

  Farr, John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Spence, John

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Loveridge, John

  Sproat, lain

  Fidler, Michael

  Luce, R. N.

  Stainton, Keith

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Steel, David

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McLaren, Martin

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Fortescue, Tim

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Fowler, Norman

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Stokes, John

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sutcliffe, John

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  van Straubenzee, W. n.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

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

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Tebbit, Norman

  Waddington, David

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Temple, John M.

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Thomas, John Strattling (Monmouth)

  Walters, Dennis

  Younger, Hn. George

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Warren, Kenneth

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Tilney, John

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Mr. Jasper More and

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  Trew, Peter

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Golding, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Albu, Austen

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn P. C.

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

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marquand, David

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marsden, F.

  Ashton, Joe

  Gunter, Rt. Hn R. J.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Atkinson, Norman

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hamling, William

  Meacher, Michael

  Barnett, Joel

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Beaney, Alan

  Hardy, Peter

  Mendelson, John

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Harper, Joseph

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Millan, Bruce

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Molloy, William

  Booth, Albert

  Horam, John

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Bradley, Tom

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Ogden, Eric

  Buchan, Norman

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hunter, Adam

  Oram, Bert

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

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

  Orbach, Maurice

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Stanley

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

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

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Paget, R. T.

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Concannon, J. D.

  John, Brynmor

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Conlan, Bernard

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Cronin, John

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

  Pentland, Norman

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Judd, Frank

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Probert, Arthur

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Kelley, Richard

  Rankin, John

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Lambie, David

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Deakins, Eric

  Lamond, James

  Richard, Ivor

  Delargy, H. J.

  Latham, Arthur

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Lawson, George

  Roberts. Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Dempsey, James

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Doig, Peter

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Leonard, Dick

  Roper, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rose, Paul B.

  Driberg, Tom

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lipton, Marcus

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

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Loughlin, Charles

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

  Ellis, Tom

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  English, Michael

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Evans, Fred

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Sillars, James

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  McBride, Neil

  Silverman, Julius

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foot, Michael

  McElhone, Frank

  Small, William

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Forrester, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackie, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Stallard, A. W.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  166

  167

  Strang, Gavin

  Tuck, Raphael

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Varley, Eric G.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Swain, Thomas

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

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Taverne, Dick

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Woof, Robert

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Watkins, David

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

  Weitzman, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Tinn, James

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Tomney, Frank

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Mr. Alan Fitch.

  Torney, Tom

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Resolved,
  That this House endorses Her Majesty's Government's decision to undertake thorough-
  168
  going reviews of the financial performance of the British Steel Corporation and of the structure and future development of the British Steel Industry.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (MARRIED WOMEN)
  10.23 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I beg to move,
  That the National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations, 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.
  The purpose of these Amendment Regulations is to improve the retirement conditions for women whose marriages have been dissolved. It is proposed that the Regulations should come into operation on 14th June, 1971, which will be in time to help cases arising from the Divorce Reform Act, 1970.
  A married woman usually relies on her husband's insurance to give her a retirement pension, but if she is divorced she can use her former husband's insurance only insofar as special provisions in the National Insurance (Married Women) Regulations enable her to do so. It might be helpful to the House if I first explain briefly what these provisions are.
  If the woman is over 60 when she is divorced she can qualify immediately for a retirement pension on her former husband's insurance equal to that she would have received if he had died on the date the marriage ended—in other words, she is fully covered.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley: In the case quoted by the hon. Gentleman, is the husband under the age of 65?
  Mr. Dean: It would apply in any event. If she is over 60 she is fully covered whatever the age of her former husband.
  The more usual case is that of the woman who is under 60 when she is divorced. She is required to pay contributions, as any single person is, according to whether she is working for an employer, is self-employed or is non-employed. When she reaches age 60, the rate of retirement pension to which she will be entitled will then depend on her yearly average of contributions. These will be based on contributions paid by her or credited to her in the periods before marriage and after divorce. For the period of marriage, she may, if it is to her advantage, as it usually is, count
  170
  her former husband's contributions. In the ordinary course, where the woman works before marriage and after divorce and the husband has a good insurance record, this arrangement should ensure a full retirement pension.
  The draft Regulations, while preserving the present position, make the additional provision that her former husband's record may, alternatively, be used for the whole of the period over which her yearly average is calculated up to the end of the marriage, if that would enable her to receive a still higher pension. His record can accordingly cover her for the period of any earlier marriage when she did not herself have to pay contributions.
  I give the House this example. A woman who has been widowed or divorced may marry again in her 40s or 50s and quickly find that she has made a mistake. If she then divorces that second husband, as the Regulations now stand she can, for retirement pension purposes, use her second husband's contribution record to cover only the short period of that second marriage. There may well be an extensive gap in her insurance record during her first marriage. These amending Regulations will allow her to use the second husband's insurance to improve her record for the whole period up to the second marriage.
  As the Explanatory Note to the Regulations makes clear, this extension brings the provision into line with those which apply to widows. A preliminary draft of the Regulations has been submitted to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which recommends that they be accepted.
  I apologise for that rather technical explanation, but I commend to the House this improvement in National Insurance cover for women who, everyone will agree, deserve our sympathy and our help.
  Mr. Charles Curran: Can my hon. Friend say how many women will benefit?
  Mr. Dean: I am not able to help my hon. Friend there because it depends largely, especially for the future, on how many women are likely to be in this position, but I can tell him that the proposed improvement will largely help those women who are in the unfortunate position of having had two marriages, both of which have broken down. There will

  171
  probably be more of these under the recent reform in our divorce laws.
  10.28 p.m.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley: We welcome these amending Regulations, first, because they mirror almost exactly the proposals which the previous Government put forward in their White Paper Cmnd. 3883, which were reflected in Clause 23(5) of the National Superannuation Bill, and second, because we feel, as the hon. Gentleman does and as the public will feel, I am sure, that they may considerably assist divorced women and women whose marriages have been annulled.
  It is significant that the National Insurance Advisory Committee received no representations when the draft Regulations were published. This is not surprising, for everyone interested in this small corner of national insurance and social security cover will feel that they bring a welcome, if minor, change in the Regulations as they stand at present. Under present legislation, divorced women cannot substitute their ex-husband's record for any period between their own school leaving age and their marriage, as, for example, widows can, I understand. Now for the whole period both widows and divorced women can use their ex-husband's contribution record for the whole period to the end of their marriage. This will be useful to women who have, for whatever reason, a brief second marriage. There will now be National Insurance contribution cover over the whole period of the first marriage, whether it has been lengthy or short. In addition, it will be particularly helpful to women who married late, who may well have stayed at home to look after aged relatives and had no contribution record of their own.
  The hon. Gentleman explained the position of women who were divorced over the age of 60. The House was pleased that even though the ex-husband might not be of pension age himself—65 years—the woman divorced over the age of 60 will be able to draw a retirement pension if necessary before the ex-husband reaches 65, which is the normal age at which a married woman would be able to draw funds from her husband's contributions.
  As I understand the situation as described by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare,
  172
  in another place on 5th May, as reported at columns 422–423 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, the Regulations deal only with the flat rate pension. It may well be, for example that the ex-husband has paid graduated contributions for a number of years under what we on this side describe—I say this without venom tonight—as the Mark I Tory graduated swindle. I understand that if a widow's late husband has paid graduated contributions she not only receives flat rate pension but increments on top arising from the contributions of her late husband into the graduated State system. Why should not the divorced woman receive recognition of the payments her ex-husband has made in graduated contributions, particularly if he has died in the interim and has left no widow who would otherwise be drawing the benefits of those contributions? The Regulations help a woman if she has had a short second marriage, because now she will be able to use the whole of her second husband's record.
  I do not want the hon. Gentleman to think that I am quibbling, but because of the inevitable complications of any National Insurance scheme there will always be cases where individual women will be badly affected because of the individual contribution records of their ex-husbands. The second husband might not have had a good contribution record and the woman who has divorced or been divorced by the second husband might well have had a very long marriage to her first husband who had a good contribution record. I recognise all the difficulties and complexities which can arise in a National Insurance scheme such as ours, but does not the hon. Gentleman think that in some circumstances it might be justifiable to consider the contribution record of the first husband rather than the second to help women who have had a brief second marriage and their second husbands had a poor or non-existent contribution record?
  My noble Friend Baroness Phillips, in another place, asked a question of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. She said:
  "I understand the Regulations to prescribe the yearly average contribution over the lifetime of the husband. This in fact is different from the widow's pension which appears to be based on the yearly contribution for the last three years before death. I do not expect an answer immediately, but perhaps this is something where, when we come to discuss pensions

  173
  totally, we may find there is some slight anomaly which can be ironed out".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 5th May, 1971; Vol. 318, c. 424.]
  I know that the scheme as it exists for widows gives a number of options in order that the widow can get the highest possible pension according to how the contribution record is calculated. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary would comment on my noble Friend's question.
  I proposed to ask the Under-Secretary what numbers of divorced women would be helped by the Regulations, but he rightly pointed out that it would depend on the divorce rate arising from recent legislation on the subject. However, it may be that I have misunderstood the transitory provisions in Regulation 3 of the Statutory Instrument. I understand that divorced women will not receive any increase in the amount of benefit in respect of any period before the coming into operation of the Regulations on 14th June, 1971, but I was under the impression that women whose marriage, in the terms of the Regulation,
  "was terminated before the date of the coming into operation of these Regulations".
  could conceivably find in some numbers that their retirement pension was increased as a result of the new basis of calculation. If I am correct in my interpretation, perhaps the Under-Secretary would give us the figures.
  We welcome this minor improvement in what we regard as a generally unsatisfactory National Insurance scheme. But that does not alter the fact that married women who work and choose to pay their contribution get a poor return on their contributions when they are taken with the contributions of their ex-husbands. While in 1931 fewer than 500,000 married women were employed, that figure had jumped to 2½ million by 1951. Now it is probably approaching 5 million. Under the present National Insurance scheme, married women who work for a considerable period of their working lives—and the number may well include a considerable number of women who are divorced—get a poor deal. When we introduced our National Superannuation Bill, we sought so to change the basic National Insurance system and the principles underlying it that for the first time in the history of this country married women who worked
  174
  would get a fair deal and return from it. Therefore, while welcoming these proposals, which, after all, are proposals put forward by the previous Government, I am bound to say that these are only minor proposals. We have to ask the question, when are the present Government going to bring forward their proposals which will give full justice to these women, as we wished to do? There is no sign of that yet.
  10.40 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Curran: I welcome these proposals, of course. I do not think so meanly of them as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) does. Nor will the women who will benefit by them take the lofty view that he has been taking; they will welcome them with a good deal more enthusiasm than he has done.
  However, I would ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary whether it is possible for him to give us any idea of his thinking about the future of National Insurance as it affects married women. I know that it is a very large subject, but I think we are entitled to raise it in this debate, and I should like to see whether I can persuade my hon. Friend to open his mind to us on what is really a basic question. Should a married woman's right to pension depend upon her husband's contributions record, or upon her ex-husband's contributions record either?
  I am surprised that we have not had a few members of the Women's Liberation here for this debate, because this seems to me to be a question on which women's organisations would be likely to be more vocal than they are. In National Insurance we treat wives as appendages of their husbands, and as persons whose rights are dependent not on what they themselves do but on what their husbands do, or fail to do. I am familiar, and I am sure other hon. Members are familiar, with the case of a married woman finding that when she reaches pensionable age she does not get the pension she hoped to get, because there was something the matter with her husband's contribution record.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope very much that the hon. Member will confine himself to the Regulations, and not encourage his hon. Friend to stray equally far from them.
  Mr. Curran: I accept that Ruling, of course. I did not want to do more than touch parenthetically upon the question in the hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies, could give us some idea of his thinking about this. Because he understands the National Insurance subject thoroughly, he does not need me to convince him that this is a basic question that I am asking him to answer, and I ask him to open his mind on it.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. Dean: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may briefly try to answer some of the questions put to me without getting out of order.
  The position with regard to the graduated contribution is that the woman who is over the age of 60 will be entitled to half her husband's graduated pension. But this is not so in the case of a woman who is under 60.
  With regard to the transitional Regulation, Regulation 3, the new Regulation that we are speaking about provides that there shall not be an increase in the amount payable to a woman whose marriage was dissolved before the Regulations for any period before that date.
  With regard to the contribution point which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) put to me, the position is that for both the flat-rate retirement pension and widow's benefit there are two conditions which must be satisfied in relation to the insurance record on which the benefit is based. The first is that at least 156 flat-rate contributions of any class must have been paid since the person last entered insurance. The second is as that for benefit to be paid at the standard rate there must be an average of 50 flat-rate contributions for each year of insurance. For the purpose of this condition full contributions paid and credited can be counted. Widow's pension was at one time related to the last three years of insurance under the Contributory Pensions Acts. That system ceased to operate in 1948 when the present National Insurance scheme came into force. Therefore, the point to which the hon. Member's noble Friend in another place referred to no longer obtains.
  The final question I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Curran), and that was about opening my mind as to the future of married
  176
  women in National Insurance. It is clear from what you have already said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I must proceed cautiously in this, so I had better content myself, in order not to incur your displeasure, by asking hon. Members to exercise patience a little longer until we produce our plans.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the National Insurance (Married Women) Amendment Regulations 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th April, be approved.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT, 1966 (SECTION 3(1))
  10.45 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I beg to move,
  That the National Insurance Act 1966 (Commencement No. 3) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.
  This change was provided for in legislation of the previous Government in 1966. They carried out part of their intention in that year, and this Commencement Order completes it.
  Section 3(1) of the National Insurance Act, 1966, introduced a rule which provided for payment of unemployment benefit after the first six days of suspension by an employer this commonly being called the six-day suspension rule. It applies to earnings-related supplement from October, 1966, and was to have applied to flat-rate benefit from March, 1969, but that was postponed to allow progress towards a guaranteed pay scheme.
  This Order brings that rule into operation for flat-rate benefit from 1st January, 1972, more than five years after the original announcement. The effect is that at present flat-rate benefit is payable not only to workers who have lost their jobs, but to those on short time, employed less than a full working week or temporarily suspended by their employers. When the six-day suspension rule is applied, benefit will not be payable for short periods of suspension not exceeding six days, nor for the first six days of longer periods. This brings the flat rate into line for short time and temporary lay-off. Since the Government announced

  177
  the change, a good deal of progress has been made towards guaranteed payments in industries subject to lay-off, including one of the main industries affected—the motor car industry.
  The Government do not propose any system of statutory guarantee payments, but welcome voluntary agreements freely negotiated between employers and employees in an industry and tailored to the needs of that industry, and much progress has been made in this since the previous Administration announced these proposals.
  The main reason why we have put this proposal forward today, against that background, is that we feel that there has been a misuse of the National Insurance scheme. It has been a subsidy from the scheme for short-time working, not for unemployment, while unemployment benefit is intended for people who have lost their job and are looking for another. It is unfair to contributors that they should have to subsidise the scheme in this way. This includes low wage earners in regular employment, while many of the people getting these subsidies from the scheme at present tend to be in the higher earning ranges, as in the car industry where earnings average £30 a week.
  Another factor is that in employment exchanges much work is involved which should be devoted to administering unemployment benefit and assisting people in getting jobs. We estimate that there will be a saving of about 300 staff and about £3 million a year as a result of this change.
  There will be safeguards. I emphasise that the Order does not affect unemployment benefit for people who have lost their jobs and are seeking other jobs. For those in need who are not covered by guarantee payment arrangements, supplementary benefit will be available. To summarise, this is a saving in non-priority expenditure so as to spend more where the need is greatest.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I oppose the Order on one rather narrow ground; that is, as it applies to share fishermen. It may help the House if I explain why I feel this and exactly what share fishermen are.
  178
  All share fishermen are treated as self-employed; they are partners in a joint venture and are remunerated wholly by their share in the joint venture. There is absolutely no employer/employee relationship in the inshore industry where share fishermen operate. Share fishermen are exclusive to the inshore fleet, which is scattered along the coasts of the United Kingdom, notably on the north-east, east and west coasts of Scotland, certain parts of the east and north-west coasts of England and in South-West England. A total of possibly 17,000 people in the fishing industry will be affected by the Order, and the amount of unemployment benefit paid had the Order not come before the House would not be great.
  All these men pay class 1 insurance. Not only do they pay their own share, but they pay the whole stamp. Under the Statutory Instrument which gave effect to that Part of the Act which makes share fishermen entitled to receive unemployment benefit. National Insurance leaflet No. 47 of March, 1970, says in paragraph 7:
  "… your share of the stamps may be deducted either from the gross earnings or from your share in the proceeds. Where this is done your card will normally be stamped at each share-out for the period … If the profits or gross earnings on one voyage do not cover the cost of the stamps … the stamps can be paid for out of the proceeds of the next voyage."
  Generally speaking, when the catch is sold, 50 per cent. of the proceeds of sale go to the boat—that is known as the boat's share—and the remainder is shared out equally among members of the crew. The average crew is five or six men. The boat's share goes to paying for loans from the White Fish Authority or banks for the purchase of the boat, electronic gear, new and replacement parts of fishing gear and the general overhead running costs of the boat. The basic rule is "no cash, no share"; that is to say, no remuneration. There is virtually no unemployment among share fishermen; indeed at times it is difficult to find adequate crews. If this Order becomes effective for share fishermen, it will make the crewing situation even worse.
  Equally, there is no redundancy in the inshore fleets in Which share fishermen operate. The redundancy payments contributions are repaid to share fishermen,

  179
  and paragraph 8 of the pamphlet to which I have referred mentions that. It says:
  "… share fishermen are excluded from the scheme (and) arrangements have been made by the Department of Employment and Productivity to refund annually"
  the amounts paid in under that scheme.
  Remuneration for share fishermen is available only if the boats put to sea and if they have caught, landed and sold their catch. If there is no catch, there is no cash. The only unemployment which exists is if the boat can put to sea. If the boat cannot put to sea, there is no employment.
  My hon. Friend referred to arrangements which have been made in various industries whereby agreement has been made between workers and management for payment to a certain extent during lay-off periods—suspension periods. This is not possible in the fishing industries, because there is no fall-back money where this can be done. The proceeds of catches are shared, 50 per cent. to the boat and 50 per cent. to the crew.
  Other than for rare mechanical failure, the only reason for boats not being able to put to sea is adverse weather conditions. Gales and high seas are not in the control of the skipper, and it is his decision whether to hazard the boat and the lives of his crew. It is pertinent to point out that the highest accident and death rate in any industry in the United Kingdom is that which comes, unfortunately, into the inshore fishing fleet.
  Statutory provision was made for share fishermen to receive unemployment benefit in Section 100 of the National Insurance Act, 1965, and it was give effect specifically by Statutory Instrument No. 386 of 1967. The share fisherman is mentioned specifically in this respect. The new rule to govern the payment of unemployment benefit to workers is not "terminated" but is "suspended" by the employer. I understand from the original Explanatory Memorandum when this Statutory Instrument was first issued that it could not possibly apply to share fishermen. The employer-employee relationship does not exist, as I have pointed out.
  I want to refer to two or three other points in the leaflet NI.47 which help make my case. There are three additional rules for benefit which apply to share fishermen. The first is:
  180
  "… benefit would not be payable for any day on which you were out with the vessel, even though your fishing was unsuccessful." It is saying, in other words, that benefit is available if the boat is not at sea for any reason.
  The second is:
  "So far as fishing from a vessel is concerned, you must show that you were unable to engage in any type of fishing for which the vessel could reasonably be used in any area to which the vessel could reasonably go."
  I take that to mean that the man must have been available for employment had any boat in his port been being put to sea.
  The third is:
  "If you are the skipper or a member of the crew of a fishing vessel … you must also prove there was a good reason for not having fished on the day for which you are claiming benefit. Good reason might be bad weather, absence of fish … or the repair or reconditioning of the vessel (other than routine or period maintenance work …)",
  which, of course, the share fisherman must carry out in the interests of the joint venture of which he is a member.
  Unemployment benefit has been available to these men for a considerable time. If suspension is due to bad weather it is unlikely that it will hit all the regions at the same time. It is more likely to hit the south-west of England and leave the north-east of Scotland free, or vice versa.
  Therefore, overall I am asking for a quite small thing from the Government; namely, that the Department of Health and Social Security should recognise the right of share fishermen to unemployment benefit. I would ask my hon. Friend to look closely at the position and, having done so, to take steps to exempt share fishermen from this Order in the interests of the fishermen themselves and of the nation as a whole.
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) on his new-found interest in National Insurance regulations. However, I do not expect him to get much "joy" from the Government. If the regulations concerning married women are difficult to understand, the provisions relating to share fishermen are even worse. I do not think this is the main reason why the Government are attacking the unemployed, but it certainly looks like it.

  181
  The Under-Secretary in introducing the Order kept appealing to hon. Members on his own side for support. However, he failed to convince me with his arguments, and certainly did not provide the House with any information. May we be told where this abuse is taking place? Is it among dockers, or in the car industry, or where? Is there said to be any collusion between employers and employees? This is an essential point, and the hon. Gentleman has given us no information. Surely if somebody, through no fault of his own, finds himself unable to work and earn on that day, then, provided that other things are acceptable, he should be entitled to unemployment benefit. In the provision of unemployment benefit there does not need to be the suggestion of somebody having lost his job. That would be a new concept of the conditions for such benefit.
  Perhaps we can be given examples to show how the system is to work. The hon. Gentleman should not on the one hand say that this is something peculiar to the car industry, with average earnings of £30 a week, and then suggest that if the man were off for two days a week he would be nowhere near the supplementary benefit level. If he lost only two days on earnings of £30 a week, I am sure that that would not take him anywhere near the level for such benefit.
  Mr. Dean: I was not saying that that was the only industry affected. I quoted it as an example of an industry where this is most likely to occur because it is an industry that is prone to lay-offs.
  Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is still not giving us any information. Why quote average earnings of £30 in the car industry? Is that an industry in which this practice is prevalent? We are surely entitled to more information. If a man is sick for one or two days in a week, he could in certain circumstances get sickness benefit. Why should we introduce the concept that because he is unemployed through no fault of his own, it is not genuine because it is not long term?
  I am surprised at the little interest in this point. This is certainly a matter of great concern to numbers of workers who are afflicted with this regularly—like share fishermen. There are a number of industries where this is common practice, and the Minister has never said that there has been any discussion with trade unions
  182
  or the T.U.C. This is rather a shabby little Order.
  11.6 p.m.
  Mr. Brian O'Malley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) and the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) for ensuring that this is not just a brief exchange between the Front Benches.
  I had never heard of the problems of share fishermen before I went into the Department of Health and Social Security—where they seem to be perennial. One always seemed to be considering one aspect or another of the problem of people who I assume are among the constituents of the hon. Member for Banff.
  We are not opposed to this change in principle, provided that certain conditions are satisfied. It is because these conditions are not at present satisfied that my hon. Friend the Member for Provan reflects the concern which would be felt in industries where short-time working is sometimes endemic and at best is something to be expected at least during given recurrent periods. It is on the conditions which I mentioned and the Government's intentions that I seek clarification. The history of this proposal goes back to 1965. Section 20(1)(c) of the National Insurance Act, 1966, says:
  "… 'day of interruption of employment' means a day which is a day of unemployment or of incapacity for work."
  Paragraph (d) says:
  "any two days of interruption of employment, whether consecutive or not, within a period of six consecutive days shall be treated as a period of interruption of employment, and any two such periods not separated by a period of more than thirteen weeks shall be treated as one period of interruption of employment."
  So, reduced to its simplest, the situation is that a number of men who have been on shortened working weeks and short-time working have been drawing unemployment benefit once they have passed through the three waiting days within a period of 13 weeks. It is true that there have been examples over the years, although few, of abuses of the system.
  A couple of months ago there was newspaper publicity of what could clearly be argued was abuse. We are certainly not taking the side of, or attempting to defend, that small number of people who

  183
  have attempted or might attempt to abuse the operation of the system over the years. Indeed, we take the view that generally men claiming unemployment benefit as the result of short-time working at their place of employment have been hit by this financially, because their families often need financial help of one kind or another, particularly in a period like 1971 when we have soaring prices and an unacceptable degree of inflation. We would not regard that as abuse. I hesitate to use the word "misuse" of the system, but, as it has grown, men have understandably and properly learned to depend on National Insurance when they have been on short-time working.
  In 1966 the Labour Government reviewed the situation and came to the conclusion that three years after the passing of the 1966 Act—namely, March, 1969—where the contributor's employment was not terminated but suspended by the employer a day should not be treated as a day of unemployment until the seventh or later days in a continuous period of suspension. It was a case not merely of saying that there will be six waiting days instead of three waiting days, but that the whole system set out in Section 20(1)(d) was changed and that the only people who would draw benefits, even after the expiry of the six waiting days, as it were, would be those who were not merely working, say, a three-day week but were unemployed consistently over a longer period than six days. I am talking of a continuous period without any allowances for interruption of employment.
  The result of that proposal, which was to come into operation in March, 1969, was that generally the short-time worker would no longer be able to get unemployment benefit. Unemployment benefit would be payable where men were laid off for a period longer than six working days. This could particularly apply to people in a strike situation not disqualified under Section 10(1) of the Act but entitled to unemployment benefit and able to draw it after the first six days of being laid off because of a strike situation.
  As this situation will now come into effect as a result of the Order, it is time for the Government to do something about implementing the changes in grade or class provisions about which Donovan
  184
  talked. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not disagree with the Donovan recommendations. I suggest that the sooner these are implemented the better. This is merely another example and reason why they should be so implemented.
  In 1966 the Labour Government proposed that this practice, for which an appointed day has been set tonight, should come into operation in March, 1969. Chapter 4 of the National Insurance Act, 1969, replaced the provisions of the 1966 Act. Instead of the three-year provision it set an appointed day. It was further delaying the introduction of the principles which are today issued by this Statutory Instrument. The House should examine briefly the reasons why the Labour Government acted as they did——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will keep strictly to the terms of the Order. He is getting a little beyond it.
  Mr. O'Malley: This is relevant to a number of questions that I want to ask. The proposals which will come into operation as a result of this Order arise from legislation enacted in 1966. The view taken then was that the responsibility for the payment of loss of earnings for short periods of suspension was with the employer rather than with the National Insurance system and that the system should not be used for these purposes. In this period the then Government had been seeking voluntary agreements and discussing the question of statutory schemes to provide such cover for workers and such agreements between employers and employees.
  Before letting this Order through I must ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the date he has set, 1st January, 1972, is right. He pointed out that there has been an extension in the number of voluntary agreements and payments for workers laid off. He mentioned the motor industry, and I could mention at least some substantial sections of the steel industry. What kind of numbers are covered by such voluntary agreements? We ought to know how many people are on short-time working at present and what will be the likely situation when these Regulations come into effect. Thirdly, we would like to know whether

  185
  the hon. Gentleman has consulted the T.U.C. and the C.B.I., and what the result of those consultations has been.
  We are in a period of unacceptably high unemployment levels and a high level of short-time working, and it is conceivable that the problems of short-time working and the financial deprivation arising from it could get far worse before they begin to get better. This House has a responsibility towards workers who may well be affected in this way. They are not all people earning £35 or £45 a week. Some of the lowest-paid workers in the country can be affected adversely by this Order. We do not oppose it now, but we expect that between now and 1st January, 1972, the Government will take urgent steps to assist wherever they can the introduction of voluntary agreements between trade unions and employers and, secondly, that——
  Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Would the hon. Gentleman care to reinforce my point that such agreements are impossible for share fishermen?
  Mr. O'Malley: I recognise the peculiar difficulties which share fishermen face, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will look at this problem with more sympathy than the present Government look at many of the propositions which we on this side of the House put forward. The hon. Member has made a serious point which deserves consideration.
  We want the Government to extend the area of such agreements and the area of coverage before the introduction of the proposals contained in the Order, in January, 1972. While we are prepared, with reservations, to allow the Order through without dividing, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that if the situation over unemployment and short-time working later becomes as serious as it could be and if there is a situation where large numbers of working people——
  The Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will realise that he is following the path to which I previously drew his attention.
  Mr. O'Malley: I realise that it is a somewhat narrow Statutory Instrument, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have only two more remarks.
  186
  We do not intend to divide the House on the Order, but if it were the situation that many people were adversely affected by it because the Government had not moved in other directions, we should certainly seek time in the House to bring into question again the whole matter of the date from which the Regulations begin to apply.
  11.21 p.m.
  Mr. Dean: With your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, perhaps I may deal briefly with the points raised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. W. H. K. Baker) asked particularly about the position of share fishermen. When he was describing the problems of share fishermen and the National Insurance categories in which they fall, it was clear to the House that we are dealing with a special category of person—one might almost say a unique category—regarding National Insurance. As my hon. Friend rightly described, they are self-employed, although for National Insurance purposes they are Class I and pay the combined contribution of the employer and the employee.
  As my hon. Friend reminded us, this goes back over a considerable period of years in the National Insurance scheme. Before 1948 share fishermen were wholly remunerated by a share in the proceeds of the vessel in which they worked and were excluded from unemployment benefit. After it was accepted that share fishermen should be covered for industrial injuries insurance, there was pressure for them to be treated as employed persons for unemployment benefit purposes. The matter was referred to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which recommended that they should be brought into Class I for National Insurance provided that certain additional safeguards for benefit purposes were devised. They were brought into insurance by regulations coming into force in 1948, and there were additional tests which the share fishermen had to go through in order to qualify for unemployment benefit.
  I recognise that this is a case where, if these people have no cash they have no share-out. I will gladly give the assurance for which my hon. Friend asked; namely, that the Government will consider seriously what he has said regarding

  187
  this category of person to see whether it is possible to meet the points which he has put. Although, clearly, I cannot give an absolute undertaking on this matter, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that what I have said is reassurance to him and to his case.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) for saying that the Opposition do not intend to oppose the commencing Order. He also made the point that there is some abuse in this area and the possibility of collusion. He answered the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown). There is, clearly, the possibility of collusion, and this has taken place in some areas. But it is not so much a matter of collusion. The question we ask ourselves in all of our insurance arrangements is whether we are absolutely certain that the large sums of taxpayers' and contributors' money going into the scheme are used to the best effect or whether there are areas of expenditure on benefit which have grown up which are no longer of high priority or that benefit is not being used as originally intended. There is little doubt that these are a group of people who are not unemployed in the normal sense of the word and who are at a moment getting a benefit, and this benefit was not intended for such people.
  The hon. Member for Rotherham asked how many people were covered by guaranteed wage schemes. The latest position is that about 10 million workers are so covered. As the hon. Gentleman said, the number is growing, and we assume that it is likely to grow further as a result of the coming into operation of the Order.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether we had consulted the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. We consulted both bodies. It is only fair to the House that I should say that the T.U.C. is not in favour of the proposal. The C.B.I. has no objection to it. It would have had an objection to imposing guaranteed wage schemes in this area. We do not think that this is the right approach. We think that it is much better for these arrangements to be made on a voluntary basis through free negotiation between employers and employees rather than for them to be imposed by the Government of the day.
  Mr. O'Malley: I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to say that the Government will throw whatever weight they think they have behind representations to the employers pointing out that they have a responsibility in this matter. This was the attitude of the then Opposition spokesmen on the subject, including the present Secretary of State. I hope that the Government will tell the C.B.I. clearly that it should be negotiating such agreements.
  Mr. Dean: We do not think it would be right to impose statutory agreements on employers and employees. This is a matter which is best left to voluntary arrangements, but, as I have made clear, we welcome voluntary arrangements freely made.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the National Insurance Act 1966 (Commencement No. 3) Order 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (EXTERNAL SERVICES)
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Monro.]
  11.23 p.m.
  Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Debates upon the Adjournment have one thing in common with the external broadcasting services which I wish to discuss tonight. Neither can be judged by their impact upon the immediate audience. There is no immediate test of audience reaction. There is that moment of doubt and sometimes despair that nobody may be listening and that nobody perhaps cares. In preparing for this debate I could find no record of a debate on the financing of the external broadcasting services over the last 10 years.
  At the outset I declare a marginal interest. It is confined to having worked for the external services of the B.B.C. nine years ago and having been in the employment of B.B.C. Television until about four years ago. During the whole of that period, and indeed since, I formed the conclusion that the unsung heroes of Bush House are not just an ornament of the B.B.C. but are the finest investment

  189
  for the expenditure of £12 million annually which Britain could have in the propagation of the British point of view, and not just the British Government's point of view, overseas.
  The best testimony in this field is without doubt the Duncan Report, which hon. Members realise was by no means wholly favourable to the B.B.C. external services as they are at present constituted. Paragraph 18 of the report says:
  "As an instrument of communication, the B.B.C. has the decisive advantage that it has a worldwide reputation for telling the truth. Its overseas broadcast bulletins are therefore widely believed to give true and objective accounts of world events and they provide a sure basis for influential comment."
  That, I think, is a fair tribute to the B.B.C., and I am sure that there will be general agreement with it. But the melancholy fact is that since 1950, in terms of broadcasting hours, the B.B.C. has declined from first to fifth place, and if the present rate of decline in relative terms continues we shall shortly be overtaken by Egypt. Nor is it just the big Powers which are expanding and the, so to speak, smaller ex-colonial Powers declining. The Netherlands and other much smaller ex-colonial Powers have expanded their broadcasting services since 1950, in the case of the Netherlands by almost 200 per cent., whereas our relative expansion has been about 20 per cent. In those terms, we have remained almost static, and in real money terms our expenditure on the external services has declined over the last five years.
  This is not a party point. I am aware of which Government were in power for most of the past five years. It is my contention that both parties have consistently under-estimated the harm which has been done, and which can be done, by neglect of the external broadcasting services. The present Director-General of the B.B.C. has accused Governments of frantically looking for candle ends of economy without appreciating the light which can be cast by any one candle end if properly used. I agree with that view. Since the virtual disappearance of the Rapp Report some years ago, there has not been a coherent approach to the external broadcasting by either party. This indifference has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
  I shall consider, first, the number of services, and then the question of the
  190
  frequencies and transmitters for these services. All hon. Members will have their own anecdotes about audience response to the B.B.C. I shall quote from a letter which, coincidentally, I received this week, by a roundabout route, from a friend in Prague who can no longer correspond with the West except by the occasional smuggled missive like the one I received. I am sure that this testimony will be accepted by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref), who is waiting to intervene in the debate, and with whom I agree very little on B.B.C. matters. This is what my friends says:
  "I am a regular listener to the B.B.C. World Service, but I find it extremely difficult to tune to it because it is beamed to the Middle and Far East, where your friends are, as they keep showing you on every occasion. But what can you do? It is still a newscast, it is fairly reliable, and I just have to listen, even if it is a tough job to get it on the 31 metre band."
  There are particular problems of reception in Prague, and especially so in the area where my friend lives. I concede, also, that since 1968 the medium-wave frequencies to Czechoslovakia have been stepped up. But I quote that example of a listener's response, from a man cut off from his friends, often in despair, linked with the outside world and a concept of truth and objective reporting by the B.B.C. on the 31 metre band
  I wish to speak tonight, however, about the vernacular services of the B.B.C. rather than about the English language service to which my friend referred in his letter, and I do so because they have come under threat from the Duncan Report. The Duncan Report recommended a cut-back in the vernacular services in favour of English which, the Committee believed, was the lingua franca of the educated èlite in many countries. The Committee said:
  "We have the impression that a broadcast in the vernacular makes the educated listener, with whom we are dealing here, feel that it is being specially slanted to him, and that he is therefore likely to be that much less receptive. Moreover, foreign language broadcasts are less likely to attract the influential few …"
  It went on:
  "In our view the assumptions underlying this review should be that henceforth no foreign language broadcasts should be conducted unless it can positively be shown that they are being listened to regularly by an audience (a) of significant size which would not listen to

  191
  English, if the vernacular were not available, (b) consisting of people whom it is particularly important to reach because of the influence which they exert."
  I find that an offensive and ill-timed view, which grotesquely under-estimates the pressures of public opinion, particularly in some emerging countries. We must reach beyond the élites and realise that the teenager in many countries today, perhaps with a transistor radio picking up medium-wave transmissions, and perhaps at this time wanting, say, British pop, some news in his own language and, perhaps, some information about world sport and so on, may well become the educated listener of tomorrow. By getting him in his formative years, the B.B.C may well have one of its regular audience for many years to come.
  The Duncan Report declined to recommend an increase in Government expenditure on the external services, no doubt confident that the improved transmitters which it recommended would balance cuts in the vernacular services. But I contend that those vernacular services should be improved. Time after time they have been cut just at the wrong moment. We have had no services to much of Western Europe since 1957. Ironically, at the very moment when we were missing the boat at the Messina talks we were also cutting back vernacular services to our friends in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland and Belgium. Today, as our position on Europe and our negotiations with the countries of the E.E.C. are watched with apprehension or hope by our closest friends in both E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C., we are broadcasting only to the English-speaking élite in many of those countries.
  It may be contended that all those people speak English anyway, but what about Vietnam, to which we broadcast for three-quarters of an hour each day compared with 12 hours by "The Voice of America"? There is no English-speaking élite there. In so far as it has an élite, it is French-speaking. Yet journalist after journalist has returned from Vietnam to say that the B.B.C. external services are listened to as major sources of news not just by the élite but by villagers in the delta. Last month the little five-minute weekly service on science matters broadcast by the Vietnamese service put on a programme on
  192
  the use of new drugs for the treatment of farm animals and poultry, and in the very next mail from Vietnam there were 16 inquiries from Vietnamese farmers in the south about how those drugs could be obtained. That is remarkable testimony to the efficiency of the service, which should certainly be expanded.
  Equally, in this troubled time for East Pakistan, when the House has been exhorted by hon. Members on both sides to exert an influence on the civil war there, there is a case for expanding the mere half hour a day we provide in the Bengali service.
  In the Middle East, although the Arabic service is one of the great success stories of the B.B.C., and is acknowledged as such in the report, we stopped the Hebrew service in 1968, precisely at the moment when our influence and the British point of view should have been put in the Middle East.
  In Africa the Russians now broadcast in 11 vernacular languages, and we are broadcasting in only three. Those who have lived and served in Africa, as I have, no doubt share my astonishment that the Russians have a Fulani service and we do not. The Afrikaans service of the B.B.C. was stopped in 1957, again, ironically, precisely at a mement when our differences with South Africa and the widening gulf between the Governments of Great Britain and South Africa first made it doubly necessary that we should have a service to the Afrikaaner people of South Africa. We do not broadcast at all in any vernacular language to Central and South Africa, south of the Zambesi. This, given the present difficulties with the régime in Rhodesia, is an astonishing omission.
  I turn to the question of transmitters. Whilst the general overhaul recommended in the Rapp Report has not been carried out in its entirety, I concede that the picture is brighter here. There is improved power medium-wave transmission to Eastern Europe, and there is the slow conversion of the United Kingdom shortwave transmitters. There are the relay stations on Ascension Island and at Masirah. But still there are the questions of money and speed. The rest of the world is converting, too, and faster. We are losing the race for audibility in the medium-wave band.

  193
  At present the B.B.C. does not have the funds properly to programme and to use the relay stations at Masirah and on Ascension Island. The recent White Paper on commercial broadcasting, which we shall be debating on Wednesday, speaks of freeing four medium-frequency wave bands now used by the domestic services. It says:
  "One of the channels thus freed will be used to augment our external broadcasting services."
  That is the only sentence in the pathetic White Paper that I applaud wholeheartedly, but it is not very explicit. Which service will benefit—the service for Eastern Europe or that for Western Europe? I hope that the Minister can tell the House exactly what the service is to be.
  I have tried to outline the need to expand our external broadcasting facilities. Does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office accept that a case for expansion of the vernacular services can be made—we are talking not of millions but of perhaps £250,000 a year—or is it wedded to the arguments in the Duncan Report, obsessed with élites and ignoring the masses? Does it accept the need to accelerate the modernisation of transmitters and, particularly, to transmit to that transistorised medium-wave audience which has exploded all over the developing world in the last 10 years?
  I am sure that when we talk about the need for expansion we should turn our back on the Duncan Report, which suggested that while every other country is expanding its vernacular services we should be cutting ours. There is an enormous audience and enormous good will all over the world among those listeners to the B.B.C. who know that truth is the best and only propaganda.
  11.41 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Soref: I am extremely grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the generosity of the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) for making time available for me to intervene in this debate, however briefly.
  This is the first time, certainly in this Parliament, that it has been possible to discuss the B.B.C. in abstract or its overseas work. Nobody would doubt that the war record of the B.B.C. was un-
  194
  surpassed. It told the truth. Many people endured and, in fact, survived the war because of the magnificent and heroic service performed by the B.B.C. But, in the opinion of many people, there has been a very considerable change.
  I agree with many of the points—more than he would imagine—made by the lion. Member for Derby, North about the necessity for having an external service to reach the entire world, telling what is happening in this country, as long as it performs a national service for this country. We have failed to exploit the transistor revolution, particularly in Africa. The transistor radio, because of the activities of the Chinese and the Russians, has largely become the opium of the people in those parts.
  But in the B.B.C. we have a service financed by the Government, who have inadequate control. There has been undue bias, and there is ample evidence that there is an independent foreign policy followed by the B.B.C. which is at times contrary to British interests. I have received many letters from different parts of the world complaining of the slant used by the people speaking on the B.B.C. For example, the newspapers quoted tend to be almost exclusively newspapers to the Left. The people invited to speak on Africa, according to the many people who write to me from Africa, are very distinguished but almost completely Left-wing journalists. There should be a fair balance.
  Similarly there is ample evidence that the B.B.C. in its external services, no less than elsewhere, is engaged in psychological warfare against any country endeavouring to contain Communism. The speakers, the sources and the voice all tend to be that way. On programmes dealing with Rhodesia, in particular, and the Portuguese in Africa and in South Africa, there is a distinct slant.
  I have received several dozen letters, but I should like to quote one which I received this week from someone in Denmark who is not associated with any political party but has written to me from time to time having listened to the B.B.C. He writes:
  "The kind of news programmes put out by the B.B.C. quite clearly contain from time to time blatant and more frequently less easily definable nuances of sub-Communist propaganda.

  195
  This letter is not from a political extremist but is typical of many letters I have received.
  By all means we should expand the overseas work of the B.B.C. But let it be the true voice of Britain and let is speak in the national interest of this country.
  10.45 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Kershaw): I am very glad that the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) used the time at his disposal to raise the problems of the external services of the B.B.C, a subject which, as he says, has not been raised for some time. It gives me the opportunity to pay my tribute to the B.B.C. for its work, which is fostering civilised concepts of behaviour. We recognise that it does so largely because of its reputation for telling the truth.
  Of course, it is the intention of the Government that the B.B.C. shall be maintained in a fit condition to present Britain to foreign audiences as it has done in the past, and we hope to use the new arrangements set out in the White Paper, to which the hon. Member referred, to augment our external services, and we plan to use our external facilities to beam our news towards Europe.
  One thing which I think important is that I should take this opportunity to make clear and to emphasise the respective rôles of the Government and the B.B.C. in regard to external broadcasts. The Government provide the funds, and £13¼ million, or a little more than the hon. Member said, are envisaged this year, and we lay down what languages and what hours shall be used. The Government do not say what the B.B.C. shall say. That is entirely the province of the B.B.C. This policy gets us into hot water sometimes in foreign countries, as it has got us into some from my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref) tonight. But there are two views about this, and in this country we realise that the B.B.C. can say what it pleases.
  I have seen fairly recently telegrams from abroad complaining about what the B.B.C. has said, and we know that foreign countries have sometimes objected, sometimes rather forcefully, to what the
  196
  B.B.C. has said. I take this opportunity to make obsolutely clear that what the B.B.C. says is its responsibility entirely. In the end it is to the advantage of everybody, and to the reputation for veracity which the B.B.C. has, that it should be known that what the B.B.C. says is its responsibility, not that of the Government of the day.
  The hon. Member drew attention to to the hours and expenditure we spend compared with those of other countries. We should not be too influenced by the comparative tables of the languages and hours broadcast by other external services. It is perfectly true that other nations since the 'fifties have built up far more, proportionately, their outside work. In particular, the Russians and the Chinese, as well as our American allies, have greatly increased the hours of their external broadcasting. The B.B.C.'s have increased, though, I agree, not in the same proportion.
  Surely, however, quantity is not everything. Despite this increase in other people's broadcasting, the reputation of the B.B.C stands second to none, and I believe it is true to say of many parts of the world that if a crisis occurs the automatic reaction is to find out what the B.B.C. is saying about it, because listeners know they will get from the B.B.C. factual and truthful description and analysis of what has happened. These are, in general, the world's reactions to the B.B.C. I agree with the hon. Member that the foundation of this reputation was laid in the war, but I believe that the reputation has survived and exists today.
  Also, the flexibility of our broadcasting enables us to take advantage of changes in news and changes in direction as necessary.
  As to audibility, I must accept some of the criticisms which the hon. Member made. In some parts of the world the B.B.C. is not as audible as one would wish. Of course, it is a matter of cash. The matter is being improved all the time. We have new stations, and we hope to get improvements all the time. Our relay facilities for broadcasting to the eastern Mediterranean, the Middle and Far East, and Africa are now extremely satisfactory. It is true to say that there is no area of the world, certainly none where we consider our vested

  197
  interests lie, where the B.B.C. cannot be easily received.
  The question of the balance between English language and vernacular is difficult, and the hon. Member was right to call attention to it. We try to strike a right balance between broadcasts in the English language and that of the listeners. The possession of the English language is an inestimable boon to our broadcasters and releases us from the pressures and necessities faced by the Russians and Chinese, who have to use other people's languages all the time.
  English is the lingua franca of educated people throughout the world. An increasing number of people throughout the world speak English, and the demand for English language teaching is insatiable.
  The B.B.C.'s external services contribute to this, both by broadcasting English by radio lessons and the World Service in English. Measures to strengthen the signal of the World Service everywhere are under continuous study, as are the hours they broadcast in English.
  The vernacular services are important. In some parts of the world where there are powerful languages and vast numbers of people who would hardly comprehend English, it would be idle to broadcast in English, as in the Arab countries, to which there is a regular programme in Arabic every day.
  Balance is something we always bear in mind, particularly in areas of Communist domination where there is a difficulty in receiving and understanding the English language. There, and to the Arab countries, we particularly wish to have vernacular broadcasting.
  We evaluate continuously by audience surveys the efficacy of these broadcasts in the vernacular, and I was interested in what the hon. Member said about the way our broadcasts reach Vietnamese farmers.
  The external services of the B.B.C. have to operate within the general framework of the need to contain Government spending. That was also the view of the previous Government, as the hon. Mem-
  198
  ber hinted. They introduced a cut in expenditure on external services. The need for economy applies to overseas official services as well as to the B.B.C. Of these, the B.B.C. is by far the greater spender.
  It would not be easy to allocate extra financial resources in the way we might like to our external broadcasting. We have to ensure that present resources are well spent and are sufficient to enable the B.B.C. to play its rôle as guardian of western standards of civilisation. Whether or not we achieve it can be a matter of opinion, but I suggest that the evidence from abroad supports the opinion that the B.B.C. does a job much better than is commensurate with the broadcasting efforts of our competitors.
  This is the best answer to the challenge posed by our competitors, that we should improve services to meet changing circumstances—continuous improvement in quality and audibility when we are able to do this. The B.B.C. has the capacity to do this and the resources are adequate to the task.
  Mr. Whitehead: Would the Minister agree that part of that improvement could be to extend the number of vernacular services which the B.B.C. is permitted to broadcast?
  Mr. Kershaw: Certainly. One would like to extend the whole thing the whole time, but within the framework of what we think possible, the balance between vernacular and English is of greatest importance. At the moment we tend to lean toward English rather than vernacular. But I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said about the coming generation in the developing countries.
  The B.B.C. external service does its best—a very good best—to foster the British way of life. It creates sympathy for our country and our ideals and a tendency to buy our exports. The 250,000 letters which are received from abroad shows that it is doing a good job.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.

WALES
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Winter Work Programme
  Winter Work Programme
  Haverfordwest Hospital
  Haverfordwest Hospital
  Agricultural and Forestry Establishments
  Agricultural and Forestry Establishments
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS (FINES)
  MAGISTRATES' COURTS (FINES)
  MAGISTRATES
  MAGISTRATES
  JULIAN PRESS
  JULIAN PRESS
  CASES (SETTLEMENT)
  CASES (SETTLEMENT)
  LITIGATION (COST)
  LITIGATION (COST)
  MR. W. ROSS WRIGHT
  MR. W. ROSS WRIGHT
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Footwear (Duty-free Entry)
  Footwear (Duty-free Entry)
  Charter Flights
  Charter Flights
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Hallmarking
  Hallmarking
  RB211 Engine
  RB211 Engine
  Imported Goods (Country of Origin)
  Imported Goods (Country of Origin)
  British European Airways (Aircraft)
  British European Airways (Aircraft)
  Companies Trading Overseas (Expressions of Opinion)
  Companies Trading Overseas (Expressions of Opinion)
  Paper and Board Industry
  Paper and Board Industry
  Civil Aviation (Safety)
  Civil Aviation (Safety)
  House-to-house Sales
  House-to-house Sales
  Life Jackets
  Life Jackets
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  Rolls-Royce Limited
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Imported Cars (Tariffs)
  Imported Cars (Tariffs)
  Tariff Protection
  Tariff Protection
  West Germany
  West Germany
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Steel Scrap (Exports)
  Steel Scrap (Exports)
  Steel (Imports)
  Steel (Imports)
  Retirement Pensioners (Domestic Heating)
  Retirement Pensioners (Domestic Heating)
  Britannia Airways Charter Flight (Malaysia)
  Britannia Airways Charter Flight (Malaysia)
  Exports (Services and Finance)
  Exports (Services and Finance)
  British Export Board
  British Export Board
  British National Export Council
  British National Export Council
  Employment Prospects (Wales)
  Employment Prospects (Wales)
  Aeronautical Satellites
  Aeronautical Satellites
  Development Areas (Advertising and Promotion)
  Development Areas (Advertising and Promotion)
  Insurance
  Insurance
  Matches
  Matches
  North Sea Gas
  North Sea Gas
  Helium
  Helium
  Staff
  Staff
  Aircraft Industry, Hurn (Redundancies)
  Aircraft Industry, Hurn (Redundancies)
  Bournemouth (Industrial Development Certificates)
  Bournemouth (Industrial Development Certificates)
  Typewriters
  Typewriters
  Oberammergau Tours
  Oberammergau Tours
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Beira Patrol
  Beira Patrol
  Embassies (Staff)
  Embassies (Staff)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Soviet Embassy (Incident)
  Soviet Embassy (Incident)
  International Drug Traffic
  International Drug Traffic
  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
  United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
  Pakistan (Facilities for United Kingdom Residents)
  Pakistan (Facilities for United Kingdom Residents)
  Emperor Hirohito (State Visit)
  Emperor Hirohito (State Visit)
  European Convention on Human Rights
  European Convention on Human Rights
  Tanzania
  Tanzania
  European Economic Community (Northern Ireland)
  European Economic Community (Northern Ireland)
  Human Rights (Persecution of Minorities)
  Human Rights (Persecution of Minorities)
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  Drapery, Outfitting and Footwear Trades (Pay)
  Drapery, Outfitting and Footwear Trades (Pay)
  Bradford (Female Workers)
  Bradford (Female Workers)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Professional and Executive Register
  Professional and Executive Register
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Coast Radio Tests (Shetland)
  Coast Radio Tests (Shetland)
SCOTLAND
  Holy Loch (Poseidon Missile)
  Holy Loch (Poseidon Missile)
  Technical Colleges
  Technical Colleges
  Vasectomy Operations
  Vasectomy Operations
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Legal Aid (Leicester)
  Legal Aid (Leicester)
  Wandsworth Prison
  Wandsworth Prison
  Conservation of Seals Act, 1970
  Conservation of Seals Act, 1970
AGRICULTURE FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Glasshouse Industry (Oil Prices)
  Glasshouse Industry (Oil Prices)
ENVIRONMENT
  Environmental Pollution
  Environmental Pollution
  Motorways (Central Barriers)
  Motorways (Central Barriers)
  Euston Tower
  Euston Tower
CIVIL SERVICE
  Numbers Employed
  Numbers Employed
DEFENCE
  Arms Sales
  Arms Sales
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Poseidon Missiles (Holy Loch)
  Poseidon Missiles (Holy Loch)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Teachers)
  Mentally Handicapped Children (Teachers)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Schoolchildren (Clothing)
  Schoolchildren (Clothing)
  School Meals
  School Meals
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Census Forms (Confidentiality)
  Census Forms (Confidentiality)
  Bristol Royal Infirmary
  Bristol Royal Infirmary
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Disabled Persons (Allowances)
  Disabled Persons (Allowances)
  Earnings Rule
  Earnings Rule
  Vasectomy Operations
  Vasectomy Operations
  Medical Equipment (Exports)
  Medical Equipment (Exports)
  Doctors
  Doctors
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

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

NORTH SEA GAS PRICE
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what basis the price paid by the Gas Council for North Sea gas was raised.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the contracts for natural gas produced from the Continental Shelf are a matter for negotiation between the Gas Council and the producing companies.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his interesting reply. May I ask whether he is aware that the Russians are paying 1·8d. at the frontier for gas, that the Americans are paying below 2d. and that the old price of 2·87d. was far too high? Is he aware that the present price is going to do grave damage to our balance of payments and to the welfare of the country?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am aware of some of these facts, but we have to bear in mind that this is a matter for the Gas Council to negotiate with the oil companies.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the fact that, in case the Gas Council has difficulties with the oil companies, the Minister is responsible in the ultimate sense under the law to arbitrate and fix the price which seems to be adequate and just?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, everybody is agreed that, so far as possible,
758
with these nationalised Boards the matter should be left to the commercial judgment of the Boards.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in spite of the talks which the Minister of Power had with the nationalised boards the price of gas at the moment has gone up tremendously? It is about time the Minister took some form of action by having talks with the Gas Council in regard to this matter.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the Ministers who are controlling these nationalised industries, or are in a position to have the ultimate say in what happens, must keep an eye on what happens. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish each Minister concerned to watch over what happens from day to day in the nationalised industries.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether it is a fact that in the case of the steel industry the Minister intervened with alacrity when prices were under discussion?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the steel industry is a little wide of this Question.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with regard to the principle which my noble friend was arguing, the two industries are identical.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, it has always been held, with regard to the relationship between Ministers and the nationalised industries, that it is up to the Minister concerned to decide to what extent it is necessary for him to come in.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, is he aware that, contrary to what my noble friend said, the gas industry is a completely different and special case, because in law the Minister is responsible for arbitration between the oil companies and the Gas Council.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, for arbitration. In this case, the Gas Council and the oil companies came to an agreement.

NORTH SEA GAS: PROFITS OF CONSORTIA
2.41 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what the last year's financial results were of the consortia exploiting British Government licences for gas exploitation and what percentage the profits represented on total investment for exploration and exploitation.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the information in the form requested by the noble Lord is not available.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the OPEC countries, which include the smallest Sheikhdoms of the Gulf, have this information? Why should not the British Government have the same information?
LORD DENHAM: Because, my Lords, the information is very difficult to get. It is extremely difficult to work out exactly what the costs of the gas exploration are. It is an extremely risky business, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. Only one in forty of exploration wells lead to commercial production. An exploration well in the North Sea costs somewhere between £300,000 and £2 million, according to circumstances. To find out the figures which the noble Lord wants would be very difficult indeed.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that both the American Government and the Sheikhdoms have this information? It cannot be difficult to get. Moreover, is the noble Lord aware that most of these consortia have the Gas Council and the Coal Board as members, and therefore they ought to have the information readily available?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I quite appreciate the worries behind the noble Lord's Question. I am sure that my right honourable friend will pay close attention to what he has said. But I must come back to my original Answer: it is not the practice, where agreement has been reached between a nationalised Board and the production companies, for the Minister to interfere.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is not the Minister unaware of the fact that in the steel case a different attitude was taken? Further, is he not aware of the fact that a penny in the pound over the life of these gas fields represents something between £1,000 million and £1,500 million? Is he not aware of the fact that most of this £1,000 million to £1,500 million will go over the exchanges because even in the case of B.P. a large part goes over the exchanges? And will he not readily agree with me—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD BALOGH: No, my Lords; I am not going to give way. It is not a speech. Will not the noble Lord readily agree with me that in this case an intervention was necessary, and it is a grave defalcation of duty that it has not happened?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords; I cannot agree with all that the noble Lord has said. On the other hand, the noble Lord's knowledge and wisdom in these matters is well known, and I have no doubt that my right honourable friend will read with great interest what the noble Lord has said.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does not the noble Lord think that the Government ought to be able to make these calculations and publish this information, especially in consequence of the huge increase in the number of civil servants that has taken place since the present Government came into office?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords; for the reasons I have already given, I do not.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the Government agree that it is important that the price paid should represent a return on gas from the North Sea which is such that the companies and the consortia are encouraged to go on drilling and looking for more, and thereby improving our balance of payments?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has raised a very important point.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if this is an important point he ought to know whether in fact they are getting an adequate return? Is he aware that the questions of

761
my noble friend Lord Balogh might relate equally to the welfare of the companies and the consumers? Will the noble Lord therefore consider further whether he will press his right honourable friend actually to read this exchange and consider the policy in the matter?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I shall certainly do what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has asked me. While I was certainly aware of what the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, has said, as I have said before the information asked for by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is not available; and I have explained why it is not available.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, as my noble friend is aware of the history of this exploration that takes place over several years, is he able to tell us what the record of difficulty has been over the last six years in gathering this information together?
LORD DENHAM: No, my Lords; but I will write to my noble friend.

FOOD PRICES AND AGRICULTURAL DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the effect on retail food prices of phasing out agricultural deficiency payments by 1974.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the effect on retail prices of the Government's longer-term policy objective of reducing the cost of agricultural support by a system of import levies will depend on a number of factors, including the nature and timing of the changes and the level of market prices at the time. But the effect on food prices should not in any event be very great. The Conservative Party's policy document The Farming Future estimated that the effect would be equivalent to an extra 5 to 6 per cent. on the cost of food spread over three years; and it is considered that this gives a fair indication of the order of increase that might be involved.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Would he accept that this estimated increase in the cost of food will be in addition to normal factors making for an increase in the cost of living; in other words, it will be entirely additional to normal factors'?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, this increase of approximately 2 per cent, per year will be absorbed in the general increase which is occurring at the moment throughout the Food Index.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of the remarkable and unexpected escalation in price levels, in spite of the promise the present Government made nearly a year ago to keep prices down, what is going to happen if we are stupid enough to enter the Common Market and there has to be an additional increase? Why not tell the electors of this country, before the coming by-elections that are likely to take place within the next week, the truth about what is going to happen, so that they know what is in store for us?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not think there is any basis for the noble Lord's suggestion. The new system of agricultural support is an integral part of the Government's agricultural policy, whether or not we go into the Common Market.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a serious question? Has he recently looked at his housekeeping bills? Is he himself not aware that there has already been a sharp rise in the cost of food—basic foods—perhaps in anticipation of the Government's policy? Also, is the noble Earl not aware that his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture said tin other day that the country must expect a sharp increase in the price of commodities as a consequence of the Government's decisions relating to entry into the Common Market?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I accept that there has been an increase in the price of food. In fact the next Question standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Plummer, deals with that specific point; so perhaps when we get to that Question we might enlarge on the subject.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, before we come to my second Question may I ask whether the Government accept that spending on food constitutes an abnormally high percentage of the total expenditure of retirement pensioners, and that the Government's policy is therefore one of particular concern to that section of the community?
EARL ST.ALDWYN: My Lords, I fully accept that the percentage of the categories of people to which the noble Baroness has referred is higher than that of other categories of the public, but that is why the Government have announced recent increases in pensions and allowances generally, and they will of course keep this matter constantly under review as time goes on
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, do I understand the noble Earl to say that even if we fail to enter the Common Market the adjustments in connection with the agricultural policy will increase prices? Does he say that, irrespective of whether or not we go into the Common Market, prices will increase?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, what I said was that we shall continue with the system of moving over to import levies whether we go into the Common Market or not.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, the noble Earl referred just now to recent increases for old age pensioners. There has been no recent increase. There are increases due in the future, but before that time arrives, in September, they are likely to be already swallowed up.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I dc, not think I can accept that last remark, and as I have said, the question will be under constant review by the Government.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords can the noble Earl explain what he meant by saying that he cannot accept my noble friend's remark? He has just been given a fact, that old age pensions have not gone up. Does he say that they have gone up?

FOOD PRICE INCREASES
2.55 p.m.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the percentage rise in basic food prices since June 18, 1970.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, between June 16, 1970, and April 20, 1971, the latest date for which information is available, the Food Index rose by 8·5 per cent.
BARONESS PLUMMER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that Answer, can he say what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce this appalling figure?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, we see as the root problem here as the inflationary wage claims that have been made, coupled with a considerable rise in world prices of certain commodities. We are satisfied that in the long run—although I appreciate that it is the long run, and I am not pretending that there will not probably be further increases in the immediate future—our system of dealing with the inflationary problem of this country will settle food problems along with others.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, can the noble Earl indicate a little more precisely what inflationary wage claims affect the prices of food? Are they the claims of the agricultural workers, the distributive workers, or of whom?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, the problem covers a considerable field, which embraces all the distributive trades and the transport industry; and a large number of other sections of the country are involved either directly or indirectly with food supply.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, do I understand that everybody is to blame for the increase in food prices: the international situation, world prices, inflation and the rest—everybody, that is, except the Government?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I would have thought that a good deal of this problem stemmed from the activities of the last Administration.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he can recall a period in recent years when there has been such an astronomical rise in the cost of living in so short a period?
EARL ST.ALDWYN: No, my Lords.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords.. is my noble friend aware that while he and his noble friends in Government are certainly to be congratulated on the excellence of their administration, they can hardly be expected to bring under control the inflationary wave that they inherited on June 18? And is he aware that for some months afterwards the price increases and cost increases which they had to deal with were the inheritance left by their predecessors?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I follow up those observations by asking whether Mr. Heath, who was fully aware of all the potentially inflationary circumstances, said during that month of June that he would halt these rising prices "at a stroke "?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Yes, " at a stroke "!
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I do not think it was ever said that it would be done " at a stroke ".
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh yes, it was!
Lone SHACKLETON: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that in reply to an earlier Question he said that the likely price rise was in accordance with the Conservative Party document? May I ask him whether this price rise is also in accordance with the Conservative document, and in particular that the statement related to reduction " at a stroke ". which the noble Earl must have heard if he was in England during the Election campaign? Is what has happened now in accordance with the Government's promises?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am not quite sure to what document the noble Lord is referring. I do not think
766
this arises out of my reference to the document, The Farming Future. Perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten me.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that while the price index that he quoted to the House, in regard to the price increases which have taken place over this particular period, will not be accepted by the general public as being authentic, we accept the statement made by the noble Earl in reply to this Question? One only has to travel around—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD SLATER: All right, my Lords, I will ask a question—noble Lords need not be worried. Is the noble Earl aware that he need only go with his good lady into one food store to find that, as against the figures he has already quoted, prices have gone up tremendously within the last month.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, when I go shopping with my " good lady " I know that it involves going around innumerable shops in order to get the best bargain possible. By this means we succeed in keeping the housekeeping figures down to a reasonable level.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us what will happen when he and his " good lady " reach the age of 70 or 80? Will they still be able to shop around?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, possibly we shall not be able to shop around with quite the same rapidity, but I believe that a large number of people of 70 still succeed in shopping around very successfully.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the sharpest inflationary spirals in butchers' meat took place following the imposition of selective employment tax?

FUTURE BUSINESS
EARL ST.ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Prime Minister's visit to Paris at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

767
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships to know that the House will meet at 11 a.m. on Thursday, May 27, and, subject to making satisfactory progress with the Committee stage of the Industrial Relations Bill, I hope that it may be possible to adjourn at a reasonable hour.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, what is a " reasonable hour "?

TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAI LSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Tribunals and Inquiries Acts 1958 and 1966 as amended. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

DUNBARTON COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Stow Hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 5 [Abolition of control of widows' damages]:
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved to leave out Clause 5.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move to leave out Clause 5. This clause would repeal Section 19 of the Administration of Justice Act passed as recently as 1965, which provided that in the case of widows receiving damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts, in those cases where the widow had dependent children the
768
damages should not be paid straight to the widow but should remain under the control of the court. In 1965 Parliament had the advantage of having before it the Report of the Committee on Funds in Court which had reported in 1959 and which was chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson. In 1959 that Committee had reported unanimously in favour of widows' damages under the Fatal Accidents Acts in all cases being retained under the control of the court whether or not there were dependent children, this being thought at that time likely to lead to the protection of widows.
In 1965 Parliament no doubt thought that it was anomalous to preserve a distinction between a spinster and a widow having no dependent children, so that in the spinster's case the damages could be handed over to her and in the case of the widow the damages would remain under the control of the court. In 1965 the control of the court was retained only where there were dependent children to be considered as well as the widow; and it is that 1965 provision which this new clause seeks to repeal.
My Lords, this matter came before the Committee of the whole House on the afternoon of last Friday week, after the House had risen at twenty minutes to nine following. an all-night sitting on the Industrial Relations Bill; and therefore perhaps it will not be a surprise to your Lordships to learn that the Committee of the Whole House on that Friday afternoon was not very well attended. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in moving the Amendment to insert this new Clause 5, expressed the hope that it would prove to be non-contentious, but that hope was not to be fulfilled. The next speaker was the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who expressed very strong reservations indeed about accepting the new clause, and he summarised the finding on this point of the Pearson Committee in 1959 in these words:
"They thought it would be wrong to allow a widow with no experience of handling large sums of money to have unfettered control of an award of damages which is meant to take the place over the years of the family wage packet."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/5/70, col. 1586.]
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke. and although he was by no means an enthusiastic supporter of the

769
new clause, was quite open-minded on the question.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said (at col. 1590):
"I have absolutely no doubt that this is the right thing to do. If a man is left with infant children to look after as a result of a motor accident and he gets damages, he is allowed to do what he likes with the money. I see absolutely no reason why widows should not be put in the same position. I cannot begin to see what the arguments to the contrary are."
With great respect, I think I can see one argument at least to the contrary, which is this: a widower presumably will be able to persuade an aunt or a grandmother to bring up the children. He will contribute to their support, and if he has the misfortune to lose his lump sum damages he will presumably retain his capacity to earn his living and will continue to provide for the dependent children whereas the widow, similarly placed, will be tied to bringing up her children and will have nothing like the same capacity of earning to support them if, by some unwise investment, she has squandered the lump sum damages she has received.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill spoke in favour of accepting the new clause, as did the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. The noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, spoke against it. and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, spoke with the advantage of having studied this matter in very great detail, as Chairman of the 1959 Committee. The noble and learned Lord concluded his speech with this sentence:
"I urge noble Lords to consider the evidence with some care before deciding to accept the Amendment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May 1971; c. 1593.]
Three noble Baronesses supported the new clause—Lady Wootton of Abinger, Lady Emmet of Amberley and Lady Plummer—and it was agreed to without a Division by this very small Committee of the Whole House.
My Lords, those being the circumstances, it seems to be right to raise the matter again, because, although it proved to be somewhat contentious, it has not received the careful consideration of a representative gathering of your Lordships' House such as it deserves. Having said that, I have no intention at all of pressing this matter if it should appear
770
that the House is agreeable to the new clause, as agreed to by the Committee, remaining in the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD PEARSON: My Lords, I think I ought to say a few words, and I will say them very briefly, in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said on this issue. I had the honour to be on the Committee on Funds in Court, which had to deal with several questions, one of which was whether the system of controlling widows' damages awarded under the Fatal Accidents Acts should continue. The Committee included several members who had special information on the subject, and there were two women members also. We considered carefully the evidence given and the advice received from important bodies such as the Law Society and the Trades Union Congress, both being bodies whose members would have special knowledge of the subject. Having regard to the evidence, we decided—and we were all of one mind—that the control should be continued. That was admittedly 12 years ago, but there is an obvious argument and, so far as it goes, a strong argument in favour of controlling widows' damages in suitable cases. I say " in suitable cases ", because in other cases, where it is obvious that the widow will be able to lock after a large sum of money properly, there is a discretion in the court to have the money paid out of court to the widow forthwith.
There is the other class of cases. Fatal accidents happen not only on the roads but also in factories, mines, ships, and so on, and frequently the widow is the widow of a weekly wage earner. She has never had to look further ahead, in financial terms, than one week. She has no experience of handling a large sum of money, and she may well not be able to manage it with skill and wisdom. Also, as has been pointed out, she may fall victim to the sort of person who was described in the former debate as the " smooth tongued predatory gentleman ". She may be persuaded by indigent friends and relatives to part with her money.
It was on that sort of evidence—and it was strong evidence at the time—that we made our recommendation in 1959. It may be that the situation has changed. It may be that full investigation and consultation would reveal a change in the

771
situation, but I do not quite know why, and I should like to be sure, at any rate, that this matter has been investigated with some care before the whole system of control is at one swoop swept overboard in this way. I would ask that full and careful consideration should be given to this matter, because it may inflict great hardship on some widow if this safeguard, which has previously been provided for their benefit, is suddenly done away with.
3.12 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I should like to speak against the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and to support the clause added in Committee by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. What is it we are discussing? We are discussing whether an adult woman should have control of her own funds. Where there are infant children, then the money allocated to the children still comes within the control of the court. If she wishes her own compensation to be subject to a court's control, she still has that right. She has the opportunity of obtaining a great amount of advice from voluntary organisations, and if her solicitor does his job properly he will advise her. There is a considerable waiting period between the time of the accident and the time that the case comes to court and she receives compensation.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, pointed out that there may have been changes since his Committee reported. I think that that is so. Over the last 12 years there has been a tremendous change in the pattern of the lives of modern women, in the role they play outside the home and in the number of women who go to work and have a great deal more to do with financial administration and dealing with their own money and other people's money than before. I took the trouble to discuss this particular matter with one of the largest welfare organisations dealing with aid and help to widows. Their view is that while many widows require advice as to how they should deal with their money, they do not think that they need it still to be kept within the control of the court if the widow is not willing. I find this proposal—as I think they do as well, if I may translate rather liberally—an
772
indignity to a woman. It is a way of saying that she is really—however one wraps it up—incapable of dealing with her own affairs. There are a certain number of people, both men and women, who will deal in an irresponsible manner with any money that comes their way and lose it, but that is not just the prerogative of women..
There is a strong case for saying that one should see that advice is available, and one hopes that solicitors and voluntary organisations will give it, but to me it seems quite out of keeping with what we are talking about in 1971 and with the whole pattern of women's lives to take out this clause, which was put into the Bill at Committee stage. I hope that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will be turned down and that the clause, which I think makes far better sense and ties up with what is in the rest of the Bill, will be retained.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I think we ought to be clear exactly what we are proposing. 1 would certainly agree that there may be grounds for protecting the interests of infant children, but what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is proposing in his Amendment is that a woman who receives damages for the benefit of her children should not be allowed control of them and a man, in exactly similar circumstances, should. I think that is a proposition that this House will find it very difficult to agree to in the year 1971.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, prefaced this by a most extraordinary argument. He said that both the woman and the man may be irresponsible and " blue the money ", and I agree; but that the man might be able to get it back and the woman would not. It was rather significant that the word " presumably " appeared twice in the noble Lord's speech. These are astonishing presumptions. Either party might be able to get it back, but neither party has a right to " blue it ". Certainly the male party has no greater right to " blue it " than the female. I think that is the heart of the matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, I have no doubt with the most admirable intentions, says that these things happen to people who live on weekly wages and have perhaps not been in the habit of looking more than

773
a week ahead. That is indeed true of many working class widows; but if it is true of working class widows, it is 101 per cent. true of working class widowers, who have probably never handled the money at all.
3.18 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, the noble Lord was quite right in saying that when we debated this subject the other day the Committee was really not in a condition to debate it. It was at about a quarter past or half past two, and I think they were all faint through lack of sustenance and lack of sleep. I confess that this Amendment came rather suddenly upon the Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, who has just spoken, cannot charge me with not being a feminist, hut, as a feminist, I have sought throughout the debate on this Bill to protect the widow, because I believe that she is particularly vulnerable. I think that the smooth, predatory male who has been mentioned is looked upon by most women with some trepidation, even when they arc not widows. Undoubtedly the widow with a lump sum is vulnerable to his approach. She is distressed and distraught, in the early stages, and later, particularly if she has dependent children, she is longing for somebody in whom she can confide, somebody on whom she can depend. and who will care for her. Then along comes a delightful looking man who is fully aware of her bank balance, and it is inevitable, of course, that she will be attracted by him. If we did not accept this, we would not be realistic.
The question is whether that woman should have special protection? To argue with me that a woman is quite as capable of investing her money as a man is nonsense. We all know that there is no argument about it. We accept that. But nobody can say that a widow with dependent children, perhaps small children—almost certainly small, because we are told that the typical widow is 35 with two children—tied to the house, can be equated with a man who is free to earn a wage or a salary, without any domestic responsibilities. My attitude in this matter, therefore, was to consider whether we should continue to give this woman special protection when she was awarded a large lump sum.
However, having said that, I listened to the noble and learned Lord who sits on
774
the Woolsack and I was extremely impressed by what he said. He said that in his long experience he had observed that many women who had had their damages paid into court had had full confidence in the investing ability of the gentleman in whom they had trusted—I am glad to see that the noble and learned Lord nods his agreement—to whom they had left their money. Then, to their horror, after a few years they had discovered that that man had betrayed them. He had no more knowledge of how to invest money than had the widow herself. Therefore, far from receiving the protection which they thought they had, they were left without their money.
It was that which convinced me that one cannot just argue from the point of view that this is a woman who is vulnerable and who must be protected. She was not protected by the courts. No one cared tuppence, apparently, when she got her damages and the money was paid into court. No one worried about the poor little woman living in a small house in Wigan, about whether she had any protection, and her money was lost. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, was quite right in saying that I had put the case against it—not completely against, for I said I had reservations. I thought that we should be guided in this matter by what we had been told by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. Of course there are reactionary organisations such as the Stock Exchange who would not agree with us. Nevertheless, when we consider carefully, we must admit that the woman in the home who manages to remain solvent although her husband may spend an amount of money not commensurate with his wages on tobacco and beer, is nevertheless the person who keeps the home solvent. She is shrewd and has common sense, and I think that her maternal instinct will direct her activities.
3.23 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I listened with very great care and interest to the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in moving this Amendment. He began by describing in some detail—I thought he was of great assistance to the House in so doing—the very careful consideration which had been

775
given to this problem. First, it was exhaustively considered by the Committee over which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, presided. His Committee reported in 1959. Then there was a full debate in 1965 in this House, and noble Lords divided upon this precise issue. Finally, after mature and careful consideration, they arrived at what was in effect a compromise solution which is contained in the 1965 Act.
Then the matter came to this House. The Bill which your Lordships are considering, the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I should have thought, is precisely the instrument in which there can properly be introduced, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has done, a change of this sort in the law. If we do not do it in a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, where are we to do it? That is precisely what the noble and learned Lord has done.
Having listened so far with attention to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I wondered how it was that at the end of his argument he was able to come to the conclusion that, nevertheless, this addition by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor should be left out of the Bill. I think the only reason he gave us was that when the Committee stage of the Bill was taken last Friday week we were rather tired. I am not sure that we were. I thought we had had a refreshing and delightful night. discussing fascinating aspects of the Industrial Relations Bill, and I thought we were all eager for action. I may be wrong. What is the logic of the noble Lord's argument? If the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is right in that submission, I suppose the logic is that we should put a pen right through the Committee proceedings. He should have moved that the Committee proceedings on that Friday should be treated as not having taken place at all, because we were no less and no more too tired when those proceedings began as we were when they ended.
LORD AIREDALE: It was not that we were tired. What I meant was that we were few.
LORD STOW HILL: We were few? After all, it is not the case that in every debate on a measure of this sort that
776
there are three noble and learned Lords present who have held or hold the office of Lord Chancellor and take part. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spoke. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, spoke. The noble and learned Lord who now sits on the Woolsack spoke. Certainly rich and learned speeches were addressed to the Committee. I thought that they were listened to attentively by those who were present. In addition, two noble and learned Lords, and other noble Lords and noble Baroness spoke, and the matter excited keen interest.
At the end of it all, when all the arguments had been deployed on both sides, what did the Committee do? Those who opposed what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had done did not think it right to take the matter to a Division. If now we arc to be asked to disregard what happened, where are we to get to? Which of our proceedings in this House are to be regarded as valid and which are to be regarded as a mere waste of time? That is what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is asking us to say about what I thought was an extremely valuable and interesting discussion. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack made, I should have thought, on the merits of the argument a case which does not admit of answer. He added that if it should transpire that the proposal he had introduced into the Bill was controversial, in that it might risk the life of the Bill, he would not press it. What more he could do I do not know.
I should like the House to consider the merits of this, and if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to disregard considerations which I do not think should carry very much influence. What are the merits? When are we males at long last going to be honest and sincere when we say that we want to treat women as our companions and not as our inferiors? They are not our inferiors. They are in every way up to us in intellect, understanding and feeling.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Hear, hear!
LORD STOW HILL: It is very rare that I receive approbation from my noble friend Baroness Summerskill.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL Superior!
LORD STOW HILL: My noble friend Baroness Summerskill talked about the predatory male. I do not know how one recognises a predatory male. Perhaps it is by over-developed jaws. What would apply to predatory females I do not know. I do not know why we should be taken back to the days before Mrs. Gaskell and Jane Austen. In 1971, my Lords, let us realise that women play foremost roles in this country, in this House, in the other House and outside both Houses, in every field of activity. They excel us in one hundred dozen different ways. I hope that I do not exaggerate, but I find it rather offensive if I am told in this particular context that a widow, who has undergone the appalling tragedy of having her husband taken from her by a malign fate through the action of some other person. is not to be treated as being capable of looking after a sum which may run into some thousands of pounds. I find that a repulsive suggestion, and I do not for a second think that it is true.
If one were considering the attitude of women against that of men—and I loathe these generalisations as they are so unreliable—as to the custody of money, one should say to oneself that unhappily it is the case that the economic condition of women is still not as secure as that of men. They do not find it so easy to get jobs as men do—I wish they did, I am speaking in these days of unemployment —but I think that in due course this will happen. If that influences the situation, it influences it in this way: that women are rather more careful about the custody of money. They do not think that money hangs on trees, and they do not say airily, " I can spend what I want because I can always earn it back ". They are much more careful. On the whole, I should have thought they are much more careful than men. I therefore beg this House to say (a) that the reasons why we should now re-open this question. on which your Lordships' Committee has already pronounced, are inadequate; and (b) that even if we do reopen it surely the logic, the feeling, the tempo, the emotion of 1971 tells us that rejecting this Amendment is a step that we ought to take in courtesy to women, in chivalry to them
778
and in recognition of the plain, obvious fact that the sexes are equal.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, this has been a fascinating discussion in which my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has been rather more feminist than my noble friend Baroness Summerskill, which I never expected to hear. Like her, I have some reservations. In Committee, I explained that this was not a point on which I had ever had, or had then, any strong view. I reminded the Committee of the contents of the Report of the Committee of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson. was chairman, which had unanimously recommended that both where there were dependent children and where there were not, the practice of the law as to the payment of the widow's damages into court should be continued, and that most of those who gave evidence before that Committee and who had contacts with widows—the solicitors, the T.U.C. the High Court masters, the county court registrars, working women's organisations and so on—shared that view.
I also reminded the Committee that we discussed this fully when the matter came before Parliament in the 1964/65 Session and that what I had recommended was that where the widow had no children the money should be paid to her direct but where there were dependent children it should be paid into court. I agreed that there had probably been some change in public opinion in the last six or seven years, and that I thought that to-day it was probably more generally the view that women should be treated the same as men. I explained that my sole concern personally was that this should not stop the Bill going through by making it run into difficulties in the other place; and I said that so far as I was aware it was practically without precedent for the Government to " muscle in " on a Private Member's Bill with an Amendment which raised an entirely new topic for the first time in the Second Chamber. I concluded by saying:
"I am anxious to see the Bill go through. I should not, therefore, oppose the Amendment if we could obtain some assurance from the noble and learned Lord that if this part of the Bill runs into trouble in the other place he will consider withdrawing this part of the Bill in order that the rest of the Bill may go through ".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14 /5 / 71, col. 1590.]

779
The noble and learned Lord was good enough at once to say:
"I think I can answer that straight away. I will not risk the Bill anywhere for the sake of this, because it is a relatively small matter".
My Lords, I was content before the Committee with that assurance, and I am equally content to leave the matter to the House now.
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to obstruct my own business, but I should like to add just a word to the many speeches which have been properly made on this subject. I should like to point out to what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is committing himself. It is not only true that if a man is left with young children—in some ways a more difficult position than if it were a woman, because in that case the children have no mother when they are young—he is absolutely free to deal with the damages awarded to him as he wishes, but apparently not in the case of a widow, according to the noble Lord. But suppose the man dies of cancer of the lung at 35 and leaves the "typical" widow with two young children. She is absolutely free; but not, apparently, according to Lord Airedale, if he dies as a result of somebodys else's negligence. Where is the sense of that? Nor is it a provision of the law of Scotland. Scottish widows are absolutely free to deal with their money now. Are English widows so much more improvident than Scottish widows? It may be they are, but so far nobody has suggested it.
Then the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches says that most of them are wage-earners. So are the men; so are the Scottish widows; so are the widows whose husbands die of cancer, who may get some money from insurance. They are vulnerable, says he, to the predatory male; but are not men vulnerable to predatory females? I am. Where are we really getting to? It is said that women are apt to make unwise investments. Are not men? Can men do without advice about their investments? I will tell the House something about women: I think they are not so apt to drink it away, and they are not so apt to bet it away. I regard this as a straight issue of public policy, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, in the absence of the right reverend Prelate who was here at the beginning of this debate, may I ask him a question? This is only in defence of the case made by my noble friend Lord Airedale, because it was rather a thin Committee and it was also rather a tired Committee, because I for one had sat through all the previous night and also attended this debate. What I would ask is: might it be advisable to revise the Prayer Book? I think it is the Prayer Book of the Anglican Church which asks us to look after the fatherless and the widows. Should we not make it that it also asks us to look after the motherless and the widowers, for whom the noble Lord made a very strong case? I am all for it. This case did not receive a great deal of discussion in Committee. It has now been discussed, and I will sit down and say no more.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am always in favour of prayer for whomsoever it is offered, but not if the meaning of the prayer is that we put the money in the county court and leave it there subject to the discretion of the judge.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate, and I do not propose to keep the House any longer on this. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, at the end of his main speech, said that men are more likely to drink the money away than women are, and that they are more likely to bet it away, but I think that perhaps the women are more likely to bingo it away; but I dare say this does not happen in a very great number of cases. I am extremely grateful to the three noble Baronesses who intervened in the debate; and, having regard to the rather rough time that I came in for at the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, I am all the more grateful for having had the support of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, who has studied this matter in very great detail and, I imagine, knows more about this subject than anybody else in the House. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, thought I was suggesting that a man, having "blued" his damages, would be able to put the money back. I did not suggest that. What I suggested was that, having "blued" the damages, he would

781
have a rather better chance than a widow to go out to work and earn money with which to support the children.
My Lords, it seems to me that the House is satisfied that the Committee came to a proper decision on this matter. I would finally say to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, that I am quite unrepentant about this. My private belief is that if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had realised that this matter was not going to be non-contentious on that Friday afternoon a week ago last Friday, this new clause would not even have been moved on that occasion. I do not believe it would have been right. I believe the proper thing would have been to have said, " This is a contentious matter and something which ought to be discussed on Report ". For that reason, my Lords, I thought it right that it should be discussed on Report. Having said all that, 1 beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of May 20, 1971):
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene at this stage. I do so simply for the purpose of saying in two sentences how extremely grateful I am to noble Lords and to noble and learned Lords for the obvious care and attention that they have given to the consideration of this small Bill, and the anxiety with which they have approached it. I am deeply grateful to them. I do not think I would be justified in taking up the time
782
of the House any more on this Bill, which has been very thoroughly considered.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

E.E.C.: PRIME MINISTER'S TALKS IN PARIS
3.40 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships House, I should like to repeat a Statement now being made in another place by the Prime Minister on the visit he paid to Paris last week. This is the Statement:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the visit which I made to Paris last week.
" I should like first to tell the House of the warmth of the welcome which I received from the President of the French Republic and from the Prime Minister and his colleagues. I was impressed by their unmistakable desire for a renewal of friendship and co-operation between Britain and France, as an essential element in the growing unity of Europe.
" My talks with President Pompidou extended altogether over a period of something like eleven hours. Except for a short time at the end of the talks when we were joined by the Prime Minister of France, we were accompanied during this time only by interpreters. This enabled us to deal with the wide range of subjects covered in the communiqué issued at the end of the talks, which I will with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
" Our main area of discussion was the whole field of European policy. It was heartening to discover how close are the views of the French and British Governments on the development of Europe and its role in the world.
" Our talks showed that both Governments wish to bring about the development of a united Europe through an enlarged European Community. We do not intend this as a defensive alliance against external threat. We see it as certainly the best means, and probably the only means, in the world

783
of to-day, of guaranteeing peace within Europe, providing prosperity for her peoples, and restoring to Europe that political, economic and cultural influence in the world that her traditions and her potential justify.
" We also found an identity of view on the role which a united Europe can play in relation to the problems which face us in other parts of the world, and particularly in relation to the developing countries, where there is so much that an enlarged Community which included Britain and France could contribute.
" We discussed the development of the European Community and the working of its institutions. We agreed in particular that the identity of national States should be maintained in the framework of the developing Community. This means of course that though the European Commission has made. and will continue to make, a valuable contribution, the Council of Ministers should continue to be the forum in which important decisions are taken, and that the processes of harmonisation should not override essential national interests. We were in agreement that the maintenance and strengthening of the fabric of cooperation in such a Community requiries that decisions should in practice be taken by unanimous agreement when vital national interests of any one or more members are at stake.
" This is indeed entirely in accordance with the views which I have long held. It provides a clear assurance, just as the history of the Community provides clear evidence, that joining the Community does not entail a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential national sovereignty.
" As to the means by which greater unity and co-operation could be achieved, our primary concern was with the development of common economic policies, in the context of the British application for entry into the European Communities. But we both saw this as the basis for closer political collaboration, if the negotiations for enlargement of the Communities could be brought to a successful conclusion. We had only a brief dis
784
cussion of defence questions, recognising that these were matters for the future, after enlargement.
" We reviewed the progress made in the Community towards economic and monetary union, following the meeting of the six Heads of Government in The Hague in December, 1969. I told President Pompidou that Britain looked forward wholeheartedly to joining in the economic and monetary development of the Community, if negotiations for British accession could be satisfactorily concluded. We both arrived at a clearer understanding of each other's anxieties and objectives in this fields; and I was able to dispel any reservations which the French Government might have felt about the British Government's willingness, which my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have often expressed, to accept the consequences of this development for its own policies.
" We agreed upon the need to negotiate suitable arrangements for those members of EFTA who are not applying for membership of the enlarged Community, and thus to avoid the re-erection of trade barriers between them and the Community.
" We discussed the problems which would arise as a result of enlargement of the Communities, when the time came to renew the Yaounde Convention. The House will have noted that our agreement on the need to safeguard the existing rights of present associates under the Convention was matched by our agreement on the need to safeguard the interests of future associates under a new Convention and particularly of those who would depend largely on exports to the enlarged Community of sugar or other primary products.
" Finally, the President and I reviewed the progress of the enlargement negotiations. We did not attempt to reach definite conclusions on issues which fall to be considered within the negotiating conference in Brussels and Luxembourg. But the President emphasised the importance he attached to the system of Community preference and his welcome for Britain's

785
acceptance of this principle upon entry into the Community at the last Brussels meeting. I went over the main issues involved in a settlement of Britain's contribution to the Community budget in the years leading up to the full implementation of the Community's system of financing its expediture. And I emphasised to President Pompidou the importance of reaching satisfactory arrangements for New Zealand. I also explained the difficulties presented for us by the existing fisheries regulation. On all these points, though we did not seek to arrive at final conclusions, President Pompidou's attitude was positive and constructive.
" The results of our exchanges on these matters are best demonstrated in our joint conclusion that it is desirable and possible to reach early agreement in the negotiations between Britain and the Community. The President and I both felt able to say after our talks that we were confident that the main issues could be settled before the end of June.
" There are still important questions to resolve, and there is still much hard work to be done before Her Majesty's Government will he in a position to come to Parliament with an account of the arrangements on which our entry into the European Communities can be negotiated. But this I can say today, as a result of my talks with the President of the French Republic. I am confident that the divisions and suspicions which have so hampered relations between Britain and France in recent years have now been removed. We have established that the views of the two Governments are very close over the whole range of European policies. The French President has shown his clear desire to proceed with the building of a united Europe on the basis of an enlarged Community, with Britain as a member. We can therefore approach both the final phase of our negotiations for entry into the Communities and, if they go well, the development of Europe thereafter. in a spirit of confidence and partnership. I believe that this opens the prospect of a degree of unity, and thus of peace and prosperity, in Western Europe which our Continent has never seen before, and which would be of pro-
786
found significance for Britain, for Europe and for the whole wcrld."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
Following is the text of the Communiqué referred to in the Statement:
" The President of the French Republic and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom held discussions en tete a tete in Paris on 20 and 21 May, 1971. Mr. Heath also called upon Monsieur Chaban-Delmas on 20 May.
" On the role of Europe following the enlargement of the European Economic Community the President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister had a thorough exchange which showed that their views were very close. They expressed in particular their determination to contribute through the enlarged and deepened Community to increasing European co-operation and to the development of distinctively European policies, in the first instance principally in economic matters and progressively in other fields.
"The discussion led to a complete identity of view on the working and the development of the Community. The President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister considered the range of economic, financial and monetary problems which could arise as a result of enlargement. They also discussed the progress of the European Community towards economic and monetary union, and its implications for existing financial relationships. The Prime Minister reaffirmed the readiness of Britain to participate fully and in a European spirit in this development. These discussions produced a useful clarification of views which will provide a firm basis for the future.
"The President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister took note with satisfaction of the agreements recently reached at the Ministerial Meeting between the Community and the United Kingdom on 11 and 12 May on agricultural and industrial matters, and particularly on the application of Community preference in the agricultural field.
"The President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister considered that it was desirable and possible to reach early agreement on the main outstanding issues in the negotiations for British entry, particularly the problems relating to New Zealand and the British contribution to the Community budget.
"The President of the Republic and the British Prime Minister expressed their joint desire to resolve the problems which will arise from the renewal of the Yaounde Convention in a positive spirit and having regard to existing rights. It would equally be necessary to take account of the need to safeguard the interests of the countries who are, or will have the opportunity to become, signatories of that Convention and who are largely dependent upon the markets of the enlarged Community for their exports of sugar or other primary products."
3.48 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: We are truly grateful to the noble Earl for reading

787
this long Statement. There is one thing we can all say. We welcome anything which leads to an improvement in Anglo-French relations and I think there can be no disagreement amongst any of us of the desirability of this. I am not quite sure, but I do not think the noble Earl will attribute the improvement entirely to these particular talks. Noble Lords know my own position in regard to the desirability of our entry into the Common Market providing the terms are right, but it seems to me that we are not —and I do not mean this critically—very much further forward when it comes to a discussion of terms. The Statement makes clear that there are a number of matters still to be discussed and still to be settled, and although one welcomes the reference to the Yaounde Agreement as important, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Eskan made clear the other day our difficulties even where that is concerned.
I certainly welcome the fact, and I think most noble Lords do, that there has been no suggestion of a deal with regard to nuclear sharing. We would hope that at some stage France might consider returning into NATO as a first step, but I do not wish to make critical remarks at the moment. Although there were no witnesses other than the interpreters, I hope that the strength of feeling and the sense of honour that is involved with regard to New Zealand was firmly laid on the table. I conclude that this was done. I think that that is a matter to which we all attach the greatest importance. The terms that emerge may well be decisive in a matter of this kind.
There are aspects of the Statement which are a little difficult to follow and I think that some noble Lords may still wonder what one or two sentences mean. There is almost a decent obscurity about them. One important thing that does seem to emerge is the need for unanimous agreement. There are some who hope that Europe is now moving very much further towards integrated form. But this does not appear to be at all the issue at the moment, except in so far as we may find ourselves already committed to aspects of European policy which we do not like. No doubt these will come out when, finally, we see the terms.
788
May I conclude by asking what plans there are for the publication of a White Paper? There have been many reports in the Press, but one never knows how much is officially inspired or is speculation. I would urge on the Government on a matter of such profound importance —this apparently is what was discussed at dinner last night; and I was glad to see, according to the papers, that the noble Earl was at the dinner—the necessity that the public and Parliament have plenty of time to consider, so that we do not make up our minds too quickly in one direction or another.
Is it the noble Earl's intention that we should have a debate before we rise for the summer? I am not pressing him on this. I can see arguments for and against. But clearly, if these negotiations are to be concluded at the end of June, there will need to be some opportunity for discussion, even if we do not make a final decision until after a period of consideration in the country. I should be grateful if the noble Earl could say something on that point, and also if he would confirm my understanding that unanimous agreement is required. I am wondering how far this may lead to a postponement of the implementation of the Werner proposals.
3.52 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I know that this is departing from convention, but may I deal comprehensively with the points put to me by the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition before we proceed? I should like to thank him very much for the general tenor of his reception of the Statement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, which I have just repeated. I should like, above all, to dwell for a second on what the noble Lord has said about the improvement in Anglo-French relations. It is my belief, on the basis of what I have learned about the conversations—and it is certainly my right honourable friend's belief—that these talks do provide a new point of departure in the Anglo-French relationship. I believe that this is a matter of very profound significance for Europe, because I believe that a great deal of the progress which we could have made in Europe and the good influence which Europe in a more unified sense could have brought to bear on the world has been bedevilled by the malaise and

789
misunderstanding which has existed for too long between our two countries. I do not wish to attribute this improvement to any specific factor, but here I should like to pay tribute to the officials concerned because the success is in part attributable to the very careful preparations of these important talks. They were a model of preparation.
The noble Lord suggested that on points of detail the Statement which I have made does not advance us all that far. I think in a way that that is quite true, because the Paris talks, significant though they undoubtedly are and as I am sure they will prove to be in the perspective of history, are no substitute for negotiations between the Six and the United Kingdom. But I believe that they advance us a great way forward in three vital particulars. In the first place, it is now clear beyond a doubt that all the Six wish us to join the Community. Secondly, there is an evident desire to see the main negotiations concluded, settled, by the end of June. Thirdly (and this brings me back to the point I was making) all this implies a positive French attitude towards the success of these negotiations. I believe that these are fundamentals which are far more important than any point of detail.
On matters of detail, the noble Lord rightly referred to the crucial importance of a fair deal for New Zealand. I have clearly in my recollection what I said on that question and I do not dissent for one moment. All I will say is that his views on that matter, which are widely shared in this country, were made crystal clear by my right honourable friend to the French President. I can also confirm what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said about the need for unanimous agreement on vital issues. This implies that we have accepted the position, which I think is usually referred to loosely as the Luxembourg formula.
Finally, so far as Parliamentary discussions on this matter are concerned, I agree entirely that it would be desirable that Her Majesty's Government should publish a White Paper so soon as the progress of the negotiations makes that possible. I should prefer not to be tied down on time on that, because it depends on the progress of the negotiations; but in principle I entirely agree and again, depending on
790
the progress of the negotiations, given the vast importance of this matter and the differing, sincerely held views about it, my own personal belief is (but I do not wish this to be a governmental commitment, and clearly it can be discussed through the usual channels) that if and when progress makes a White Paper possible, it should not be too long thereafter when this matter is fully ventilated at least in this House of Parliament.
3.59 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches unhesitatingly welcome what we believe to be a real landmark in the construction of a new, democratic order in Western Europe. Clearly we cannot press the Government, nor should we wish to do so, for further details regarding the outstanding issues in the present negotiations; but, happily, it looks as if agreement on these will now be possible, indeed, likely. Far the most important aspect of the talks seems to be the meeting of minds as regards the sort of Europe which we are seeking to create when the negotiations are successful. For this agreement, this meeting of minds, has lifted a potential French veto on British entry on purely political grounds. A threat which was always latent in the background has, happily, now been removed and from this point onwards all is possible.
I join with others in congratulating the Prime Minister on his success in dispersing that " malaise " which for so many years has poisoned our relations with France. I would only add that, while most of us would agree with what the Prime Minister says about the reservation of the national identity of this country, it is clear that for the time being, if we join the Community, it will operate in the last resort on the basis of the unanimity rule in the Council of Ministers, with such assistance as can be afforded by the Brussels Commission. I myself believe, my Lords, that this system will become quite inapplicable after a rather short period. How can we advance, for instance, towards any kind of monetary union if it is maintained? But for the time being it is clear we shall have to put up with it, whether we think it is a good thing or not, just as for a considerable time we shall not be able to expect a directly elected Parliament, though all democrats must be

791
of one mind in thinking that this must come as soon as possible.
I have only one definite question to ask the Government. It was a good thing, as I believe—and I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton on this—that nuclear matters were not discussed; but I am a little disappointed that apparently so little attention was given to the problems of defence. Would not the Government agree that it will be necessary in the very near future at least to think about the reform of Western European Union, for instance; and how to advance, if we can, on the present rather rudimentary machine for concerting foreign policy? Subject to these remarks I should like again to congratulate the Prime Minister, and wish him and Mr. Rippon all success in the remaining period of negotiations, which are certainly likely to be difficult if we are to reach terms on New Zealand and on Commonwealth sugar which are sure of approval in this Parliament.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a very short question?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I first answer the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn? Again I should like to thank him for his reception of the Statement which I have repeated. So far as the unanimity rule is concerned, I would point out that in fact this is in practice accepted by all of the Six at the present time. I would not rule out the possibility that over a period of time—and, clearly, this will be the case—that institutions will develop; and also I myself would hope (because I share to this extent the noble Lord's views) that we shall see over a period of time the strengthening of European Parliamentary institutions. But I believe that this is bound to take time, and therefore it is only sensible for us to proceed on the basis on which such firm agreement has now been reached between the French President and my right honourable friend.
My Lords, so far as W.E.U. is concerned, I should only like to say that I think it would be sensible to start from our present position. But here again modifications may be required. This is quite clearly a matter for discussion within the enlarged Community, and
792
indeed within W.E.U. I am sure we shall be very willing to join in those and contribute positively to any such discussions that may take place.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a short question? Would not the noble Earl the Leader of the House concede, that many people have reservations about the phrase in the Prime Minister's Statement, that the close views of Britain and France about the development of Europe were the only means of attaining peace and prosperity in Europe, and feel that it goes much too wide?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not certain that I recollect any precise phraseology saying that it was our belief that this is the only means of advancing the cause of European unity or helping in other directions, but I think it can make a very important contribution to it indeed.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, as a champion of the cause of united Europe for a quarter of a century I should like to welcome the Prime Minister's Statement, repeated here by the Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House. There is only one little question that I imagine he expects me to ask, and it concerns the fisheries regulations. I was not quite clear from what he said whether he thought the present fishery regulations of the Common Market were to be the subject of further consideration at Luxembourg. I hope that that is the case, and if it is I shall be quite satisfied.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I say that there are very few Members of your Lordships' House, if any, who have made so great a contribution to the cause of European unity as the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, and he is entitled to ask his supplementary question on fisheries. The answer is that it will be the subject of further discussions. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is leaving for Norway this evening and will be discussing this matter with his Norwegian colleagues. I can however confirm, as was made clear in the Statement, that this matter was discussed in Paris. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made our position unmistakably clear to the French President and it was clearly

793
understood that this will be a matter for negotiation between us and the Six.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that all of us welcome the understanding between the French and this country? Is he further aware that none of us would assume that it will mean just that, friendship and European peace? The problem of Europe is much greater than that. May I ask the noble Earl whether he is also aware that an eleventh-hour speech is not enough to change one thousand years of British history despite the fact that in this noble House we use the Norman French "La Reine le veult"? We are now being told that English is the language of America and not of Britain, and not an official language. Is he further aware that some of us think that the unity of Europe is a bigger thing than this, and that neither this noble House, nor the 630-odd Members of another place were elected at the Election on the issue of entry into Europe? Norway and some other countries are having a referendum, and some of us, despite the enthusiasm that some people display, would press for a referendum in this country before such a terrific decision is made. The reception of this Statement in this noble House to-day sounded more like a funeral oration than an oratorical arpeggio of entry into a great new venture in the history of the world.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am aware of some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has put to me and I am also aware that if we are successful in our negotiations—and I believe we shall be successful in our negotiations now to enter the Common Market—that this is not by any means the end of the matter in Europe. But I believe that the strengthening of European unity which that event will bring about will make a very material contribution to the world outside Western Europe itself. This I believe profoundly. It is implicit in the Statement I repeated that both my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the French President believe in particular that thus Europe will be enabled to play a far more positive part in both trade and aid policies towards the developing world than they have been able to generate up until now,
794
and I believe this to be a matter of very considerable importance.
My Lords, on the question of the English language, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek with touching solicitude was uneasy and so concerned about, all I can say is that the position is perfectly clear. The languages of all member countries of the Community are official languages of the Community. If we join the Community, English will be an official language of the Community. But I see no difficulty at all, as since 1961 British officials, with their usual adaptability, have shown that they have been able to hold their own in discussions with the Six, be they in French or in English, and I think that this happy situation will continue.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a question? First, speaking as one who has close business ties with France, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister on clearing away so many misconceptions. If it be that this is the critical and psychological moment for concluding the negotiations, will he give the House an assurance now that Her Majesty's Government will use every possible endeavour to bring this matter to a successful issue, and thus allow us to reap some of the undoubted economic benefits?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Watkinson for what he has said. I can give him, without equivocation and quite categorically, the assurance for which he has asked.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, can the noble Earl answer a specific question on unanimous voting? He quoted from the Prime Minister's Statement to the effect that unanimous voting in the larger Community, if we join, would continue on important issues. I wonder whether he can say who is to determine what is or what is not an important issue? This is most important to our future if we join the Common Market.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think that over a period of time the Six have had no difficulty whatever in identifying what are the vital national interests where

795
the Luxembourg Agreement, so called, applied.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether President Pompidou has made an official report on the conversations, in the same way as we have heard this afternoon from the Prime Minister, and whether it is possible for this to be made available to us in this country?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think I can undertake to make French official reports available to your Lordships. Meetings of this kind, as my noble friend must be well aware, are necessarily confidential. What I can say is that there is no possibility, as I understand it, of any misunderstanding, of the sort that followed, for example, the Rambouillet meetings, arising in this regard. Each side made its own record of the conversations and of the agreements and understandings reached. We have made quite sure that there is no possibility of misunderstanding concerning that area arising between us and the French Government.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Earl seems to be satisfied that the negotiations will prove successful. Has he taken into consideration what may happen in the other place and what the majority opinion of people in the country may be? Back-Benchers, owing to Standing Orders of your Lordships' House, are at a disadvantage in that they cannot debate the matter, but can only ask questions. I should like to put two questions to the noble Earl. He has referred to the possibility, indeed the probability, in his mind, as in the mind also of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, of the strengthening of political ties in Europe. The noble Earl also referred to the possibility in the future of a strengthening of ties relating to defence. Are we to understand that there is a possibility, indeed a probability, of a federal structure being decided upon after we have entered the Common Market; and equally, that a defence organisation on a European basis may be implemented after we decide to enter the Common Market without the people of this country or even Parliament having a voice in
796
the matter? Are these matters of vital importance to this country, and indeed to Europe and the world, to be determined after we enter the Common Market, without primary consideration?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, very clearly indeed. I agree that both the possibilities on which he touched —and I made it crystal clear that defence and nuclear matters were barely discussed at all in these discussions—are matters of very great consequence indeed. I can only say that, if it was the belief of the British Prime Minister at the time that there were proposals within an enlarged Community in that sphere which were running counter to our vital national interests, this is clearly one of the matters on which we should be able to reserve our position absolutely. The Prime Minister of the day and the Government of the day are subject to Parliamentary control. Parliamentary control will therefore be exercised. That, in my view, is how it should be.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, further to that answer, can my noble friend explain a little more the defence aspect here? Can he say how it is possible to negotiate membership of a political association aiming at a monetary union with one country that is divided, and whose reunification is only possible with Russian consent, upon the demise both of NATO and of the E.E.C., and with another which has withdrawn from NATO altogether?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I can only say that what we are here doing is negotiating entry into the European Economic Community. The points which my noble friend has put hardly arise in that particular connection. It was of course on the agenda for discussion between the French Head of State and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, but I made it absolutely clear in my reply that these matters of defence were barely touched upon in the discussions in Paris.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that to negotiate what is described as being intended to be a monetary union with, among other countries, one that is

797
split, and indeed explosive, does not really make a great deal of sense? As it stands some of us are very puzzled by the whole proposal.
EARL. JELLICOE: My Lords, my noble friend would take me very wide indeed if I were to attempt to answer these matters. They are just the sort of things that I believe we should explore more fully in debate. They are not susceptible to quick question and answer.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that a number of us are deeply concerned about the effect of this proposal not only on sugar and New Zealand, but on the living standards of the people in the developing countries? Can he give us an assurance that this consortium of industrial Powers in Western Europe will not be used for the exploitation of countries producing the primary commodities and raw materials?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, underestimates the sense of responsibility of the Six towards the developing world. Their aid policies do not compare unfavourably—if anything the reverse—with those which we ourselves have been able to achieve in recent years. But I believe that there is an identity of interest here, and it is one that has been shown by the Paris discussions. It is my understanding that the French President made it absolutely clear that it was the policy of his Government that the existing associates of the Community, the Francophobe countries to a large extent, should not suffer when the Yaounde Convention falls to be reviewed. But, by the same token, my right honourable friend made it clear that we were equally concerned that the interests of the Commonwealth countries in question should be safeguarded, and not least the developing countries, when we are members of the enlarged Community. I believe—and I say this in all seriousness to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—that there is a very real identity of interest between France and the United Kingdom on this particular matter.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend one question about New Zealand, whence I recently returned. Is he aware that the farmers, of whom I met several, are par-
798
ticularly worried about the transitional period of negotiations regarding dairy produce? Can he give an assurance that during these talks, and during future talks, particular attention will be given to a reasonable transition period?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think I have already made it clear that Her Majesty's Government are no less concerned than my noble friend in safeguarding the interests of a country which is very dear to all of us, and where I happen to have spent my early childhood. The protection of essential New Zealand interests, and its importance, was a matter that was made absolutely crystal clear by my right honourable friend in the course of the Paris discussions. The fact that both he and President Pompidou were able to say that they saw no reason why the negotiations should not be satisfactorily concluded, that we should be seeing our way to a full settlement by June, shows that there was a response from the French side on this particular matter.
4.20 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl—I think he may not have understood the point my noble friend Lady Gaitskell made—whether he would consider that it is an accurate statement (he may not wish to answer) that we, the British, consider that the best and probably the only means of guaranteeing peace within Europe is by the policy now advocated? This is a very West European point of view. I think that was the point my noble friend was making; and perhaps it is unfortunately worded. Could he also again consider the point made by my noble friend Lord Brockway. Whereas it is true that Europe as a whole, and certainly France, have probably been contributing more, and do accept their duty to the underdeveloped countries, we in this country have tended to follow a less deliberate pursuit of British interests in the giving of aid; and there are some of us who are concerned that the giving of aid becomes a purely political weapon.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, of course I shall be glad to bear in mind both points which the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition, has put to me.

799
I think the first one has a slightly semantic quality which we need not go into now, but I quite take the point he has made, and if I misinterpreted the noble Baroness's question I apologise.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, while welcoming the noble Earl's Statement, may I ask one question? Supposing our entry into the Common Market breaks down through economic difficulties, will it be possible for a political and defence union to be formed between Great Britain and the Six?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I suppose it could, but I think that is a very hypothetical possibility. In view of the success of the Paris talks I very much doubt whether it is going to be an eventuality which we shall have to face.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, in the Statement the noble Earl made, he made reference to the Council of Ministers. Is he in a position to state whether there was conversation between the two leaders in regard to a European Parliament?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I cannot go beyond the Statement repeating what my right honourable friend has said on that point, but I shall be glad to look into the matter for the noble Lord, Lord Slater. I believe that on a matter of this sort, where chance words should not be idly spoken, it would perhaps be best for us to move on to our other business, with which we are equally familiar by now, and we can come back to this subject, as we doubtless shall. This is, I believe, a matter of primordial importance to us, to Europe and to the world, and we shall have a great deal of opportunity in the coming months to discuss it at length in your Lordships' House.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I fully accept what the noble Earl says. May I ask him whether he is in a position to say anything more about a debate? And would he bear in mind that we should be very upset if we thought there was no discussion about a European Parliament between the Prime Minister and the President? But I equally accept that he cannot add to what has been said to-day.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not think I can add a great deal to what
800
I said about a debate. I have said, quite clearly, this is a matter that we shall wish to discuss. The exact timing must depend on the rate of progress in the forthcoming meetings at Brussels and Luxembourg, which will be of great importance. Perhaps we can continue to discuss this matter through the usual channels, and if and when there is a desire and it seems the right moment we will not be at all resistant to the idea of a debate of this whole area.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, did I understand the noble Earl to say that there will be a White Paper and that it will be on the basis of that White Paper that we shall have a discussion?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it seems to me sensible, as and when sufficient progress has been made, that that progress is brought together in a White Paper, but I think the timing of that must depend on the progress and the speed of negotiations in Brussels and Luxembourg. I say Luxembourg, because one of the meetings of the Seven will be in Luxembourg.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
4.26 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 BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 72 [Incorporation and vesting of property]:
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELIIELVIE)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELIIELVIE) Moved Amendment No. 263LLL:
Page 57, line 2, after (" organisation") insert—
(" (a) if it is not already a body corporate")
The noble Baroness said: If it is convenient for the Committee, perhaps with this Amendment we can also consider Amendment No. 263MMM. The purpose of these Amendments is 4o remove a difficulty which might arise if subsection (1) of the clause as it now stands were applied to a body which is already incorporated. The subsection states that upon receipt of a certificate of registration under the Bill an organisation " shall become a body corporate ". However, some organisations which obtain registration under the Bill may already he bodies corporate, either because they are registered under the Companies Act 1948 or have been incorporated by a Private Act of Parliament. Therefore, it would clearly be wrong to refer to such organisations becoming bodies corporate when they have this status already. This Amendment seeks to clarify the Bill, and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: While I do not for a moment oppose either of these two Amendments, I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness would be kind enough to indicate what, in the view of the Government, is the effect of the incorporation of trade unions produced by Clause 72. I know that Clause 72 applies both to organisations of employers and of workers, but the questions I desire to put to the Government relate particularly to the trade unions. I do not know whether the noble Baroness has had an opportunity of looking at the case of Bonsor v. The Musicians' Union, which was decided by this House sitting in its judicial capacity in 1956. In that case, the nature of a trade union and its existence in law was very carefully and thorough considered by this House.
Although there was some difference of view between the noble and learned Lords who took part in the decision in that case, they, I think it would he right to say, all agreed that if you ask what is a trade union, the answer must be that it is simply an association of individuals bound by contract one to the other, the terms of the contract being contained in the documents, primarily the rules of the trade union. I hope I have put that clearly. That is the effect of Bonsor v. The Musicians' Union.
The union is not a corporate body, it is simply an aggregate of individuals. If
802
you ask what are their rights, one as against the other, you have to look to the rules, you have to look at other documents—application forms and so on —to find the answer. They are bound together by a contract contained in those documents. Clause 72 provides that when a certificate of registration is granted that aggregate body of individuals shall become a body corporate. Then there are certain further consequences which follow and which are set out in subsection (3). What is the effect of incorporation upon those rules? If you find that the trade union has become a corporate body, what are the relations as between themselves and as between them and the corporate body which are then brought into being? Do you still look to the rules of the trade union to find them? If that is so, and if the rules become the equivalent or counterpart of the articles of association, or the memorandum of a limited company, what provision of the Bill produces that result? I have not found such a provision. This is not a trick question. I know that to answer this point needs a certain amount of preparation, and I apologise to the noble Baroness for not having given her notice of it. Presumably it is intended that the rules are in some way made as the structure or the skeleton of the corporate body.
If you are talking about a body incorporated by charter, you look at the terms of the charter to see what are the rights against the charter of those who are broadly described as members, and you look at the rules set out in the charter to find out what are their respective rights. I do not find anything analogous to produce that result in the case of the incorported union. This question is one of great practical interest. In the Marshalled List there are two Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Diamond which would have the effect of incorporating in the structure of the incorporated trade union the limited liability which a limited liability company is invested with under the terms of the Companies Act 1948 and later Acts. What my noble friend seeks to do is limit the liability of the members of the trade union. I shall seek to deploy the case for that when your Lordships come to it. I have paved the way by asking my question, and if the noble Baroness says that it is a matter on which she would

803
like to take advice before she answers me, I shall understand.
4.35 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: It is not easy to debate with Lord Stow Hill, but I have been aware of the particular question he raised, the case of Bonsor v. The Musicians' Union, because that is clearly discussed on page 208 of the Donovan Report. While Lord Morton of Henryton said that the Union was capable of entering into contracts and of being sued as a legal entity, as distinct from its individual members, and Lord Porter took the same view, Lord MacDermott and Lord Somervell did not. They thought that a registered trade union was not a separate juridical person, and that it could be sued in its own name simply because Parliament had, in the result, sanctioned such a course. It was because of the uncertainty of the exact legal status of a trade union that the Donovan Report recommended in paragraph 784 that registered trade unions should have corporate status. This was supported by the Society of Labour Lawyers. It is for this reason that Clause 72 stands as part of the Bill.
So far as the Bill is concerned, any registered trade union would first go on to a provisional register and would then become a registered trade union; and by so doing it would have corporate status. There are various advantages which it could claim. Corporate status would include the right to hold property, to sue and to be sued in the organisation's own name, and there would be protection of the organisation, and its authorised agents, if in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute it either induced or threatened to induce another person to break a contract to which that other person was a party. There are several other examples. So far as the specific rules are concerned, we shall debate this on Clause 73. The trade union has the right to draw up its own rules; it is only for the Registrar to examine the rules to see that they conform with the ordinary concepts of natural justice.
LORD STOW HILL: I do not want to continue the debate on this rather technical aspect. I am not trying to take time unnecessarily. From what the noble
804
Baroness has said, I infer that there is no provision in the Bill which would have the effect of automatically making the rules, mutates mutandis, the rules of the corporate body. Therefore I assume that there is no such provision. That produces the result that the union would become an incorporated body, a corporate entity. But if you ask what is the structure of the corporate entity, who governs it, who is liable to look after its finances, who can discipline anybody in accordance with the terms of the corporate body. you will find no answer. You will find nothing except a piece of paper saying that a particular trade union is a corporate body, and you will find nothing to tell you what the rules are.
I do not know whether the correct conclusion I should draw from the latter part of the speech of the noble Baroness is that it will be incumbent on every union, immediately upon incorporation, to scrap its rules, draw them up again with the necessary alterations and specifically, by some process, incorporate them as the rules of the corporate body. If that is so, under what process does it do that? Are there any provisions of the Companies Acts incorporated? There seems to be no process provided in this Bill whereby a union is to be enabled to determine what its rules are to be. There is a gap in the Bill in that respect. That aspect of Clause 72 may require further consideration. It will be difficult to deal with the two Amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Diamond without knowing approximately what the answer to my question is. I am grateful for the answer of the noble Baroness, but it leaves a particular aspect of the problem not wholly covered.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the noble Lord will look at paragraph 785 of the Donovan Report he will see that it says quite clearly:
" If trade unions were corporations the contract of membership would be a contract between the union and each member. We see no adverse consequences which might flow from this. Indeed it would seem to correspond more to reality than the present doctrine that the contract is between each member and every other member."
And I suppose the Report might have added, " and bound together by the rules ". But the noble Lord has made

805
a very valid point and we shall be glad to look at it carefully in the light of what he said.
LORD STOW HILL: The rules could not be a contract between the union and members without more. There would have to be some process which altered the terms of the rules and introduced as a party to them the new corporate being. But I do not take the matter further.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: This is a vital point which I cannot hope to deal with as clearly and in such a concise way as my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has done. But, as somebody who has had to deal with the establishment of, say, a small company, I know that one of the things that struck me when I saw the noble Lord's Amendment from the other side of the Committee was this. If a company is incorporated it has the right then to take part in any activities that it puts into the charter. Can it do this, or has it first to go to the Registrar of Unions? The noble Lord has again referred to another clause to make this clear. This is one of the matters which in all sincerity worry us. As the Committee stage of this Bill proceeds, and the Government add provisions here and there to the clauses, or delete this and add that, the Bill becomes more and more complicated and labyrinthine. Had poor old Ariadne been alive, trying to steer a way through the catacombs and provisions of this Bill, she would have got lost in the galleries because she would not have enough string to find her way out to the sunshine—if the noble Lord can follow my figure of speech. This is the difficulty the whole of the legal world is in in dealing with this Bill, as has been proved by the erudite question just put by my noble friend.
LORD BERNSTEIN: May I ask a question? It seems to me, in reading this clause and taking account of the Amendment, that it would be possible for a member of a union to be sued for damages, or what-you-will, if the union itself did not have sufficient funds to pay. I may be wrong on that. On the other hand, there are employers' associations which would be limited organisations, and it seems to me that their members could not be sued if there were damages against them, which is very unlikely.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Perhaps it would be better to discuss this point on the next two Amendments, which are to be moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, because they specifically refer to limited liability which I think was the point in the noble Lord's mind. In reference to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, I should have thought this particular part of the Bill on registration is fairly clear. We shall come to the next clause which deals clearly with rules. What we are discussing now is the question whether on the receipt of a certificate of registration the organisation shall become a body corporate. It is something rather limited in its nature.
LORD DIAMOND: We are grateful to the noble Baroness, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for what they have said in response to the most important issue raised with such clarity by my noble friend Lord Stow Hill. The noble Baroness said, absolutely correctly, that we shall be able to deal more easily with the specific question of limited liability when we come to deal with the next Amendments. But my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has made a point, which I should like to underline, that whatever the noble Baroness, or whoever deals with the next Amendment, tells us will be subject in a certain sense to the answer to this first question, which we have not yet had. I do not therefore want to pursue the matter too far at the present time. It is a most important and, if I may say so, not easy point, and I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill for having raised it in such a clear way.
We shall have to have (and perhaps I am now addressing my remarks specifically to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn) an answer to this question at a later stage. We are obviously not going to object to the Amendment, because it removes a possible cause of confusion and to that extent is broadly acceptable. But we shall have to come back to the first overall difficulty raised by my noble friend, which will affect what the noble Baroness says with regard to the subsequent Amendments. I am only making that point absolutely clear before we go on to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 263D:
Page 57, line 4, at end insert (" and limited liability ").
The noble Lord said: In a sense we have in part already argued this Amendment, but I should like to take the matter a little further. The Amendment seeks to append to the nature of the registered body limited liability such as attaches to a limited liability company under the Companies Acts. Its object is perfectly clear, and possibly your Lordships might think that while this Amendment is being considered we might consider the next Amendment in the name of my noble friend, which is designed to achieve the same purpose. May I elaborate my argument by asking your Lordships to look at two other clauses? If one looks at Clause 148 one sees there set out the property against which a judgment or an award in an arbitration may be executed. The clause is framed in such a way as to exclude certain property from the ambit of the property which may be used to satisfy a judgment. If your Lordships look at subsection (2)(b) you will see that the property which may be taken in execution does not include any property:
" belonging to any member of the trade union or employers' association otherwise than jointly or in common with the other members of it ".
It seems to me that the effect of that paragraph, when one is considering a judgment or an award, is to exclude any property from liability to be taken in execution other than property which in a broad sense can be said to be the property of the trade union itself.
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has just come into the Committee and possibly he would like me to put the point again. The Committee is discussing the Amendment to Clause 72 which reads:
"Page 57, line 4, at end insert (" and limited liability ")".
The clause, as the noble and learned Lord knows, is one which produces the result that when a certificate of registration is granted the trade union becomes a corporate body. That is the effect of this Amendment. Having indicated the objective, I would ask the Committee to go forward and look at Clause 148. The noble and learned Lord will see that,
808
under subsection (2)(b) of Clause 148, where you are talking of a judgment or an award, you cannot execute a judgment against certain property, and you cannot execute it under paragraph (b) against property vested in a member otherwise than jointly and in common with the other members. It would seem to me that the objective of that paragraph is to limit the liability of members, to ensure that an award can be levied only against property jointly held by members as members of the union. That is the case with regard to a judgment.
However, if one goes back to Clause 88 one sees there a provision that the Chief Registrar, if he has reason to think that a trade union is insolvent—the usual definitions, I suppose, being used to decide whether a body is insolvent or not —may present a petition to wind it up. Then, if the petition is successful, the trade union is wound up by the court " in accordance with the Companies Act 1948 ". There is, so far as I can discover in that particular clause, no similar provision limiting liability for debts which have not yet become crystallised in a judgment, to property of the trade union strictly. So far as that clause is concerned the result would seem to be that property of a member held individually and privately by him—if he has been party, for example, to a contract entered into by a trade union to pay the rent or to discharge some other liability—is itself liable. It may be that I am right or wrong in the reading that I am attributing to Clause 88. If I am right, where there is a judgment there would seem to be limited liability; where there is not a judgment and there is a winding up, the debts of the union which have not given rise to an action in court crystallised into a judgment could be enforced against the property of individual members of the union, other than property, or in addition to property, which they hold in common as members of the union; in other words, their private property as distinct from property of the union itself, viewed in the strict sense.
If I am right so far, I am sure that the Committee will agree with me that there is a good deal of uncertainty about this. I would apprehend that it is the intention of the Government that the liability of the trade union should be equivalent to the limited liability of a

809
limited company. I imagine that that is the desire and intention of the Government. It may be that I am wrong about that and that they wish all members to be liable to the full extent of their assets, but I very much hope that is not the case. If it is the desire of the Government that the liability should be limited in that sense, I feel sure that the Ministers on the Front Bench will recognise with me that. to put it at its lowest, there is some measure of obscurity and uncertainty about this. It is at least open to various readings, and I would respectfully submit that it is desirable in the interests of everybody—the many millions of people who are affected by this—that it should be made plain beyond a peradventure where the corporate trade union liability is to be a limited liability, a liability limited to the union's property strictly so viewed, or whether it is to go beyond that.
As has already been said, the argument hinges upon what took place in the course of the discussion on the previous Amendment, but it may be that Ministers feel that they would like to give further consideration to this. I would press upon them that it is highly desirable in the first place that the position should be made plain beyond a peradventure. There should be no uncertainty as to what properly is liable to be taken in extinction of the debts of the union. That is the first proposition that I put before the Committee. Secondly, I would hope that it would be made plain that the trade union's liability should be a limited liability analogous to that of a limited liability company. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I must apologise to the Committee for having been absent when the noble Lord began to speak. I understand that we are discussing Amendments Nos. 263D and 263E, which is somewhat analogous. The broad position of the Government is that we could not accept No. 263D but we would consider the possibility of embodying something on the lines of No. 263E, although not the exact words, by the Report stage if necessary. My present inclination is that it is not necessary to do it, at any rate as regards the liability of individual members, because the general law protects the assets of individual members from liability for the debts of a corporation of this kind.
810
Therefore, I do not think it is necessary at all, but should it be necessary we will consider it between now and Report stage because it is fully our intention that the assets of individual members should not be liable to be seized in satisfaction, either of a judgment debt or on the winding up of a trade union, except in so far as the rules provide. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD STOW HILL: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It certainly satisfies me, but I do not know whether it satisfies my noble friend Lord Diamond.
LORD DIAMOND: I echo the appreciation shown by my noble friend to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. My own uninformed view was that I had hoped and expected that the Government would say that these words were not necessary. But although they might say that they were not necessary from the legal point of view, I was hoping that they would listen to an argument that might be beneficial for a general understanding of the situation, especially now that the Government have introduced the words " corporate situation ". As soon as one hears that a body has corporate status the thought automatically springs to mind as to whether the intention behind those who give it that status is that it should have limited liability, and it might just be that if it does not, people will have unnecessary anxieties. So I hope the noble and learned Lord will consider that aspect even though he has given me the answer which I hoped he would give me; namely, that these words are possibly not strictly necessary.
Therefore, all I need say at this moment is that I am grateful to my noble friend for having put the matter forward, and repeating what the noble and learned Lord will not have heard (because this was raised on a previous Amendment), that we are still taking the view that until we know a little more about what is meant by the words in Clause 72(1),
"the organisation shall become a body corporate ".
we are taking the view that the matter is somewhat up in the air as to the rules of the corporate body. Possibly the simple answer will be that they are the rules which would have been the rules

811
of the body had it not been made a corporate body. On the other hand, as my noble friend is disposed to have some anxiety about it, it may well be that there is a large gap here, and apart from knowing that it has a common seal and that actions automatically get transferred, we know very little about it, how it is to behave and what the rules of the corporate body are. Therefore that matter is still left open.
I do not think it need affect what the noble and learned Lord has said. I think all I need do is to thank him for what he has said and hope that he will be good enough to consider what I have said about including some words along the lines of Amendment No. 263E, which will give more understanding to those who might seek it. In those circumstances, I am sure that my noble friend would wish to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: I am not quite sure whether it lies with me to withdraw the Amendment, but if so I would certainly desire to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I beg to move Amendment No. 263MMM.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 4, at end insert—
(" or
(b) if it is already a body corporate, whether by the name specified in the certificate or by a different name, shall thereafter be a body corporate by the name so specified.")—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 72, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
5.0 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor very kindly indicated when we last met that he was disposed to make a statement with regard to the income tax position of trade unions, and I should be most grateful if he would be so kind as to do so. As the Committee knows, at the moment under the Consolidation Act of 1970, the Income Tax Act and Corporations Act (Section 338), trade unions
812
have certain rights. Section 338 incorporates what used to be Section 440(2) of the Income Tax Act 1952 and Section 26 of the Finance Act 1956. Those rights are very valuable. They confer income tax relief in respect of income of various types, such as dividends and so on. Under the provisions of the 1952 Act they were subject to the limitation that the rules of the union did not assure annuities in excess of £104 a year. But the value of the concession was very greatly increased by the 1956 Act, which provided that what I think are known as the Millard Tucker policies are not to he taken into account in assessing the £104.
Going through the Bill, I apprehend it may be the intention of the Government to provide for the situation in the following way. Only registered unions are entitled to that relief, and under the 1970 Act unions' can only mean unions registered under the 1871 Act; and the last Schedule repeals the 1871 Act. Therefore, prima facie, the result would seem to be that that relief goes. I should be grateful if the noble and. learned Lord the Lord Chancellor would be so kind as to correct me if I am wrong. It may be the intention of the Government not to bring in that repeal until they have been able to restore the relief given in their first Finance Act after the Bill becomes law. It may be that they can defer the repeal under Clause 160 of the Bill; and that may be the answer. I am indeed grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having said he would be prepared to enlighten us on this to-day.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I can help the noble Lord about this matter since he was good enough to give me advance notice of the point he intended to raise. He is quite right in saying that under the law as it stood prior to 1970, that is to say under the Income Tax Act of 1952 and the amending section of the Finance Act 1956, the concession as regards tax was limited to trade unions registered under the Act of 1871. But what I think has perhaps escaped notice is that in the consolidating Statute of 1970, in Section 338, the reference to the Act of 1871 is omitted, with the result that it is " registered trade unions ", in those words and without the reference to 1871, which are entitled to the immunity.

813
The result is that the immunity will be carried on when this Bill becomes law without further amendment of that section because, either from good luck—which it may be, for all I know—or from prescience on the part of the draftsman that legislation of this kind would be contemplated by one Government or another, the consolidating Act omitted reference to the Act of 1871.
The noble Lord's query led me to ask a further question of the draftsman as to what would happen to the unions on the provisional register, and I think it will be necessary, either when still on the Committee stage or on Report, to thicken up the provision of Clause 160, to which the noble Lord also referred, in order to enable us to make quite sure that the registration provisions do not leave a hiatus. But it is fully the intention of the Government to continue the tax concessions, and it will not be necessary to amend Section 338 of the consolidating Act. It may be necessary to amend Section 160 of this Act so as to provide for the provisional register.
LORD STOW HILL: I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he has said and for his extremely helpful speech. I had noticed that in the 1970 Act the word "registered " appears without there being any linking to the 1871 Act. If I may just put to the noble and learned Lord the point that it may be desirable to make the matter clear in any amending words he proposes to use, it occurred to me to wonder, inasmuch as at the time when the Consolidation Act 1970 was passed clearly " registered " meant registered under the 1871 Act, that automatically the word "registered " when applied to registration under this Act would apply. It seems to me to be arguable that it did not, and to put the matter beyond any argument I respectfully suggest that it would be desirable to insert in Clause 160 of the Bill words which will make the matter absolutely clear. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I did, as a matter of fact, raise this point with the draftsmen and also with the Departments, and the advice I received was that we were all right under Section 338
814
of the consolidating Act in its present form. But in view of the fact that the noble Lord has raised the point I will ask the question again—hoping to receive the same answer—and it will be looked at before the Bill leaves this House positively one way or another.
LORD STOW HILL: I am most grateful for what the noble and learned Lord has said.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble and learned Lord said during the course of his remarks that it was the intention of the Government that trade unions should continue to get the benefit of this income tax concession. He said " trade unions " —I am quite sure he meant registered trade unions only. He knows that we shall be coming back to this point on a subsequent Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There is no misunderstanding about that at all. The noble Lord is quite right.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 73 [Examination and approval of rules by registrar]:
5.8 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263F:
Page 57, line 19, leave out ("in that").
The noble Lord said: I think it would be helpful and would make for an intelligent discussion of what we are engaged upon if I invited your Lordships to be good enough to accede to my request that the first four Amendments to this clause which stand in my name be discussed together—I do not seek to include the Amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn—that is to say, Amendments 263F, G, H and J, because although they could be taken separately they all refer essentially to the same point.
I am in a slight difficulty here because I did not have the privilege of hearing the whole of the debate on Thursday when I was engaged elsewhere; but from a quick reading of part of Hansard I gather that the essential point behind these Amendments was discussed then, and I shall deal with the matter very shortly now in the hope that that is what your Lordships would prefer. What we

815
are here concerned with is first of all a principle, and then the application of the principle. I suppose the fundamental principle we are concerned with is the right of association—a freedom of that order; and in relation to trade unions we would interpret that right as meaning that workers can get together and form their associations and decide how they are going to run them. Of course, for the convenience of their members they must make clear what their rules are so that members joining will know what kind of a body they are joining. Donovan looked at this matter very carefully and, as was discussed on Thursday, he made it quite clear that the freedom of unions to decide their rules should not be interfered with. I do not quote the exact words, but that is the import of what he recommends.
This clause, as it stands, is a clause under which a registrar has to approve rules, and he has to approve detailed rules. The objection to the approval of the detailed rules is twofold. First of all, the union knows best what its own rules should be. It is a number of workers getting together to decide how to manage their own affairs within this association. Secondly, if, as a matter of public policy, it is thought wise that unions, being of the importance they are, should have rules which are sufficiently clear to their members and rules which cover essential points, then you must have some machinery for deciding how that public interest can be satisfied if a union takes a different view and feels that its own rules are already adequate.
Donovan recognised this and said that this is still a matter for the unions, and the best way of helping the unions to frame suitable rules is to give them the freedom to do so in the first place. But if the rules, as they emerge, are not sufficiently clear and do not sufficiently cover matters of public policy and public interest, then the formation and the clarification of the rules should be helped by an appropriate body. The appropriate body is, in fact, a body of trade unionists helped by a lawyer chairman. That is a perfectly simple proposition. There is (a) the right of association—freedom of association, a fundamental liberty; (b) the exercise of that right by unions by their
816
having rules which they make for themselves; and (c), where public policy may be to intervene, assistance to the unions by a body of trade unionists—because trade unionists have the right experience —and that body of trade unionists should be chaired by a lawyer, who would be helpful in directing the consideration of that body in a fruitful way.
That is all within Donovan, and on this side of the Committee we should find all of that acceptable. But that is totally at variance with what is proposed in this clause. What is proposed in this clause is that " the man in Whitehall knows very much best "—the " man in Whitehall " being the Registrar in this case—and that the Registrar shall lay down what the union's rules shall be. Irrespective of the fact that the union may have been in existence for a great number of years and have learnt, through long experience and possibly many difficulties, the best way of framing its rules, it is the Registrar which will lay them down, and the force of law will be behind what the Registrar has to say.
All that is totally unacceptable to us on this side because we do not think that this is the way in which unions will function better (which is what we are all after), and be strengthened—as Donovan recommends, and as the Government said is one of the purposes behind this Bill. Therefore, I move this Amendment, but draw attention to all these other Amendments which seek to leave out the specifying of individual rules, knowing that behind each of these individual rules to be approved by the Registrar the Registrar has the power to insist on his view of what the rules should be. Therefore, I beg to move.
LORD SLATER: I rise to give support to my noble friend Lord Diamond in moving this Amendment. The more I look at this Bill and try to study its purpose and its intentions, the more I am convinced that, as has already been said by my noble friend, the Government really do believe that they, and they alone, know more about industrial relations than anyone else. So far as the trade unions in this country are concerned, they are to be treated—and I say this with true conviction—as if they were little children.—One would think that they

817
have never been associated as a group of people, organised labour, within this country, working for the benefit of the people and the membership of their respective trade unions. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has within his Department these conciliation officers in senior posts who have been there with successive Ministers since it was the old Ministry of Labour and who, he believes, have studied how organised labour ought to behave on the industrial front in this country. No doubt many hours will have been spent by these people in studying the problems that will arise as a result of these various principles coming into operation. No doubt the Minister in charge of the Bill will be posing questions to the people in his Department on these principles.
The answers to the questions that he was seeking to pose in the drafting of this Bill must have satisfied not only him but the Cabinet of the present Government, or we should not have had this Bill, either in the other place or here. Therefore I have come to the conclusion that it is one of the easiest things in life to be able to sit down and produce a formula by reading a pamphlet, or textbook, on labour relations, without ever having been associated with industry at all, either as an employer of labour or as an employee. Knowledge and practical experience are thrown out of the window as being of no importance and having no validity at all. It is this that disturbs those of us who have come from the industrial arena.
My objection to these particular subsections and the clause itself, is the powers which are to be vested in the person of the Registrar. Here we are to have trade unions which will be required to satisfy a wide-ranging set of conditions laid down—by whom? Laid down in the particular Schedule that is attached to the Bill and by the Registrar.
Unions will be required to have rule's, which have been referred to by my noble friend, Lord Diamond, which raise certain principles. What is basic to a union for its functioning on behalf of its membership may not be obvious to the Registrar and may not fit in with the principles of this Bill. It may be that a trade union, after weeks of consideration and formulation of its rules by dele-
818
gates from branches throughout the country, with legal advisers in attendance, submits the result of those deliberations to the Registrar for his signature and approval. He in turn, after re-examination, may disagree with the rules because, in his opinion, they do not meet with the objects and principles laid down in this Bill. I have sat as a delegate for day after day with members of the legal fraternity drafting rules for my association and I know what these deliberations involve.
Who is to be the arbiter; who is to question the Registrar? Before the rules have been submitted, legal advice will have been taken by the union. Those rules would not be there unless these responsible people with legal knowledge had been present when they were drafted for the association. The question arises, if these wide-ranging conditions do not meet with the demand will this result in the union having to ask its branches to go again over the whole of the ground they have traversed in arriving at their conclusion? This could result in more legal wrangling. It would be as well if this point could be cleared up. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, or whoever is to reply on this Amendment, will do so. I hope that noble Lords on both sides of the Committee will ask themselves when considering these subsections, is the Registrar to be judge and jury in this matter? When I sat in another place we introduced the official who became known as the Ombudsman. Many of us received cases from constituents and were able to contact the Minister concerned. We contacted a Minister before we thought of taking action and submitting a problem to the Ombudsman for investigation. Suppose that we reach a particular position with reference to this Bill and concerning the Registrar, will trade unions be able to contact representatives of another place and ask them to intercede with the Ombudsman against a ruling by the Registrar?
I hope that the noble Lord who seeks to answer the questions raised by my noble friend, Lord Diamond, and the points that I have been citing about the way in which rules are drawn up by trade unions, will be able to give some positive answers so that the unions may know what will be their position. If they have to go back to consult their

819
branches again because the registrar turns down proposed rules, and all the branches connected with the unions then have to supply more information, I wonder what staff will be needed for the new registrar. In adding my contribution to that of my noble friend Lord Diamond, I hope that we may have some positive answers about the powers which will be embraced by the registrar and whether in this case he is to be both judge and jury.
5.27 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It may be of convenience and I may help the Committee if I intervene to try to dispel some of the misgivings expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Slater. Then, if I may, I will deal with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. I think it important to recognise that at the moment the registrar has the rules of the unions which are registered under the Trade Union Act 1871. If the noble Lord, Lord Slater, looks at Clause 76 of this Bill he will see that there has to be a provisional register on to which those unions registered under that Act will be transferred with any others which may apply later. The clause says, in subsection (2):
" The registrar shall forthwith enter in the provisional register every organisation …"
The registrar is then given six months in which to scrutinise the rules. Where in his opinion the rules are defective he will draw that point to the attention of the union concerned. So at the moment there is nothing for the unions to do. They will automatically go on to the provisional register. Their rules will then be examined and they will be told if the rules are (to use the words of the Bill, which perhaps are a little sharp) in any way "defective ".
At that stage the union will have to consider whether it wishes to bring its rules into line with what the registrar requires. The registrar, of course, will require only what is in the Bill. Then the union will be able to have the meetings of which the noble Lord, Lord Slater, has spoken. We believe that most unions will have little difficulty in bringing their rules into line with what the Bill requires. They will then forward the amended rules to the registrar, and if he agrees with them that will be the end of the matter.
820
If he does not agree with them it will be open to the registrar to give the union concerned a short time to adjust its rules. If, after that time, the union has still not been able to bring them into line, it will be possible for the registrar to apply to the Court for the cancellation of the registration. I have missed out the vital statement that even before the registrar has decided that the rules are in order he will issue the certificate and at that stage the union will become a body corporate with a common seal. If the union still disagrees with the registrar, then the Court can decide either that the registrar is right or that the union is right; so in no case is the registrar ever the judge, let alone the jury. He is doing an administrative job in comparing the rules of the various unions with what they are intended to contain under Schedule 4, and he is also making certain that they do not offend against the guiding principles in Clause 63. I hope I have made that plain, but at any rate I hope I have made it clear to the noble Lord that the registrar is not going to be the bogey man that he seemed to think.
The Registrar will be constantly in touch with trade unions. I have no doubt. Complaints will be made, and he will no doubt be in very close touch. Let me give the noble Lord an example of what has happened. because he will know of this and it is in my experience. He will be aware that the weights and measures authorities are the enforcement officers under the Trade Descriptions Act. But the weights and measures authorities are able to maintain very good relationships with those people under their supervision. Obviously, if somebody is recalcitrant, or something of that kind, they get across each other; but this is the kind of way we do things in this country, and I do not think he need regard the Registrar as in any way a bogey man. He will become, I think. the friend of the trade unions. He will be intimate with them; and when things go wrong they can be straightened out amicably. The conciliation officers will not come into it at this particular stage, not as between the union and its members. Clause 63 deals with the relationship between the union and its members, and lays down standards to be observed in those relationships.
LORD SLATER: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his reply, but he used

821
the word " defective ". You can stretch that word as much as you like: it is like elastic. It seems rather strange for the noble Lord to use that word " defective " when we have already been operating as trade unions under a system of registration and up to the moment there has been no trouble at all. So how can we come into the position whereby we are going to be " defective "? The other thing is this. He talks about these other unions who have not registered: they will not be affected at all, but will be more or less carrying on as they were. That is what I understood from what he had to say.
LORD BERNSTEIN: Before the noble Lord answers that point, perhaps he will help me, because there is a thick fog around. First of all I think the comparison with the weights and measures authorities is not quite a proper one, because the animal or things which are weighed a re not human beings. We are talking about what would happen to a group of human beings. The noble Lord earlier mentioned " every organisation ". Does " every organisation " include unregistered organisations? Because, as I read it. where a union is registered, an unwelcome fellow member who has had the rules and does not like them can initiate an investigation by the Registrar. The Registrar can also initiate an investigation himself, as in the case of a registered union: but if a union is not registered, the person has his remedy before the tribunal. Unless I have misunderstood the situation it seems to me that registered unions are being exposed to more effective threats of disruption than unregistered organisations.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The organisations of workers have the choice: either they can come within the ambit of the Registrar, as a registered trade union, and accept the responsibilities and gain the advantages of a registered trade union, or they can be unregistered organisations of workers, either through cancellation of their position in the provisional register or by indicating that they do not want to be registered trade unions. They have the choice. In the latter case they will then have to comply with the guiding principles in Clause 63, but not with the rules in Schedule 4. They will still be open to complaints by their members if there are contraventions of
822
the guiding principles in Clause 63, and in that case, of course, the complainant will be able to take the complaint to the Industrial Tribunal.
LORD BERNSTEIN: So there is a difference between an unregistered trade union going before the tribunal and a registered trade union going before the Registrar.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Nobody will go before the Registrar, because the Registrar is not a court in any way. If there is a complaint to the Registrar, then he will investigate that complaint and, if necessary, he may then take the complaint either to the Industrial Court or to the Industrial Tribunal, whichever is the more suitable; or, I suppose, he can advise the member of the trade union and the member himself can take i he complaint. But the member need not take the case to the Registrar at all; he can. if he wishes (I am still talking of a member of a registered trade union) take the complaint direct to the Industrial Tribunal. In the same way, a member of an organisation of workers can only take his complaint direct to the Industrial Tribunal.
LORD BROWN: May I—
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I finish my speech?—because I have not really come to the Amendment yet. But I think probably this is what noble Lords would have wished, because I have been filling in the background to this Part of the Bill. The closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Slater, neatly brought me round to the Amendment. The difficulty about the Amendment is this. I quite understand that the word "defective " is an irritant, but the literal interpretation of " defective " is that it falls short of the requirements, either in that the rules have not provisions to cover the matters in Schedule 4 or there is a breach of the guiding principles set out in Clause 63. Now this is what is laid down in the items that the noble Lord wishes to leave out. I understand the noble Lord's attitude to this, but the curiosity of it is that to accept his Amendment would give the Registrar exactly what the noble Lord does not want him to have. It would give him a very wide discretion indeed as to making requirements for the adjustment of the rules of registered trade

823
unions. I am sure the noble Lord does not want that. I take note of his—
LORD DIAMOND: And for that reason I gave notice that I proposed to leave out Clause 73.
LORD DRUMALBYN: At the moment, with respect, we are dealing with this particular Amendment. What the noble Lord is really doing is first of all to amputate a limb and then, if he has his way, he is going to exterminate the rest of the carcase.
Perhaps I might say just one or two words in reply to the noble Lord on this, because I appreciate that he was not here the other day when we went into this matter. Inevitably, we are constantly referring to the work of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, but I mentioned here what the Donovan Commission said on the question of the rules and on the position of the Registrar, and I drew attention to paragraph 656, which said:
"The requirements as to rules … will call for more supervision on the part of the Registrar than in the past. The Registrar already advises unions informally on the drafting and re-drafting of rules, and we hope that this beneficial practice will continue."
It will. Then the Report goes on:
"The possibility exists however that disagreement may at times arise between the Registrar and a trade union as to whether its rules comply with the revised requirements of the law. We think that such disagreements should he referred for settlement by the independent review body whose establishment we propose."
The noble Lord was quite right. We went into this point on Thursday, that the review body proposed by the noble and learned Lord and his Commission is not the same as the review body proposed under this Bill. The review body in this case will be the Industrial Court, but frankly, with the assistance of the Registrar we do not think that there will be a great number of cases that will go that far. We believe that when unions know what the Registrar suggests and have deficiencies drawn to their attention, they will rectify them and carry them through their various representative organisations in the constitutional way. So we do not think that this review is likely to arise to any great extent.
824
I do not think it would be right again to debate the merits of the proposal for two trade unionists with a chairman presiding over them as compared with the Industrial Court, which is quite likely to have somebody with experience. All the members ought to have experience of trade unions ultimately, and two of them will probably have experience from the start. So I stressed the view that I did not think there was a gigantic difference. I pointed out that the touchstone is simply that we think the contents of union rules are a matter of concern to the community as a whole and not to trade unionists alone, whereas noble Lords opposite seem to think that this ought to be a matter of concern only to the trade unions. That is a difference of approach but I think one can narrow it down to that. I am afraid we could not accept these Amendments but I hope I have managed to clarify the situation.
LORD BROWN: Before the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, replies I wonder whether he will consider whether he ought to withdraw these Amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, if these Amendments were gratuitously passed it would give the Registrar an unchallenged right to assess the rules of the unions without reference to Clause 63 and Schedule 4. One of the main burdens of our speeches on this side of the Committee is that we should restrict the degree of detailed legal interference with the unions which this Bill seeks to pursue. I take Lord Drumalbyn's point that some subsequent Amendment might alter the circumstances. If, as a manoeuvre, the Government were to accept these Amendments and subsequently we did not get the other Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has in mind, then we should have increased the possibility of detailed interference with the rules of the unions as a result of passing these Amendments. I think this is the wrong way of pursuing our objective. I hope he will consider this point.
LORD SLATER: As to asking the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to withdraw these Amendments, I should like to bring to the notice of the House that the rules of the union are drafted with the cooperation of the legal profession. It is not the membership alone but the advice they receive in the first place from the

825
legal profession which assists them to do the job.
LORD BROWN: I did not understand the point which the noble Lord was driving at. I do not think he was speaking to these Amendments at all during his rather long speech, and I am still puzzled. I have completed what I was going to say and will now sit down.
LORD TANGLEY: I have intervened very little in the debates in this Committee, and then usually " agin the Government ". Indeed, I had the unprecedented pleasure the other night of bringing joy to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Champion—a thing I never hoped to do. But on this occasion I should like to appeal to the Opposition. I believe that their attitude to this clause is quite unduly suspicious and does not take sufficient account of the necessity for dealing with trade union rules. While I was sitting on the Donovan Commission I spent many weary days and nights and weekends in reading the rules of a great number of trade unions. There are many distinguished trade union leaders on the Opposition Benches here who know the rules of their own union pretty well and rather assume that other unions are in as good a state. The result of all my reading was to leave a melancholy picture in my mind.. There are very many unions whose rules urgently need rationalisation and modernisation and their leaders know perfectly well that the machinery for altering the rules within the union is so complicated that they have little hope of bringing those rules up to date, quite apart from the requirements of the public interest.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: May I ask a question? Is the machinery for changing the rules so complicated? It is demanded by law that every five years the rules shall be reviewed, and the executive council has the power to deal with it. There may be difficulties in dealing with the rules, but there are no complications.
LORD TANGLEY: I say without fear of challenge that there are many union leaders who know quite well that it is impracticable, through the efforts of the union themselves, to get the rules rationalised and brought up to date. Those very leaders, when the dust of this controversy has settled, will be very relieved
826
that there is the liability to have a little friendly nudge from the Registrar of trade unions which will enable them to go to their members and say, " Put your own rules in order or else we shall be in difficulty with the Registrar ". I believe that trade union leaders will live to bless this clause and I think they are very ill advised to oppose it.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It seems a very peculiar argument, particularly the argument just advanced by the noble Lord, and I should like to follow the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, on the complication of the machinery to change rules. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, may have some instances in his mind about trade union complicated machinery, but that must be in a minority of cases. We should be very interested indeed if the noble Lord would highlight the type of unions in which he says that there is complicated machinery to change the rules. He says it is difficult for a leader of a trade union to change the rules. If this clause is adopted as it is, what change will take place regarding the ability of unions to get a change of rules? Will it be dependent on the Registrar, or on the union rules or machinery they have now for changes to be recommended by any of their members or branches or the executive and for those recommendations to go to the five-yearly or the two-yearly rules revision meeting? Will there be any change in that particular direction? That is the position now.
I cannot see what change will take place except that instead of the rules being drafted and agreed upon by the men who are actually engaged in the project there will be a legal definition attached to it. We accept that, but I think we are entitled to ask why there should be this change. Where is the big upsurge of union indiscipline or anything like that which warrants such a radical change from the voluntary system to the legal system. The Committee are entitled to know why, after the test of a hundred years experience, this radical change can be justified. It is no use saying that it is better that it should be legally binding. In what way? The trade union movement feels extremely unhappy about this.
When we turn, as we shall do later on, to the suggestions made in Schedule 4, I wonder what justification there is for

827
occupying so much Parliamentary time with so many innocuous things that are already accepted by the present Registrar of Friendly Societies in the registration of trade unions. Why make all these changes? Why ultimately bring about two separate organisations—trade unions which are registered and accept the full implications of the Bill, and those which do not? As my noble friend Lord Cooper of Stockton Heath indicated only last week, this is a sort of blackmail which, by means of giving privileges, especially tax concessions, will operate to compel trade unions to register. Many unions, with this in mind, will have to accept this clause in the interests of the shillings paid by the union members in dues, which they do not want to see dissipated.
Then there are the unregistered trade unions. At the moment they are registered bodies of workers and it is difficult to know what definition will be given to these unions. Will they be able to negotiate with the employers and register agreements, even though they do not have the force of law? If they called a strike, would they be subjected to the compensation clause of the Bill? This seems a complete anachronism. I think that we should reject this clause as a whole. The trade union movement and the employers are quite capable of working on a voluntary system and organising industrial relations with the least possible disturbance. In addition to explaining this clause, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, should say why it is so necessary to change customs and traditions which we have had for so long.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I may, I will reply to the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, straight away. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, gave the complete answer before the noble Lord spoke. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, made it clear that while there arc trade unions which have good rules, there are others whose rules fall far short of what they should be. This is exactly what the Donovan Report says in the very first sentence on trade union rules. It says:
" We have said that it is very desirable that trade union rule books should be clear and
828
unambiguous and that they generally fall far short of a satisfactory standard in these respects."
What more justification do we want for doing something about this? But we are not arguing at the present time that something should be done. As I understand the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, we are arguing on the way in which it should be done, and obviously we differ.
LORD DIAMOND: We differ fundamentally and profoundly, and it is my view that the Government are acting extremely unwisely in saying that they are going to impose their view in a whole hog manner, when they could get a good deal of what they want in improvement if they would be a little less autocratic and conceited about their knowledge of trade unions, and listen to those who have enormous experience, and also to those who have spent three years investigating the matter and giving us a valuable report. Before I come to deal with the helpful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, I am compelled to deal with the challenge which the noble Lord threw out on the unwisdom of putting down Amendments. The noble Lord is wasting the time of the Committee in issuing the challenge and having me answer it, because he knows as well as I do that the difficulties of an Opposition are very great. If we want to draw attention to individual points all we can do is to put. down Amendments about them. That is the way we proceed. And if we want to make clear our general attitude there is a facility, which does not exist in another place, of drawing attention to our view about the clause as a whole. That is the simple reason for doing what we did, and I am sorry that the noble Lord thought that it was worth making a point on this.
LORD TANGLEY: May I interrupt and say that if I had made that point I think it would have been a bad one. I did not make it.
LORD DIAMOND: And if I had said that the noble Lord had made it, I would have been totally in error. I was talking about the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
LORD TANGLEY: I am sorry. The noble Lord shifted target without my noticing it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I interrupt only to say that it is normal to state what the effects are of Amendments taken together. I hope that I had done no more than ask for that. I did not mean to be discourteous.
LORD DIAMOND: I was not complaining about discourtesy. The point is a different one. Having got the procedural point out of the way, may I now come to the substance of the matter.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: While still on the procedural point, I do not think that the noble Lord has made it clear why these Amendments are down on the Marshalled List. He has just said that we have a method in this House of dealing with these major points on the Question, whether the clause stand part. Why then put these Amendments which, if passed, could not possibly do anything which the noble Lord wants? What is the point of discussing them separately, when every point he has raised could have been discussed on the Question, Whether the clause stand part?
LORD DIAMOND: If your Lordships wish me to take up the time of the Committee, which I have been trying very hard to avoid doing, I will explain in detail why each one of these Amendments was separately necessary and what the total effect might have been. The total effect, coupled with other Amendments about the review body and the powers of the Registrar, might have been perfectly satisfactory, and with the benefit of other Amendments we might have returned to exactly the Donovan position. That is the short answer to the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches who intervened. If he wants justification for each individual Amendment separately I shall give it, but I should have thought it was taking up the time of the Committee unnecessarily.
LORD SHINWELL: If my noble friend wants an answer, I shall give him one. Take not the slightest note of the Liberal Party.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: The noble Lord Diamond has sat down—
LORD DIAMOND: I have not given way. I was going to say that I expect the noble Lord is conscious of the fact that it is not my desire to spend too much time on these Amendments.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I am well aware that it is not, but I still do not see why we have spent any time on them at all. If the noble Lord had explained with what other Amendments we could have returned to the position of the Donovan Commission, some of us might have been eager to support him. Some of us might have seen the point of his moving the Amendments. As he has not explained that, we have not.
LORD DIAMOND: I must reconcile myself to the fact that in the forthcoming Division I am not going to get the support of the noble Lord or of all the other noble Lords who are sitting with him.
May I turn to the substance of the matter and, in particular, to what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said? I hope I was interpreting correctly, in the first place what the Royal Commission said. I do not make a great deal of this point, but I was not aware that there was an objection by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley on this part of the recommendations of the Royal Commission therefore I thought I was supporting entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, had said, namely, that there was a case for strengthening the review of rules of certain unions. We are dealing with such a large body of unions that what anybody says can be correct about individual unions. There are so many very small unions that I would not attempt to lay down categorically whether their rules are wholly satisfactory or wholly unsatisfactory. There are over 1,000 of them, I believe, and some are extremely small indeed. So I am sure we can quite accurately make comments about the state of some of the rules.
But the general view of the Royal Commission was that:
"The requirements as to the rules of registered trade unions will henceforth be rather more extensive and will call for more supervision on the part of the registrar than in the past."
That I accept. I accept it, and I was seeking to assist the Government to enable it to be done. The Commission very wisely said that there is one way of doing it and that is to continue the healthy practice which has existed in the past of trade unions consulting the Registrar as a friend and getting his advice and, where there was difficulty with the Registrar and

831
where the Registrar needed a little help for doing exactly the thing which the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said should be done, having an independent body. I hope Lord Tangley appreciates that what I am debating with him now is not the principle but how to give effect to it; how not to go too far and lose out completely but instead to go in gentle stages and make considerable progress. And the way to progress was pointed out by the Royal Commission, of which the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, was a most distinguished member. What they said was —putting it in round terms—to continue the wise course of treating the Registrar as a friend. Do not do anything that puts him in the opposite camp; treat him as a friend. Consult him, and where there is difficulty have an independent review body which is—and I now use these words deliberately—" one of us; not one of them ", a review body consisting of trade unionists but helped, co-ordinated, clarified and directed by having a lawyer chairman. It could even have been the noble Lord Tangley himself, and he would have been very acceptable all round I am sure. That is what the Royal Commission said and I am bound to repeat that I have not noticed anywhere a Minority Report by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, on that part of the Royal Commission's views. That is what I am putting to the Government. That is the sensible way to go about it.
I go further and I take completely Lord Tangley's point—everyone with experience of government does—that there are times when bodies need to be helped out of their difficulties by the Government taking the responsibility on to itself. I recognise that, and the bodies in question will be grateful at the end of the day. I recognise that, too. But the question is, what is the best way to go about doing that? I have already detailed it and would bore your Lordships'
House by repeating it. The best way to go about it is the way suggested by the Royal Commission. My regret is that the Government are going completely in the opposite direction. It is turning " us " into " them ", and all of us who know that these human relationships are deeply psychological know what an important and foolish step that is. The Registrar is being turned from a friend into somebody else. I think it was my noble friend Lord Bernstein who used the words " appeared before the Registrar ", and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, picked it up as if it were an incorrect expression. Technically, legally, at the Bar it is incorrect, but in terms of human relations and the understanding that everybody has of what the Registrar is going to be under this Bill it is very correct and very illuminating, and the Government ought to think about it. The Registrar is being turned into one of " them " and the body that is going to help the Registrar. instead of being one of us, namely, trade unionists with a lawyer chairman, is being turned into yet another legal body with one trade unionist out of three.
Now, with respect, every unionist will laugh when you say that that is a trade unionist body. Every trade union officer of great experience knows what happens. So I am saying to the Government that they are going wholly against the reconmendations of Donovan which a wise Government would seek to meet. The noble Lord opposite is closing his mind, too. He has not moved one inch over the weekend since the last debate, and we are bound, therefore, to show our views about this blindness of the way to achieve what we all wish to achieve, in the Division Lobby.
6.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 263F) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58;Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Champion, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Bacon, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Henderson, L.

Balogh, L.

Collison, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Bernstein, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Jacques, L.

Beswick, L.

Diamond, L.

Kennet, L.

Blyton, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Leatherland, L.

Brockway, L.

Energlyn, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lindgren, L.

Burntwood, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Longford, E.

Rusholme, L.

Sorensen, L.

McLeavy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Maelor, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Moyle, L.

Serota, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Shackleton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Pargiter, L.

Shepherd, L.

Walston, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Shinwell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Popplewell, L.

Slater, L.

Williamson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Snow, L.

Willis, L.

Royle, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Mancroft, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Essex, E.

Milverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Balerno, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L. [Teller.]

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Northchurch, Bs.

Beauchamp, E.

Gray, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Oakshott, L.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

Powis, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hacking, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Boston, L.

Hailes, L.

Rockley, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

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

Rothermere, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Rothes, E.

Burton, L.

Hankey, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Chandos, V.

Hanworth, V.

St. Helens, L.

Clinton, L.

Hawke, L.

St. Just, L.

Clwyd, L.

Henley, L.

Selkirk, E.

Coleridge, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Somers, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strang, L.

Courtown, E.

Jessel, L.

Stranae of Knokin, Bs.

Cowley, E.

Kemsley, V.

Suffield, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Tangley, L.

Crathorne, I,.

Kilmarnock, L.

Teviot, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale. E.

Teynham, L.

Denham, L.

Loudoun, C.

Thorneycroft, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dudley, E.

Lyell, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Dundee, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Willingdon, M.

Ebbisham, L.

McFadzean, L.

Windlesham, L.

Eccles, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Wolverton, L.

Effingham, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.17 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment. No. 263NNN:
Page 58, line 11, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to leave out subsection (5) of Clause 73 with a view to inserting the subsection in an amended form as a new clause after Clause 91. Noble Lords will see that subsection (5) says:
"For the purpose of enabling an organisation to alter its rules so as to comply with the requirements of a notice served … the governing body of the organisation shall have power, notwithstanding anything in its rules, to convene and hold general meetings of the organisation at any time."
The subsection, as drafted, does not cover all the situations in which an organisa-
834
tion might seek to change its rules to comply with the provisions for registration, and it would not apply to organisations on the provisional register.
The general meeting of an organisation is not always the body with power to change the rules. Many organisations have special bodies for this purpose. Some organisations have rules to limit or prevent successive attempts to change rules and rules of meetings, or to require a specified period to elapse before a proposed change may be reconsidered. As at present drafted, the subsection can be read as giving an organisation power to ignore any requirements relating to procedures for changing rules, and not only those relating to the calling of meetings as was intended. It is not intended, of course, to give them power to ignore any requirements relating to procedures for

835
changing rules, but only those relating to the calling of meetings. I hope that that is an adequate explanation of the reason for leaving out this subsection. We shall of course come to the new clause in due course. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 73, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: We cannot let this clause go, because it is unwise: unwise in terms of good government, and offensive to the unions. I gave the reasons on the earlier Amendments why I think that this is so. If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wishes to debate the matter further, I am at his service. So far as I am concerned I have now been able to

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Effingham, E.

Mancroft, L.

Auckland, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Balfour, E.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Northchurch, Bs.

Beauchamp, E.

Gray, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenway, L.

Oakshott, L.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

Powis, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hacking, L.

Rochester, L.Bp.

Boston, L.

Hailes, L.

Rockley, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

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

Rothermere, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Rothes, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hankey, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Burton, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Helens, L.

Chandos, V.

Hatherton, L.

St. Just, L.

Clinton, L.

Hawke, L.

Selkirk, E.

Clwyd, L.

Henley, L.

Somers, L.

Coleridge, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Stamp, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strang, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cottesloe, L.

Jessel, L.

Suffield, L.

Courtown, E.

Kemsley, V.

Teviot, L.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Teynham, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Windlesham, L.

Dudley, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dundee, E.

McFadzean, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Burntwood, L.

Henderson, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Champion, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Balogh, L.

Collison, L.

Jacques, L.

Bernstein, L.

Diamond, L.

Kennet, L.

Beswick, L.

Energlyn, L.

Leatherland, L.

Blyton, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Brown, L.

Gardiner, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Longford, E

read what he said on an earlier occasion when similar points were touched on, and we have exchanged views this afternoon, and I am satisfied that the Government are not opening their eyes or their mind to what the needs of the situation are and to the method by which improvement could take place. The result of pushing far too hard in a far too legalistic way in an unsympathetic surrounding is to drive off the object we are seeking to achieve. I therefore think all we need do now is to register our total disapproval of this clause by voting against it.
6.21 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 73. as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97;
Not-Contents, 49.

Maelor, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Moyle, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Shackleton, L.

Tayside, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Shinwell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Popplewell, L.

Slater, L.

Williamson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Snow, L.

Willis, L.

Royle, L.

Sorensen, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs

Rusholme, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 73, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
Schedule 4 [Requirements as to rules of trade unions and employers' associations]:
6.30 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263K:
Page 141, line 26, leave out paragraph 1.
The noble Lord said: I think it would be convenient if we could take the following two Amendments together with this one, Nos. 263L and 263M, which make it a more tidy debate. We are now on to the Schedule which specifies the details of the rules of the trade unions and employers' associations which we were considering in general principle under the last clause. One of a group of Amendments which was discussed was an Amendment to leave out this Schedule. Our objections to the Schedule are to the intervention of the Registrar in an excessively detailed way. When I say " excessively ", I mean excessively in relation to the recommendation of the Donovan Commission which went into this question with great care. They recommended that trade union rules should cover certain matters. If the matter had been left there we could have made real progress—specifying not what the rules ought to provide, but just the headings of the rules, the matters which the rules ought to cover. We could have left that in a few words, and the Donovan Report dealt with it in a very few words. That is the first objection: that instead of following along the recommendation of the Donovan Commission and merely dealing with matters which ought to be covered by the rules, and leaving the unions the freedom as recommended by Donovan, to frame their own rules to suit their own circumstances, there is all this detailed paraphernalia. There are several pages of it, 25 paragraphs of specific detail, under which the rules must specify this and must specify the other.
We are opposed to this Schedule and these detailed provisions on that score; and we are also opposed to them because they give excessive power to the Registrar, and to the court behind the Registrar, to impose rules on a body which is entitled, within reason, to make its own rules to fit its own circumstances. It is a free association of human beings for a common purpose, and broadly they ought to be allowed to make their own rules to fit their own circumstances. This is a simple and fundamental liberty, and to the extent that public high policy in any way impinges on that, and requires rules to cover certain points, there would be no difficulty about including that freedom, provided that where disputes arise they can be settled by those who understand and are of the trade union movement. Paragraph I says:
"… the rules of a trade union or an employers' association must comply with the requirements set out in this Schedule."
We object to that. It would be much less objectionable, although not wholly satisfactory, if, instead of saying that, we left it as Donovan said, that the rules of a trade union or employers' association should be framed to cover the various matters which it goes on to describe. There would have then been left out the words at the start of paragraph 2:
"The rules must specify …"
If the first Amendment (as I suspect it is) is unacceptable to the Government, then the three Amendments together would give a framework to the kind of philosophy which Donovan proposed, and which I am recommending to the Government.
It is perfectly true that if for every Amendment an Opposition puts down it were then to put down all the consequential Amendments running throughout the Bill to make it a consistent whole, this Marshalled List of Amendments would not be, as it is at present, 28 pages long,. but would be nearer 280 pages long. Therefore we did not think it right to take our own time, the time of the

839
printers, or put the burden on the Committee of making consequential Amendments, either in substance or words, throughout the Bill. It is open to anybody who wishes to do so to say that these Amendments, taken by themselves, will not make a tidy whole if you follow the whole thing through. I thought I would take the opportunity of explaining to the Committee why we thought it right not to inflict this extra burden on your Lordships and on the printers. The first three Amendments to which I have referred hang together. I therefore move the first Amendment formally.
6.35 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The Donovan Commission used the words " set out ". It said: " set out the subjects to be covered by the rules ". The noble Lord takes exception to the word " specified Sometimes I think he removes " specified " and says, " make provision for ". His main Amendment is to leave out the whole of the first paragraph. The second one is to say that the rules,
" shall be framed to cover the matters"
When you have matters of this description, some of them may be covered by " specified ". One could have said:
"The rules must give the name of the organisation, the address of its principal office, and the objects for which it was established."
We are again in the realms of semantics to a large extent. The noble Lord feels that he is being held too tightly down by a particular word. Plainly there are certain things that have to be specified, that have to be given precisely. In other cases it is a matter of making provision for this and that; that is what the Schedule does. Where something has to be specified it has to be given precisely. It could be given in any words that anybody likes to use provided that the words are clear and unambiguous.
Where provision has to be made for this and that the rules can be written exactly as the trade unions want to write them. It is left to the trade union to write their rules as they wish, provided they cover these matters. The noble Lord's phrase, " to cover the matters " is less precise, and it is better to make it quite clear that these are matters with
840
which the rules of a trade union or an employers' association must comply. In other words, certain things have to be specified; the other things have to be covered in the rules. They do not have to be covered in any particular way but, nevertheless, they have to be covered.
The noble Lord did himself rather less than justice in saying that he had not necessarily followed through all his Amendments. Certainly I agree that it is quite reasonable for an Opposition merely to indicate the Amendments they want to make and leave consequential Amendments to be dealt with by the Government, if they are accepted. I believe I understand what he is after in these Amendments because I have put down what his first Amendments, Nos. 263L to S would do. They would wipe out the whole of the paragraph and the Bill would read in this way:
" Subject to paragraph 24 of this Schedule, the rules of a trade union shall he framed to cover the matters set out in this Schedule:

(a) the name of the organisation, the address of its principal office, and the objects for which it was established and whether the organisation has branches,

(b) the election or appointment and removal of a governing body by whatever name and offices and officials".

I think it ought to be, " officers and officials ". That cuts out everything from paragraph 1 to paragraph 7. That is perfectly comprehensible. That is roughly what the 1871 Act provides, and he is taking us right back a century; whereas the point is that, in order for the Registrar to carry out the functions that we have laid upon him in Clause 73, he must know things specifically. It is no use asking him to investigate unless he knows where the branches are, how many branches there are, and so on. So these matters are in a sense consequential to the duties we have already laid on the Registrar.
There are various ways of doing things. So long as it is quite clear what unions have to do in this regard, I should have thought that Parliament would be achieving its objective. So the Registrar will then be able to carry out his duties, and the unions will be able to comply with their general duty, and the rules will be clear to all concerned—members, outsiders, the Registrar, and for that matter the Government.
6.41 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: Why does the noble Lord persist in repeating that the unions can frame their own rules? He has said this over and over again, ad nauseam, and I am getting just a little tired of it. I have listened to some of the debate this afternoon and this has been the piece de resistance of the Government's philosophy. Let us examine this. If one looks closely at the Schedule under review, one discovers that the unions are specifically, rigidly, with the iron heel, told what kind of rules will satisfy the Registrar. I challenge contradiction on this. If necessary, if it will satisfy noble Lords, I will read out, the whole of the Schedule; but presumably they have read it themselves.
A body of people come together. They are trade unionists they seek to form a union and they are engaged in the process of framing their rules. They have a discussion: they have to establish the name of the organisation, to decide how their officers are to be elected, how far the executive, the supreme body, will control the activities of the branches. They have to decide this, that and the other. This is all covered in the Schedule. It is all there, plain for anyone to see what the Registrar will expect from the union in framing its rules. It may well be that a body of trade unionists come together for the purpose of framing their rules and decide on a certain course of action. The Registrar will expunge every single item with which he appears dissatisfied. What happens then? What is the appeal against the Registrar? I should like to be corrected if I happen to be wrong, but so far as I know there is no appeal against the Registrar's decision. If the union is dissatisfied with the decision of the Registrar about the compilation and temper of the rules, it has no redress whatever. It cannot go to the Commission on Industrial Relations—or can it? If it can, I am open to correction.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I draw the noble Lord's attention to subsection (3)(b) of Clause 74. The subsection says that where
" the registrar has not approved the rules, the trade union or employers' association may apply to the Industrial Court for an order—

(a) allowing it a further period for altering its rules …

842

(b) directing the registrar to approve the rules as already submitted to him ".

So the Registrar can be overruled.
LORD SHINWELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for correcting my apparently erroneous impression. But what does that mean, anyhow? The union must go through the process of applying to the Industrial Court. This means procrastination. How long is it going to take a union to frame its rules, faced with a Registrar who may, be difficult and with an Industrial Court even more difficult than the Registrar? Reference has been made in the course of our deliberations to the Government's philosophy of hamstringing the unions, tying them down, putting shackles on them. This is exactly what is happening. Indeed, in spite of the protestations of members of the Government, including in his very courteous fashion, in somewhat muted tones occasionally, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn (because the last thing I would accuse him of is any discourtesy in your Lordships' House), one gathers the impression that the Government want to tie the unions down. No nonsense from the unions any longer! Is that the game that is being played? And what do the Government think is going to happen in consequence? That the unions are going to take that lying down? In point of fact, the situation will be an impossible one for any leader of a trade union. I can imagine what the rank and file will say. Talk about suppressing militancy—this encourages militancy! I am bound to say that if I were a member of a trade union and had to face conduct of this kind on the part of the Government—faced with a Registrar; faced with going to the Industrial Court; faced with this and that, not knowing where to turn—I should decide to have nothing more to do with trade unionism at all and would join the philosophical anarchists. That would be the only alternative, much as I should dislike doing that because it would not accord with my temperament at all.
I am surprised that your Lordships allow this sort of thing to go any further. I can understand the need for a Registrar. We have had registration of unions ever since I can remember. It may surprise your Lordships to know that way back

843
in the years 1911 and 1912 I was involved in a rumpus about the registration of a union. It was the National Seamen's and Firemen's Union, which was not a registered union. I had a partial association with that union and then left to join another union; and it was necessary to take legal action, only to discover that because the National Seamen's and Firemen's Union was not registered it had no power to sue us. We could sue it but it could not sue us—which was a very desirable situation for us. So I have some acquaintance with registration. I do not object to registration. Indeed, I said in the course of one of our debates (I think it was last Thursday) that I believed that the unions, generally speaking, will favour registration. If I had anything to do with the union, I would agree about that. But in the circumstances proposed, there is all this pallaver, this pabulum, this leading to procrastination, this tying the unions down hand and foot. I shall be surprised if the unions put up with it.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is not paying the slightest attention to me; his time is occupied by another member of the Government. However, now that he is devoting part of his attention to me, I would beg of him to give this matter further consideration; just see where we are leading to. Although I do not want to indulge in parentheses unduly, it occurs to me to wonder what happens when we go into the Common Market. What is going to happen with this industrial relations business? Are we going to conform to the diktats of M. Pompidou? Are the unions all going to talk French when we go to the Registrar? Is this the sort of thing that will happen? I am very worried about this situation, although the last thing I want to do is to impinge on the time of your Lordships by discussing the Common Market. Nevertheless, I am wondering what is going to happen to this Industrial Relations Bill if it ever becomes an Act of Parliament. In these circumstances, I would beg of my noble friends on the Front Bench to fight this tooth and nail, and if they do I will support them up to the hilt.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I see that in Schedule 4 to the Bill eleven of the para-
844
graphs commence with the words, " The rules must specify …"; six paragraphs say, " The rules must make provision …"—that is 17 paragraphs out of the 25 in the Schedule, and this is a free trade union movement, to which the noble Lord constantly refers. Of course this is not a trade union: this is the qualification of a State licence to allow an organised group of workpeople to band together and if they do not conform to these conditions—" these must specify ", " these must make provision "—a State licence will not even be issued to them. They will just have to be a rabble, an unorganised body of workers, not registered, and what their name will be I do not know.
Of 16 Amendments, only 3 deal with certain narrow points. It is not at all to be wondered at that with 16 Amendments tabled to deal with these particular rules, to allow the State licensed unions to practise, this will not be the only thing to which they will have to conform. They will have to conform to a number of unfair practices contained in other parts of the Bill before they can obtain the State licence to practise.
As I have said before, there is no democratic basis in the mind of the Government in regard to the trade unions of the future. There will be either Communist or Fascist rule. The trade unions will have to observe what an ideological group of people, who know nothing at all about industrial relations, decide is best for them, and the people within industry who are knowledgeable will have to conform to that ideological approach which is totally irrelevant and not calculated to improve industrial relations.
LORD BROWN: I would agree with the necessity for some rulings to be in existence to ensure that all trade unions were able to conduct their affairs in an orderly manner, but this Schedule goes much too far. The Government would have been so much wiser, if instead of laying down a Schedule which contains, for example,
" the rules must specify a reasonable charge to be made for the supply of copies of the rules in accordance with Section 86(5) of this Act "—
that is really going into enormous detail—the Schedule were to be obliterated and a simple clause put into the Bill, giving

845
power to the T.U.C. to draw up such regulations with reference to the rule books of unions as the T.U.C. felt necessary. In that case one would have had a degree of self-regulation which is completely lacking under this Bill and the degree of detail which is exhibited in Schedule 4.
LORD DIAMOND: Does the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wish to speak before I do?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not know that there is a great deal for me to add.
LORD DIAMOND: I did not invite the noble Lord to speak, but I did not want to stop him from getting up.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I was merely going to say to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, in regard to the charge to be specified, that a lot of these rules merely follow out what is already contained in the 1871 Act, in which the charge is actually specified. Here we leave the unions latitude to charge what they like for copies of the rules. But the general point surely is simply that this is really a check list for the rules, to show what the rules must contain. In my view it is done with exceptional clarity and that is what is desired by everyone. I do not think that anything here would be left out of the rules by anyone who wanted to work efficiently and in accordance with natural justice. I would have thought that these ought to be quite acceptable, and I would challenge anybody to do it better.
LORD BROWN: They may be utterly reasonable and utterly proper, but the job could so easily have been done by a body like the T.U.C., which after all is the co-ordinating body of the trade unions and that course would have been psychologically so much wiser on the part of the Government. Psychologically this is a serious blunder that will damage the intentions of the Bill because it has been done in a thoroughly ham-handed way.
LORD BERNSTEIN: In the early days of the Second Reading debate on this Bill noble Lords on the other side of the Committee compared this Bill with the Companies Act. Why did the Government allow the Stock Exchange to have
846
rules and the Take-Over Panel to have rules which are not in the Companies Act?
A NOBLE LORD: Answer!
6.55 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: Perhaps the noble Lord takes the view, which is not unreasonable, that one collective answer is perhaps better than a number of detailed answers to each individual speech. I listened carefully to what he said earlier, and I am sorry to say we are making no progress at all. The noble Lord really does not seek to answer the argument. Where we say two things are different he says they are the same. If he keeps on saying that they are the same then at the Report stage we will put in everything that we propose on the grounds that they are the same as the Government are proposing, and there can be no argument. But of course the noble Lord knows as well as I do that they are very different. What he says is the likely course of events is, with the greatest possible respect. no more important than what I say. Both statements are completely irrelevant when we are considering what is to go into a Bill. The difference arises because, as one of my noble friends pointed out very clearly, there were six or eight references to " specify " alone.
If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. will be good enough to look at paragraph 648 of the report of the Royal Commission he will see that it is demonstrated that the current requirements as to the rules of a registered trade union are that they should contain provisions in respect of certain matters, which are listed. In the summary the Commission covers it even more shortly, although a summary is not perhaps completely reliable. I am reading from paragraph 1071.
" The revised requirements suggested relate to admissions, discipline, disputes between a union and a member, elections and shop stewards ".
If the Bill contained a clause saying that this is what these rules ought to cover I do not suppose there would be a great deal of difficulty about it, but what the noble Lord is refusing to recognise is that he is introducing a Schedule of some 25 paragraphs, each one of which lays down in detail, to which he himself has referred, the rules which the organisation must make. and most of which refer to

847
it in totally unnecessary and offensive detail. He is not getting the cooperation of the unions, which I should have thought he would want to seek, in pushing detailed rules and rule-making arrangements down their throats.
He could justify it if he were to say, as he did nearly say on the earlier stage—and I will quote what he actually said at column 601 on May 20. What the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn then said was:
"Our view is that the trade unions are bodies with immense responsibility; they have risen from small beginnings to immense power, and power carries with it responsibility. Power can be abused, and it is the responsibility of the community, to the individual, to ensure that the power is not abused."
That is absolutely right. If the noble Lord's argument is that the rules are inadequate to prevent power being abused and powerful unions are guilty of abuse, so therefore the rules should be much more detailed and should be specified in 25 paragraphs and there should be a Registrar with powers and with an Industrial Court to back him up—if that is what he is saying, then I am bound to ask on what evidence is he saying there is abuse, which is the sole link in his argument, and where is the abuse? Donovan says it does not exist. If the Government say that it does, let them show us where it exists; let them tell us which union is involved, and in what way it has abused its power so that it can no longer be relied upon to make its own rules and to run its own affairs in a responsible way, but has to have rules drawn up for it in full detail, 20 paragraphs long.
That is what I am putting to the noble Lord. If he wants me to read out again that Donovan says there is no abuse, or none that needs to be taken into account, I will do so—it is somewhere in the Report. But Donovan makes it quite clear that, having inquired among 500 individual trade unionists to see whether there was any abuse, the answer came back that out of 500 there were four disgruntled members, two of whom complained—and I am relying on my
memory here—that there had not been enough people in the branch when a decision was taken. That we can all sympathise with, but that is a different issue. Two of the others had a real complaint, out of 500. If you ask me whether there are other places where power is abused to the extent of two out of 500, I would say " yes ". The House of Commons, in a recent example, is one such, and I would say that what the Government are doing here to-day and every day with this Bill, ignoring our arguments, not listening, not taking any steps to meet us at all—that is another way in which power is being abused. Those are two good examples which occur to me immediately.
All I am saying is that the unions are made up of power-seeking men and women: that is life. But there is no justification or evidence for degrading the unions into bodies of people which must have rules made for them and thrust down their throats whether they like them or not. And that is the essence of our case. The Government can meet us by saying for example: " We will scrap the Schedule and we will put in one short paragraph copied directly out of Donovan ". That would be a great step forward, and that would help enormously. Of course it would not specify in detail what each little rule would be. It would not say how much would have to be charged for a book of rules, for example, and it would not say how the problem of inflation under the present Government would be dealt with, because the price to-day would not be the price that would be effective in three months' time. Bearing in mind also that it takes most unions three years to alter their rules, I do not know how one would cope with that. It is another ridiculous example of excessive interference with the liberty of responsible people that we wholly object to; and we are going to vote on it.
7.5 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 263K) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 44; Not-Contents, 97.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

Rusholme, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Diamond, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

St. Davids, V.

Energlyn, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shackleton, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller]

Shinwell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Slater, L.

Gardiner, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Garnswoi thy, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Henderson, L.

Milners of Leeds, L.

Tayside, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Plummer, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hughes, L.

Popplewell, L.

Willis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Mountevans, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balerno, L.

Effingham, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fortescue, E.

Oakshott, L.

Barnby, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Beauciiamp, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Powis, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

Reay, L.

Boston, L.

Greenway, L.

Rockley, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rothermere, V.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rothes, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hailes, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Burton, L.

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

St. Helens, L.

Chandos, V.

St. Just, L.

Clinton, L.

Hankey, L.

Sandford, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hanworth, V.

Selkirk, E.

Coleridge, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Somers, L.

Colyton, L.

Hawke, L.

Stamp, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strang, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal)

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cottesloe, L.

Jessel, L.

Sudeley, L.

Courtown, E.

Kemsley, V.

Suffield, L.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Teviot, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Teynham, L.

Crathorne, L.

Latymer, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

Den ham, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Wade, L.

Derwent, L.

McFadzean, L.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wolverton, L.

Dudley, E.

Milverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think it would be for the convenience of noble Lords if we adjourned now for the Scottish busim,ss. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and on Question. Motion agreed to.

REDEMPTION OF STANDARD SECURITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.12 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This four-clause Bill seeks to amend the
850
Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act which passed through this House only 12 months ago. It was considered in the period immediately before the General Election and because there was general recognition that it was an important and necessary piece of legislation it was hurried through with speed. It is perhaps for this reason that we failed to predict accurately the full impact of the then Bill on industrial and commercial lending in Scotland, and that the Act now stands before us again for amendment. This short amending Bill, which was supported by the Opposition in another place, seeks to overcome urgently difficulties which have arisen in the practical operation of the Act. Apart from the Second Reading, all stages were taken formally in another place.

851
One of the major reforms embodied in the 1970 Act was the creation of a new form of heritable security—the standard security—which, with effect from November 29, 1970, replaced all other methods of securing loans over heritable property in Scotland. The provisions of the Act before you to-day for amendment are those contained in Section 11(3), Section 18(1), and standard condition 11(1) in Schedule 3. The effect of these provisions, taken together, is to confer upon the debtor in every standard security an absolute statutory right to redeem the security on giving the creditor two months' notice of his intention to do so. This right cannot be varied, and it is impossible for either party in the security to contract out of it.
The inflexibility of these provisions has had unhappy results for the flow of capital into Scottish commerce and industry. Many industrial lenders rely heavily for the successful management of their affairs on an ability to negotiate fixed term loans with people who borrow from them: these are loans in which the borrower will not make repayment before a fixed time, the lender thus being assured of income by way of interest on the loan at a fixed rate over a fixed period. Under the provisions of the 1970 Act the lender has now to guarantee that this income will not suddenly cease when borrowers, who may perhaps have found cheaper rates of interest elsewhere, redeem their loans at short notice. In these circumstances, industrial lenders are extremely reluctant to lend at all on the basis of a standard security and a disturbing number of Scottish firms are prevented from obtaining the long-term finance on which they depend. This fact has been brought home to us in pressing representations from all sides of Scottish industry and commerce—lenders and borrowers alike—from the legal profession and from Members of Parliament. They stress that commercial lending has ground almost to a halt, at a time when credit is vital to Scotland's survival as a competitive trading nation. There are two particularly serious aspects of this crisis. First, its harshest impact is on the small firms, including one-man businesses, who cannot afford to wait for their credit or look to other sources. Secondly, it handicaps Scottish firms in competition for credit with their English
852
counterparts, for in England, I regret to say, there is no such rigid restriction on the making of agreement on fixed-term loans. All these considerations have led the Government to act and to act quickly. The Bill now before the House is brief, but I think it is effective.
I should like to turn now to its provisions, which of course have to be read with the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970. Clause 1 makes a number of detailed amendments to the provisions of the 1970 Act which relate to redemption of the standard security. The key amendments are those to Section 11(3), Section 18(1) and standard condition 11(1) in Schedule 3. These amendments all hang together; and the core of the change which we are seeking to make lies in Clause 1(c), which provides for a new Section 18(1A): the new Section 18(1A) would have the effect of making the debtor's right to redeem at two months' notice subject to any agreement to the contrary. Such an agreement could be made either when the security was granted in the first place or at any time subsequently. The other provisions of Clause 1 are consequential on the fundamental change effected by the key provisions to which I have referred.
Clause 2 deals with the operation in Scotland of Section 89 of the Companies Act 1948. That section made lawful, among other things, the creation of debentures in a form which made them irredeemable securities. Since such debentures can be heritable securities, the 1970 Act might have been considered to be in conflict with the provisions enacted by Parliament in the 1948 Act. The opportunity is being taken in this clause to resolve any doubts on the matter. The clause provides that the 1970 Act does not affect and has never affected Section 89 in its operation in Scotland. Clause 3 is directed at heritable securities granted and recorded in the period between November 29, 1970 and the passing of the present Bill into law. The provisions of the clause make it possible for the redemption provisions in such securities to be altered in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. Any such alteration can of course be made only if both the debtor and the creditor agree that it should be made. Clause 4 contains provisions of the usual kind as to citation and construction.

853
It only remains for me to ask noble Lords to join those who have welcomed the Bill and to encourage its speedy progress through Parliament. It commands the complete support of the many organisations which the Government have consulted about their proposals for legislation; and it has had all-Party support in another place. I hope that the support of this House to-day will enable the Redemption of Standard Securities (Scotland) Bill to pass on to the Statute Book as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Bellielvie.)
7.22 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, in her concluding words the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, expressed the hope that this Bill will pass speedily on to the Statute Book. I gather, however, that it is not the wish of all Members of your Lordships' House that we should get -through this stage of the Bill too speedily. Otherwise those engaged on the Industrial Relations Bill will not have an opportunity even of getting through the soup, apart from anything else. I must congratulate the noble Baroness on the fact that she has made an excellent contribution towards that objective in the speech she has just made. Short of reading all the actual wording of the Bill, I doubt whether she could possibly have made her speech any longer. I have become very much aware of the fact that the diligence of the noble Baroness has made my task in trying to keep the debate going even more difficult, I am now more than ever aware of the problems which the Jews must have had in the times of the Ancient Egyptians when they were faced with the task of making bricks without straw.
I started by looking through the proceedings in another place to find how they dealt with this Bill. I had been aware of the fact that it was not the subject of acute controversy there. First I looked up the Third Reading, and I found that the Third Reading was reported on the same page of the OFFICIAL REPORT as the Committee and Report stage's, and (that no one spoke other than the officials. Then I turned up the Second Reading and found that no one spoke other than to agree that the Bill should be transferred for the Committee stage to a sitting of the Scottish
854
Grand Committee. The Scottish Grand Committee managed to talk on the Bill to the extent, I 'believe, of some 34 columns of Hansard. Of course, for another place that is tantamount to saying nothing at all.
LORD CHAMPION: Now, now!
LORD HUGHES: My noble friend Lord Champion has intervened, and that gives me the opportunity of speaking for perhaps another thirty seconds to say that if anything I said in the last few seconds should he regarded as a reflection on the privilege of another place I unreservedly withdraw that comment.
The surprising thing is that in both Houses, which are almost infested with lawyers, the earlier Bill should have got through without any of them noticing such a dreadful defect. -It may well be that at the present time lenders of money are coming up against a needless difficulty. As the noble Baroness explained, the problem arises from the fact that people may borrow money at high rates of interest and lend presumably at higher rates of interest; if 'the second party has a right to redeem on two months' notice, should interest rates fall, he may find a lower rate elsewhere and the first party is stuck with his high rate of interest. In existing circumstances, this seems to be a needless fear because no action that the present Government are taking will result in a precipitate or steep fall in the rate of interest. Nevertheless, although the fears may be groundless, I am satisfied that what (the noble Baroness said is perfectly true: that the effect of this provision in the 1970 Act is to dry up the opportunities for -borrowing by perfectly reputable borrowers. In these circumstances, I think the Government were right to introduce this Bill in another place and I think my honourable and right honourable friends in 'another place were equally right not to impede its passage.
If it were not for the need, which I have already indicated, to give my noble friends and noble Lords opposite the opportunity of having something to eat, I should not have said anything other than that I found nothing in what the noble Baroness -said which makes me feel it necessary to impede the Second Reading of this Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I wish to add a word, not with the object of leading on to the entree course, but for the purpose of saying that I think this is a good example of what Parliament can do when it really wants to get down to business. I think my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie and the Government deserve full congratulation for bringing forward this Bill at very short notice. It is true that if we had had a little more time last year we might have picked up this matter then, but in these days, when Parliament is so fully occupied, it might have been thought that Parliament would not have time to do this. It has done this and should receive full credit for doing so. I must say that I heartily dislike a Bill drafted in this form, which is completely incomprehensible and not very easy to read without reference to the previous Act. I hope that something may be done speedily to consolidate this legislation which is incomprehensible to all but lawyers.
7.27 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and my noble friend Lord Selkirk for their interventions in this short debate. It may be possible to extend it in order to answer some of the points which they raised. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, even had to resort to a reference to the ancient Egyptians in order to come back to the Bill as it is, but he raised a very important point. He said that this House, as he put it, is infested with lawyers, yet no one seemed to notice this potential defect. This is perfectly true, because although, as I understand, the 1970 Act took five weeks in Committee in another place there were no representations at all on this matter during the Parliamentary proceedings. The Law Society of Scotland raised a mild query upon it but did not pursue the matter, and therefore the Bill went through and is now the 1970 Act without this point being raised or debated.
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, welcomed this Bill. He referred to the problem of money lending and rates of interest. Of course the Bill is not designed to give lenders an unfair advantage over borrowers, but is
856
designed to replace what is an inflexible provision in the 1970 Act by a flexible one in which borrowers and lenders can agree on the terms of a loan. The 1970 Act gave the borrower the right to redeem a security which was so absolute that, even had he wished to do so he could not have modified it.
The terms of redemption hinge on a freely negotiated agreement between borrower and lender; in other words, there will be flexibility on both sides. Few borrowers would be grateful to receive an absolute right to redeem the security if, in consequence, they could not raise a loan; and there has been a tendency in this direction as a result of the provisions of the 1970 Act which we are seeking by this Bill to amend. Many institutional lenders themselves borrow capital at a fixed interest over a long term, and they often borrow in the South. They clearly want to be able to re-lend the money under similar arrangements, but they have been discouraged by the right given to the borrowing party in Scotland. I hope, therefore, that this Bill will be of real benefit to Scotland.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Selkirk, who has been good enough to examine the provisions of the Bill and the way in which it amends the 1970 Act that I do not think it is quite so incomprehensible as he suggested, because if one looks at the amendments to the 1970 Act one finds that they relate to only three main parts of the Act. They relate to Section 11, Section 18 and to the standard condition in paragraph 11(1) of Schedule 3. All the other provisions, which appear to him to be somewhat incomprehensible, are consequential upon those three main amendments, apart from Clause 3 which, as 1 said earlier, removes any doubt which may exist that the operation of Section 89 of the Companies Act 1948 does anything other than what it really does. Therefore I hope that my noble friend is satisfied. I thank noble Lords who have been good enough to attend this interesting debate, and I hope that the House will feel it right to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
7.32 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 263N:
Page 141, line 33, leave out paragraph 3 and insert (" and whether the organisation has branches.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is quite clear. We are dealing here with paragraph 3, which states that the rules of the union must indicate whether or not it has branches. Our Amendment provides for the retention of the words about " whether the organisation has branches ", but seeks to delete all the words after " branches ". Here we must again protest against what the Government are seeking to do in this Schedule; namely, to dictate to the unions what is clearly a matter for the unions themselves. The rules of a union have always been a matter for the union itself and are part of the democracy of a trade union. This is a matter upon which we feel rather deeply. I suppose that it is difficult for the Government to realise that trade unions do not wish to be dictated to in this way; and, indeed, they ought not to he dictated to in this way.
I have had something to do with trade unions in the course of my life, and they are very responsible bodies which frame their own rules in order to secure the good governance of the union. In paragraph 3 there is an instruction to the Registrar that the rules must indicate whether the union has branches—and we agree with that, because a union ought to indicate that it has branches; and that is provided for, as we suggest, by an addition to paragraph 2—but the instruction then goes on to state that the rules
" must also indicate the extent to which, and the manner in which, it has power to control the activities of its branches."
That is surely a matter for the trade union itself, and not a matter for the Registrar. It ought riot necessarily to be included in the rules, although I must say that most of the organisations with which I have ever had any association had their own rules which indicated how a two-way traffic was going to work; namely, how the branches were going to control the executive, and how the executive was
858
going to have some control over the branches. This is very much a matter for the rules which the union itself should frame.
I happen to have in my hand the rule book of the National Union of Railwaymen. If I keep on returning to this point, it is because I think one should speak from personal knowledge and experience if one possibly can, and should not speak merely because one has read that certain practices exist. There are 121 pages in this rule book, which are carefully thought out and sifted by the members themselves at their annual general meetings and so on. There is provision for the branch to take its own decisions, up to a certain point. For example, a rule relating to a branch states:
" Each branch may make bye-laws for the government of its local affairs. Such bye-laws must first be approved of and signed by the Executive Committee or the General Secretary, and be strictly consistent with the general rules of the Union."
I could add to that that the bye-laws must conform to the general policy of the union, which will be known to the branches because of their close association and good communications with head office. These bye-laws—and I have helped to frame them in the past; we usually call them standing orders in the local branch—are framed by the local branch. Then, before they can become bye-laws, they have to be sent up to the executive committee of the union which will examine them very carefully, sign a copy and return it. They then become the laws of the local branch and are obeyed by the local branch.
This is surely a matter which ought to be left to the union concerned, and the Registrar ought not to be asked to enter into it. The more one sees examples of this sort embodied in the Bill, the greater the difficulty there is in seeing why the Government should have started on this matter in the first place. The Bill is bad and, certainly, this Schedule has a number of instructions which ought never to be there. I agree that if one registers one must to some extent conform to general principles, and I do not mind my branch conforming to general principles such as those which I, as a member of a union, have helped to form. But what the noble Lord is trying to do here is to see that there will be a rule which will insure that the centre will he able

859
to control the branches absolutely. If I am incorrect, I am sure he will tell us so when he comes to reply. But that is not quite the way to do what is wanted. We should ask the branches to conform generally to the policy of the union and to the bye-laws which have been prepared, and the Government should not act in the way proposed in paragraph 3.
There is something else. If we are going to include in the rules, as an instruction to the Registrar, that the centre must control the branches, we ought at least also to include in them an instruction that there must be something in the rules which will enable the branches to control the executive—and I am very much in favour of that, both in my trade union and, indeed, in Parliament itself. If Parliament exists for any purpose at all, it is to control the executive, which is, of course, the Government of the day. If it cannot do that to some extent, we ought all to pack up and go home—and that applies to the other place, too. The control of the executive is right in relation to national affairs: a certain measure of control of the executive is also right in connection with our trade unions.
I think that this paragraph goes much too far. I believe that if we are going to have this we ought to have it as a two-way traffic, in which we also lay down a rule that there shall be clearly stated the extent to which it will be possible for branches to control the national executive of the union and, indeed, its annual general meeting, which is normally the governing body of the union, when the executive committee is not in fact sitting. I cannot impress too much upon noble Lords opposite that this is a matter that ought to be left to the unions concerned. This is a matter in which democracy ought to work within the unions and if it does, I am sure that noble Lords will have no great objection. I have never heard the slightest objection to the control that exists within the National Union of Railwaymen of the executive over the branches, simply because there is a reasonable flow of information between them and they trust one another. Trust is what should operate within a trade union, as indeed it ought to operate to some extent between the executive of this country and Par-
860
liament. I am delighted to move this Amendment because I think it is a very sound one. I beg to move.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I am very much for leaving out paragraph 3. In fact, I am for leaving out all the rules in the whole of this Schedule and in the clause. The clause makes the Government's attitude to industrial relations absolutely transparent. These rules would be regarded as naive if they were drawn up by a group of sixth-formers trying to start a tennis club. Indeed, they might have been drawn up by a governess looking after an unruly class, or even a ruly class. It seems to me that they are absolutely ridiculous when they are applied to millions of trade unionists and thousands of trade unions who have evolved rules for themselves over the last 100 years. Seriously, this particular innovation, these particular rules, are a real scandal.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I find myself a little puzzled at the mud which has been thrown at this particular paragraph. I am bound to say that I do not think it really merits it. All that it says is:
"If the. organisation has branches, the rules must so indicate, must also indicate the extent to which, and the manner in which, it has power to control the activities of its branches ".
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, always speaks to us so agreeably that it is difficult to disagree with him, but what his argument seemed to me to amount to was this. The National Union of Railwaymen is a good union and it has a rule of this kind. He made it clear to what extent the activities of the branches are controlled: their rules have to be signed by head office. Then that is the answer: but he does not want any other union to do the same. Is that it?
LORD DIAMOND: No.
LORD DRUMALBYN: All that this does is to lay it down:
" If the organisation has branches, the rules must so indicate, and must also indicate the extent to which, and the manner in which, it has power to control the activities of its branches ".
This is a matter of importance in many ways. It is important to know what

861
power the branch committee has; for example, to call a strike. This is important. I do not think there can be any real cavilling at this particular requirement. I say again, as I said on the previous Amendment, that the Registrar must know. If he is going to make inquiries, he has got to know about the union. The members also have a right to know of the procedures of the union; and the branches themselves will want to know about them. I cannot for the life of me see why this should not be in the rules. I hope noble Lords will not object to this kind of thing. I know they do not object to its being in the rules: what they are objecting to is the Bill saying that it should be in the rules. Again, it has to be said that the N.U.R. is a good union; it is an experienced union. It probably has its rules in very good shape. I have not looked at them myself, but I have seen the noble Lord with a copy from time to time. We want that high standard throughout. We want to raise the standard of the rules of all unions. This is a provision which will enable them to do it. There really is no more to it than that.
LORD CHAMPION: That is all right; we accept that. The union ought to have rules which will enable them to control the branches to some extent; and, as I said, they ought also to have rules which will enable the branches to control the executive. It should be a two-way traffic. What we object to in this connection is that the Registrar will be able to dictate. This is our objection here. He will be in a position virtually to dictate to the unions, and that is what we object to. I do not think that this is an Amendment upon which I would seek, particularly at this stage, to divide the Committee. Clearly, between now and Report I shall have to consider what the noble Lord has said and if necessary return to this point at that stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to 'withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.48 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263P:
Page 141, line 36, leave out paragraph 4, and insert (" the election or appointment and removal of a governing body by whatever name and offices and officials ").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 263Q, 263R, 263S and 263T together with this Amendment, because they all really stem from the same point. I beg formally to move the first one. My first pleasant duty is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, on the success with which he overcomes his difficulties. He said that my noble friend Lord Champion spoke with such quiet persuasiveness that it was difficult not to be persuaded by what he said. I can only say that he succeeded in overcoming that difficulty 100 per cent. It made not the slightest difference what my noble friend Lord Champion said, although he produced a rule book which was produced voluntarily by the men themselves—and this deals with all the Amendments which I have in front of me.
Far from not going into sufficient detail, this rule book contains 121 pages, covering everything that is in the Schedule and a great deal more. The point I am making is that, however long you make the Schedule you would not even then get a model set of rules applicable to every union. Even this set of rules, excellent though it is, is defective, according to this Bill, in one material respect: that it does not say on it what the price is. It is true that it covers 285,000 men;it covers years and years of experience; it was got together long before an Industrial Relations Bill was ever thought of; nobody considers that the rules are in any way inadequate for the purposes of this long-established and responsible union. But according to the Schedule we are now discussing it is defective in a material degree because it does not specify the reasonable charge to be made—
A NOBLE LORD: Perhaps it is free.
LORD DIAMOND: As my noble friend intimates, it may be free. But that is a grave defect according to the Schedule. Why am I saying this? Not only to pass a pleasant moment, but to make it clear that what we object to in this Schedule (as each of these five Amendments shows) is that the Government are attempting to do something which it is inappropriate for them to do and which does not need doing in this detail. If you get into this amount of detail you are bound to make

863
two mistakes: too much detail for certain purposes, too little for others; too much detail because the Bill says that the N.U.R. rules are defective because the price is not stated; and not enough because there are only 24 paragraphs in the Schedule, while there are 120 pages in this set of rules of one union alone.
What we are saying is that the unions are capable of framing their own rules, and that it does not help to produce a greater sense of responsibility by telling the unions that they are incapable of providing their own rules and that therefore the Registrar must specify in detail what each rule has to be. I do not know bow many times we have to make this simple point to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I do not complain about his not accepting our argument, but that each time he gets up he shows that he has not begun to understand it. We are saying there are too many details. The unions provide these rules by themselves, so why stuff them down their throats? That creates opposition, not co-operation. It can only lead to ridiculous situations as in the case of this excellent set of rules being defective because there is no price.
Leave it to the unions. If the noble Lord wishes to have a general reference, as the Commission thought it right to have, let us have one paragraph saying what the rules should have regard to, what they should cover. Leave it at that. Leave it to the good sense of the unions, and let them co-operate with the Registrar in the friendly way they have done hitherto in producing rules, which perhaps in some cases are not clear enough or not adequate in all respects. These particular Amendments are examples of the same lack of understanding, and of excessive authority and excessive interference in what should be the natural democracy of the unions. They each give evidence of the same thing. Therefore I do not think I need go into each of them in detail. They are each to leave out successive paragraphs which are objectionable on the grounds I have already indicated. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has grouped these Amendments together and has made a general argument from which I take it that he does not quarrel with what the Schedule says should be in the rules, but merely with
864
the fact that it says that these matters should be in the rules. He believes that they should be in the rules but does not want the Schedule to say so. He says that there is too much detail laid down. I gather that something like 328 unions will be transferring to provisional registration straightaway. The noble Lord, Lord Tangley, made it clear that of the many rule books that he had read many fell far short of requirements. What is the right thing to do in the circumstances? Is it to put down just a few notes on the sort of things that might be in the rules and then leave to the Registrar as the unions submit their rules (or get in touch with the Registrar to get their rules right) complete discretion as to what should be in the rules of each trade union, with different requirements for different trade unions? Or is it to set out a comprehensive set of things that should be contained in the rules? I do understand the noble Lord's argument. I just think that it is wrong. I am sorry. I think that the right course is to set out exactly what things ought to be in the rules and to put them in the Schedule, and that is what we have done. I simply do not think that the noble Lord's argument is better than mine.
7.58 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: If I may respectfully say so, I think that my noble friend Lord Diamond is right in not wanting to pursue this matter at length. I think our point has been made on the Schedule. We have done our duty qua the Committee. If there is anything that will wreck this Bill it will be Schedule 4. I thought that the Government wanted the trade unions to register. The effect of these rules is to make it virtually impossible for any union to register. Some civil servant has got out this terrific catalogue. I agree with my noble friend that if it had said that the trade union rules must cover certain matters, that could have been done. But let us consider the circumstances in which the trade unions make the rules. They are voluntary bodies They make alterations in their rules at ordinary annual conferences or at special rule-making conferences, and the branches will be mandated by their members on how they ought to vote. How you can get rules

865
to cover the 23 paragraphs of Schedule 4 I cannot conceive. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 4 says:
"The rules must specify the powers and duties of the governing body of the organisation, of each of its officers and of officials who are not officers of the organisation."
Who are the " officials "? We are told all about it in Part IX, in Clause 158 which says:
"" official ', in relation to an organisation of workers or an organisation of employers, means any person who is an officer of the organisation or of a branch of the organisation or who (not being such an officer) is a person elected or appointed in accordance with the rules of the organisation to be a representative of its members or of some of them, including (in the case of an organisation of workers) any person so elected or appointed who is an employee of the same employer as the members, or one or more of the members, whom he is to represent;"
One of the difficulties which the courts sometimes get into is that they do not really understand trade union terminology and start talking about a branch secretary as a trade union official, whereas in my experience, which my noble friends will confirm, a trade union official, in trade union language, is an employee of a trade union. His occupation in life is to do what the trade union tells him, a branch secretary's occupation in life is to drive railway trains, he has been elected by his mates to keep the books and keep the minutes; he buys the minute book out of his own pocket and he does not get a penny for what he does.
What limited company, or, if it appeals to the Minister more, what Government Department, could possibly operate for a week if they were told to put down in writing exactly what everybody employed in the Department does, and could change it, in the case of a limited company, only if the articles of association were changed? Trade union rules compare with the articles of association of a limited company. How can you possibly run a company if the managing director cannot say to Jones, " I know you do the following ten things. Now I want Snooks to do your number 10, and I want you in future to do Snooks' number 1 "; or, " I know you have been embracing legal aid; I don't want you to do legal aid in the Lord Chancellor's office, I want more help on the Courts Bill."? These rules
866
mean that when any minor person in a trade union who is an employee—or even one who is not an employee of the trade union at all—is appointed to any sort of task, that task cannot be changed or varied with any other member without a fresh application to the Registrar to approve a change in the rules. I agree with my noble friend, Lady Gaitskell, that the whole thing is completely unworkable, and will be found in practice to be unworkable. I think we have made our ojections plain and have thereby done our Parliamentary duty.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I should like to add a couple of sentences, and would ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to think what would happen if the Government applied the same kind of rules to employers. How would they feel? Does not the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, understand that this setting out of these fiddling rules is an affront to trade unions? The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gets up and says that he does not understand what we feel. Certainly we do not understand what the Government feel. They do not seem to understand in the least that after 100 years of struggle and experience trade unions have drawn up their own rules. They may not be perfect; that does not matter. But now they are told, like a lot of schoolboys, that these are the rules they have to conform to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If the noble Baroness will forgive me, this is saying what there are to be rules about. The Registrar is not writing the rules for anyone: he merely has to see what there are rules about. Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to point out that, although this may not apply to employers, it certainly applies to employers' associations as well as to trade unions.
In reply to the noble and learned Lord, if, as is necessary under the terms of the Bill, people are to know what is the scope of authority of particular officers and officials, then that scope of authority must surely be defined; and this is what the rules call for. The scope of the authority should be defined in the rules. I would have thought that this was essential. Now that this is a body corporate it is necessary to define what the authority of the various officials at

867
various levels is. I should have thought that this was right.
LORD GARDINER: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? It does not merely specify their powers; it also specifies their duties. This means that what every employee, and even people who are not employees, has to do is to be specified in the rules which cannot be changed without application to a civil servant. No limited company and no Government Department could possibly carry on in these circumstances.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It is further emphasised in paragraph 24, which says:
" Where by reason of special circumstances relating to a particular trade union or employers' association, it appears to the registrar that a particular requirement set out in this Schedule would be inappropriate in the case of that trade union or employers' association "
and so on. This, again, gives power to the Registrar to form his own opinion, as distinct from the trade union machine that will have defined the rules.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Would the noble Lord forgive me, for the sake of good order? There is an Amendment down about this. He is perhaps anticipating his noble friends' Amendment.
LORD POPPLEWELL: It is extremely difficult to confine our discussion to this particular Amendment because the whole series of Amendments and this particular Schedule must have a bearing on the way we approach this item in the Bill.
The noble Lord repeatedly says that there must be someone to define these things. It is difficult to understand the logic of this argument. He has been asked repeatedly for evidence as to whether there has ever been any grave breach. He takes refuge in what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, stated: that when they were considering this they found numerous rules that were, in the opinion of the Commission, far from suitable. I am not surprised. I understand that they took evidence from something like 500-odd different trade unions. About 130 of those are affiliated to the T.U.C., and it is in these big unions that difficulties are likely to arise. But it is interesting to note that the Donovan Commission have not been able to pinpoint any grave breach of rules that would have created difficulties.
868
As the noble Lord knows full well, the Bridlington agreement of the trade unions has gone a long way to ironing out difficulties which the trade union movement has experienced, and surely it would have been better to consult with the T.U.C., bringing before them and discussing together the Donovan recommendations. If there are real difficulties, what is the best way of ironing them out? The General Council cannot compel any decision it takes on the free trade unions, but it is astonishing that the recommendations of the General Council of the T.U.C. do bear fruit. It is slow sometimes in permeating down, but on the other hand it is very useful and has proved a real guiding line.
I have deviated a little from the actual Amendment. The Bill says that the rules must specifically describe all persons eligible for membership of the organisation. If a union desires that only a skilled person should be admitted into the union, and every member has to prove his bona fides before being accepted as a member —if they put up a bar against people who are not fully skilled, would that be accepted by the Registrar? I do not think that the Registrar would be able to accept a rule of that description. Again, this indicates the need for trade unions to make their own rules.
8.11 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has the right idea about this. When we talk about duties, it is common practice in business to specify the duties of accountants and others.
LORD JACQUES: Is the noble Lord suggesting that it is common practice in business to lay down in the constitution the duties of branch managers? That is what is asked for here.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I said it is common practice to lay down duties. The point here is that we have to know the scope of the authority, the powers and the duties which are involved. The noble Lord is concerned merely with powers, but it is equally necessary that certain duties should be prescribed and should be laid down as well. I know that noble Lords feel that these clauses go too far. They have been carefully looked at, but I am quite willing to look at them again to see whether they go too far in any

869
particular respect and whether anything that seems unreasonable and impracticable is included in them. But broadly they cover the main points that have to be laid down.
The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, spoke about paragraph 15, to which we have not really come; but the answer to him is that we are talking about descriptions, as distinct from people who are " appropriately qualified ". These words were precisely designed to cover apprentices and ranges of qualifications, as distinct from descriptions. If noble Lords feel strongly that this paragraph is too detailed, we can look at it again. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord was right, after all, in drawing attention to the last paragraph and saying that where the cap does not fit, one cannot wear it. It may be that in certain cases—for example, of unions on the special register —some of this would not apply. But subject to that, the Schedule seems to cover what is required. I am prepared to look at this matter again in detail, but I hope that in general noble Lords will feel that this will act as a check list, covering the whole range of what is required to be in the rules.
LORD SLATER: I am pleased to hear the noble Lord say that he will look at this again because my noble and learned friend presented a wonderful case of how trade union branches work in the alteration of rules. From time to time branches formulate resolutions for alteration of rules, which, if passed by the branch, are sent forward for consideration at the annual conference of the union and so are considered by all the members before being resolved. The case presented by my noble and learned friend is one of the best I have heard on this issue, and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will be able to say that he can concede the point that my noble and learned friend has made.
LORD DIAMOND: I should like to echo what my noble friend Lord Slater has said. We have had a useful debate on this group of Amendments. With penetrating oratory, my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner at last seems to have made our position a little clearer to the Government. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for saying that he will look at the whole
870
Schedule again. We still think that in several respects it is ridiculous and unworkable and that it has the wrong philosophical approach. He does not accept that. But even if he thought it was the right approach, it is still making nonsense of this Schedule so to particularise as to make it unworkable and ridiculous. So I hope that he will look at it again to see whether, at an appropriate time, he can make some improvement.
The running of a union, which is often part-time work, is not to be compared with the running of a business by people who have offices and secretaries. and have had considerable training in administration, and who act administratively all day long. It is an entirely different type of work. It is wholly inappropriate to compare one with the other and to say, if one can do it in business, why can one not do it in the trade union? I can visualise my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner taking part in a union branch meeting, reading out a description in the definition clause and then turning round and saying, " That makes the position quite clear, Bill." One can imagine what " Bill " would reply to that one! I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will realise that there is a totally different atmosphere in a trade union. I am grateful to the noble Lord, and in the circumstances, I think it would be right to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.20 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263U:
Page 142, line 37, at end insert—
(". Any employers' association which as part of its business acts as a disciplinary body towards employees shall have an equal number of the employees' trade union representatives as members of such disciplinary bodies.")
The noble Lord said: Inevitably when we are discussing Amendments to a Schedule, all the clauses concerned tend to be discussed. I think that it would be helping the Committee if I asked your Lordships to be indulgent and to take all the remaining Amendments on this Schedule together, because I think that they all raise the same point, which we have been trying to drive home all the way through—the wrong psychological approach, excess of details, not leaving

871
the unions to exercise their own responsibility sufficiently and, where there are differences, going the wrong way about solving them.
I need to say only one thing more, and that is to answer the question which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked on the last discussion, namely, what do the Opposition want us to do if we get into difficulty, if there is a dispute or anything of that sort? We want to ensure that the Registrar should not be so burdened with statutory legislative duties of a legalistic kind as to be regarded as somebody like a judge before whom you have to go, but that instead he should continue to be regarded as a friend of the unions who can offer wise advise drawn from hits great experience across the board of a great mass of unions. We want the Registrar to remain in his present position and to be helped in case of difficulty, where he needs support, by a body of the kind recommended by the Donovan Commission, of two trade unionists and a lawyer who could give the necessary guidance and advice with just a little bit of push such as we realise is sometimes necessary.
In that event there could well be cooperation and the rules, to the extent that they are not now satisfactory, would be more likely to be satisfactory. Perhaps the noble Lord would take away the whole of this Schedule and consider having a totally different approach under which the Act merely provides, as Donovan suggested, for the things which ought to be covered and to leave it to the unions to fill in the detail—they should, Donovan said, retain the freedom to create and to devise rules to suit their own individual circumstances. If the noble Lord would take away the Schedule and bring back a totally revised version in those terms, with an independent review body as recommended by Donovan, he would be doing two things: he would be giving pleasure to Her Majesty's official Opposition and he would be carrying out the recommendations based on a 3-year consideration by a distinguished Royal Commission. I beg to move.
8.23 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am always anxious to be accommodating to the
872
Opposition, but the Opposition are really asking a lot in this particular case. They are asking us to alter the whole system that is devised here in order to take on something that we had already obviously examined and rejected in favour of what we regarded as a better system and one which fits in, as I said before, with the whole structure that is being set up under this Bill.
I do not think that that would be the right approach. After all, what is provided here is simply sufficient to deal with the various aspects of trade union activities; requirements relating to constitution and management, requirements relating to members of the organisation, requirements relating to property and finances, and the Registrar's power of exemption at the end to deal with cases that do not actually fit in with the rules as here set out. I believe that if noble Lords were to take these points and set them out in tabular form instead of in the form they are here, as unions will no doubt do for themselvesl—the trouble about tabular form is that it is a little more difficult to fit in particular cases—they would find a complete check list and if the noble Lord, Lord Champion. who spoke before. were to go through his rule book, which he probably knows by heart from cover to cover, with these rules, checking one thing against another, he would find in almost every particular that the rule book covers the points here. I must say again, that all we are asking is that where good standards are not met at the present time, where rules are deficient because things are not covered, then those deficiencies should be rectified and, if you have a check list of this kind, this is the ideal way to rectify it.
From the point of view of the administration by the Registrar himself, the situation is made so much easier. Here is a complette list of things that have to be covered, and as he looks at every single set of rules he will be able to check off to see that these things are covered. I am sure that is the way he will do it. So long as these things are clearly expressed and he is not asked to cover things which are for some reason or another impracticable—or otiose if you like—I think that is the right way to operate.

873
I am sorry, but even if the Donovan Commission recommendation had been accepted in this regard, I do not myself see how we could really have gone about this in any very different way. They would have had a check list. They would have had to see that all the points were met and if there were disagreements at the end of the day then there was this different means proposed of doing it from the way we proposed in the Bill. But that is the major difference. If I may say so, I think noble Lords are making rather too much of this matter. However, they have expressed their point of view.
I have said that we shall have a look to see that nothing is asked for here that is impossible. impracticable or unreasonable; but with that I hope that noble Lords will be prepared to express their opinion on the Schedule if they wish or, at any rate, perhaps as I should like to think, I have been able to persuade them. But I am afraid that does not seem to be practicable.
BARONRSS GAITSKELL: May I make a suggestion to the noble Lord, that instead of having this excruciating detail it would have been easier to have the Registrar provided with a copy of every trade union's rules? Would that not have been easier, more democratic, fairer and more acceptable to trade unions?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I do not know whether the noble Baroness heard me say so earlier, but the Registrar has copies of the rules at the present time; and what he has to do is once the provisional register has been set up to start working through these rules to see that these points are covered.
LORD SLATER: With regard to this particular Schedule, I wonder if the noble Lord is aware of how industry really does work from both sides, either at national level or at local level. At local level, just as at national level, unions have what are known as consultative committees which deal with all types of projects governing the particular form of industry that is operating with the employees covered by specific unions. In my own union we have these consultative committees where you find that the management becomes the chairman and the leading secretary of the branch union is the vice-chairman, and they are able to talk
874
over the various problems covering that particular type of industry in.which they are engaged. They come along with their various suggestions, and they work there as a team. It means that the individual member working inside the industry—apart from the management, which is responsible for running the industry—representing the membership, is accepting individual responsibility; and this comes right down to everybody engaged in that type of industry.
This gives a form of unanimity between management and men. You gel more out of a team within the operation of the system as it works; and would to God that a lot of managing directors would leave their offices, and get down to talk to some of the employees on the shop floor! If they did that, they would get to know them and how things were working. I am convinced that if this was done more than it has been done in the past, production in this country would go up by leaps and bounds, to the benefit of the country.
My noble friend has presented his case on this Schedule and has asked the noble Lord to accept the Amendments that have been submitted. The noble Lord has previously agreed to have another look at proceedings. Why does he not have another look at these Amendments, which are all to the one Schedule and cover the same type of people who were referred to in a previous Amendment that we debated? I hope that he will look at this further. He says that we are asking for too much; but we are not. It is not a matter of asking too much, but of trying to get the thing on a proper basis which will be beneficial not only to one side of industry, but to both sides.
LORD POPPLEWELL: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that he felt that it was impossible to accept this Amendment as drafted. To be quite frank, I can fully appreciate his difficulty. I realise that it would be difficult to write anything like this into the rules of a trade union. But we are grateful to my noble friend for putting down this Amendment so that we could have a discussion about disciplinary machinery. It would not be practicable for a small industry to have this type of machinery, but a large industry must have some disciplinary machinery. Most unions have tried to get this. In some of the old

875
basic industries they have this disciplinary machinery. I wonder if the noble Lord would think this over to see if he could write some ideas into the Bill which would meet us in this direction.
Many disputes have been created by an arbitrary decision to dispense with the services of a man—possibly quite justifiably—or to take a man off his particular work and put him on to something else. These difficulties do arise. If it were possible to establish some type of disciplinary machinery which would suit both sides of industry, in order to establish the basic principles, I am sure it would help considerably. It cannot be a one-sided affair. The men are not always right but neither are managements. Where, as in much of industry, you have the position that the manager's decision is final, then there are difficulties. If the Government would see whether they can get some broad principles to which both sides of industry should work, to establish this disciplinary machinery, this would be a useful exercise.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I can answer that question right away. This part of the Bill does not deal with what the noble Lord has been talking about. It merely says what there have to be rules about. The noble Lord is quite right in that it says the rules must specify the nature of disciplinary action and so on. But where unions want to help in the setting up of disciplinary action, that is much more a matter for the C.I.R. or the conciliation officers, or that side of the Bill, than it is for the Registrar. The Registrar can help with advice on the rules, of course, but the disciplinary procedure generally forms part of a procedure agreement, and it is the procedure agreements on which the C.I.R. can help when a matter is referred to them, and the conciliation officers.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I do not want to minimise the difficulties, but if this is a Bill on industrial relations, surely it is not beyond the wit of the draftsmen and the legal fraternity to embrace somewhere in the Bill the principles about which we are talking. If it is to be mandatory, it would be a useful exercise to make it equally mandatory in the interests of good relations, to instil upon both sides that
876
on this disciplinary issue there must be a meeting point somewhere, in order to extract the measure of support that is necessary from both sides if we are to have smooth working.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I can come back on this, because it is important that noble Lords should understand it. The point is that what has to appear in the rules is what the disciplinary procedure is. I am quite certain that there is room for improvement in disciplinary procedure, but I do not believe this is part of what we are dealing with here. What the noble Lord has been saying illustrates very well indeed the difference between the content of the rules and the mere fact that there is a rule about something. The content of the rules is a matter for the trade unions to decide and when it comes to joint disciplinary bodies, then it is a matter for negotiation.
LORD DIAMOND: I am particularly grateful 'to my noble friend Lord Popplewell, who dealt specifically with the points involved in this Amendment. I now turn to the speech made a little earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who said that he would seek to persuade us as to two propositions. I accord the noble Lord full marks, and say that he has persuaded us completely as to both. The first of his propositions was that there should be a check list of the items to be covered. I am asking the noble Lord to take this Schedule away, and to bring along a thing called a check list, with an introduction saying: " This is a check list of the points to be covered ". It may not be wholly appropriate for a Statute. but it would be appropriate for a code of practice. I am asking the noble Lord to bring that along, and then his purpose and our purpose would be served, and we should have made progress.
The second proposition was that we should express our point of view when it came to the Question, That Schedule 4 stand part of the Bill. I think that is a sensible proposition. We have explained our difficulties about the Amendments. I do not think there is any point in going through each one individually unless any of my noble friends wish this. We can go straight to the Question, That

877
Schedule 4 stand Part. With the permission of the Committee, I will withdraw Amendment No. 263U, and I will not move any of the other Amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Dundee, E.

Penrhyn, L.

Balerno, L.

Falkland, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour, E.

Falmouth, V.

Redmayne, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Rothermere, V.

Barnby, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Beauchamp, E.

Gowrie, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gray, L.

St. Helens, L.

Belstead, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Just, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Grenfell, L.

Sandford, L.

Boston, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailes, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

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

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Stamp, L.

Burton, L.

Hankey, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Suffield, L.

Colyton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Teviot, L.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Teynham, L.

Cowley, E.

Latymer, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Crawshaw, L.

McFadzean, L.

Vivian, L.

Cromartie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wade, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Windlesham, L.

Denham, L.

Oakshott, L.

Wolverton, L.

Derwent, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Henderson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Rusholme, L.

Balogh, L.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, I..

Bernstein, L.

Jacques, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Slater, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Diamond. L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Energlyn, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Platt, L.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Schedule 4 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 74 [Application to Industrial Court as to approval of rules]:
On Question, Whether Clause 74 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.49 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I do not think we need spend a great deal of time on Clause 74. It merely repeats the mischief which we have been discussing on the earlier clause and indeed in the Schedule which the Government have just succeeded by such a narrow margin in incor-
8.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 41.
porating within the Bill. The difficulty we have with this clause, as with other clauses, is that the Registrar, having been turned more into a commissar than a Registrar, now has the additional powers of the Industrial Court for disposing of difficulties, and in this particular clause for withdrawing a registration, directing a registration of a trade union to be cancelled on the grounds,
" (b) that the rules submitted to him by the organisation were defective … and the defect was not remedied within the period so specified …
For example, that the registration of one of the largest and most moderate and

879
reliable trade unions, the union of railway workers that we were discussing a little earlier on, should be cancelled, with all the penalties that involves, because they have not put the price on their 220 page booklet.
The noble Lord says, if I heard him aright, that that is not so. My recollection of the Schedule we have just discussed is that it does say that. It says:
" The rules must specify a reasonable charge to be made for the supply of copies of the rules …"
It says that the rules must specify " a reasonable charge ", not a variety of reasonable charges but a single reasonable charge, to cover all time, until the rules are altered, which is a three-year process. The union in question, having a good deal more common sense and practical experience than the Government, decides that it is not wise or appropriate to specify a reasonable charge. It may take the view that it costs more to collect a small payment than to supply the booklets free, so it supplies them free. The Registrar says, "I am sorry, the Statute says that you must specify a reasonable charge; you must specify a charge of some kind." They have an argument, and the union says, "If you

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Derwent, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Balerno, L.

Dundee, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour, E.

Falkland, V.

Redmayne, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Falmouth, V.

Rothermere, V.

Barnby, L.

Ferrers, E. [Teller.]

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Beauchamp, E.

Goschen, V.[Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Helens, L.

Belstead, L.

Gray, L.

St. Just, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Greenway, L.

Sand ford, L.

Boston, L.

Grenfell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimston, of Westbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hailes, L.

Somers, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

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

Stamp, L.

Burton, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Chelmer, L.

Hankey, L.

Suffield, L.

Clwyd, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Terrington, L.

Colyton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Teviot, L.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cowley, E.

Latymer, L.

Tweed smuir, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Tweedsmuir or Belhelvie, Bs.

Craigmyle, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vivian, L.

Crawshaw, L.

McFadzean, L.

Wade, L.

Cromartie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wolverton, L.

Denham, L.

Oakshott, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Balogh, L.

Blyton, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bernstein, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Bacon, Bs.

Beswick. L.

Champion, L.

think we are going to have one of our three-year conferences " (I imagine it is three years) " to alter the rules in order to provide for a reasonable charge in our rules for our booklet you arc making a great mistake." A row develops and the Registrar says, "If you will not specify a reasonable charge, and insist on this ridiculous practice of giving your rule books away to your members, all I can do is cancel the registration of the union."
That is a ridiculous position to arrive at, and it can be arrived at under this clause. I suggest that the clause goes far too far. One does not need the Industrial Court; one needs, if necessary, the help of an independent body of trade unionists with a lawyer chairman, as recommended by Donovan. That would be a sensible and effective way of producing co-operation and achieving what the Government want to achieve. The present method is wholly unsatisfactory, and I can se no good advantage in the clause at all.
8.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 74 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 76; Not-Contents, 39.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kennet, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Diamond, L.

Lindgren, L.

St. Davids, V.

Energlyn, L.

Liewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Shackleton, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Maelor, L.

Shinwell, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Slater, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Plummet, Bs.

Strabolgi, L.[Teller.]

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Walston, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hughes, L.

Rusholme, L.

Willis, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 74 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 75 Application to Industrial Court for cancellation of registration on other grounds]:
On Question, Whether Clause 75 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.59 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: I did not move Amendment No. 263BB because I thought it was a point which was more sensibly and simply discussed on the Question, Whether the clause stand part. I therefore ask the Government whether they will be good enough to explain two things with regard to this clause. First, what other change of circumstances are envisaged in subsection (1)(b)? It is a very wide phrase; I cannot imagine what is in the mind of the Government. I imagine that the paragraph covers the possibility of a union doing something quite useful, beneficial, socially attractive, which is not within its rules and it is thereby running the risk of having its registration cancelled. It is such a wide phrase that I do not know that it is possible for that to happen. The second question I want to ask is one which is covered by the Amendment and relates to paragraph (c)—what the time limits are and how the Government in a general way envisage this subsection working.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord asked first what was meant by, " other change of circumstances ". For example, it might mean that the trade union had ceased to be independent. The nature of the organisation might change in many ways. If he looks at Clause 65(1)(a) and (b) he will see that it might be that it would cease to be eligible for registration through a change of circumstances.
The second question the noble Lord asked was about subsection (3). This is obviously very much a long-stop. As he knows, it is to cover those cases where
882
the administrative requirements are not met; and, of course, under Clause 89 a fine can be imposed where they are not met. It is only if this went on and on and was really persistent to the extent where it was shown that the trade union was thoroughly inefficient, badly managed and not serving its members properly, that this would be considered.
I am not certain that I can answer the question in regard to the time element. It is obviously a matter within the discretion of the court to extend the time in which to remedy the default. It might be that a complete overhaul by outside consultants, or something of that kind, would be undertaken, but I should imagine that this would be a matter for the union to make a case for in the light of its determination or otherwise to put itself in order. I hope that that is a satisfactory explanation.
LORD SHINWELL: I should think it is generally admitted on both sides of the Committee that a trade union remaining unregistered is not afforded the protection that is available to a registered union. But here the time element is of extreme importance. If your Lordships will look at subsection (2)(a) of this clause, you will find that if an application is made to the Industrial Court by the Registrar on the ground that the rules are not, in his opinion, of the character required, the union may be called upon to amend its rules so as to make itself available for registration.
LORD DRUMALBYN: With respect, I think the noble Lord is talking about the clause that we have just voted on. We are now discussing Clause 75.
LORD SHINWELL: I am dealing with Clause 75. It is on the same point. I am pointing out that if a union remains unregistered for some time, either because the Registrar procrastinates or the Industrial Court does not give its decision as urgently as is required, then the union is

883
in a position of some difficulty. Therefore, although the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, says that he is unable to answer the point about timing, and this is a matter for the discretion of the court, in my judgment that is hardly satisfactory.
It seems to me to be exceedingly important that the time factor should be specific. After all, the term " specific " is used on many occasions in the proposed legislation and there is no need to protect a union against being excluded from registration for some reason or other. It may be a sound reason. It may be that the Industrial Court or the Registrar found it difficult to come to a decision or there may be some complications, but nevertheless neither of these bodies would be at fault. The union would not be effectively safeguarded if too long a period elapsed before a decision was reached to enable a union to be registered, having amended its rules and met the requirements, either of the Registrar or of the Industrial Court. In my submission, this is a point of some substance and I think that the Government, either now or at the Report stage, should give an assurance that this matter of timing meets the requirements of a union placed in such a position.
LORD SLATER: The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is sitting on the Government Front Bench as the legal luminary, and I cannot understand why there should appear in the Industrial Relations Bill such a sentence as, " that the registration was obtained by fraud ". Why should a trade union seek to obtain its registration by unfair methods? It is absolutely ridiculous to think that Her Majesty's Government have reached a position where they seek to have inserted in legislation such wording as, " by fraud or by mistake ". I do not take exception to the word " mistake", but I certainly take exception to the word " fraud ". I think it is absolutely wicked that any band of men or women coming together with the object of forming a trade union and seeking to be registered through the Registrar, should resort to such methods as could be looked upon as fraudulent in their approach for registration. I think it is absolutely abominable to think that
884
the Government should allow that word to appear in this legislation, when it becomes an Act.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a very wicked world, and the noble Lord, Lord Slater, does not seem to know how wicked it is. But I should have thought he would have been the first to accept the necessity for this, since one of the main objects is to stop splinter unions from obtaining registration by giving false particulars. Therefore I would have thought this would have met with his wholehearted support. The intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was based on a misapprehension that this deals with the unions which are not yet registered. It does not.
LORD SHINWELL: I can understand that, but the question I ventured to pose deserves an answer. There is only one reference to timing in the clause under review, and that is a period of two months to enable a union to make its application in certain circumstances. But I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is a little abrupt in brushing my point aside as being of no consequence. I cannot understand his attitude, because this is not the first time he has adopted this method of debate when I have ventured to pose a question, for some reason or other which I have so far failed to understand. Perhaps before the end of our deliberations I might ascertain the cause of the trouble, but meanwhile I want an answer to the question as to what happens if, for some reason or other—and I put it as clearly and plainly as I can—either the Registrar or the Industrial Court, through no fault of their own, find it necessary to occupy a certain time before the union is enabled to gain registration. That is the position. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, shakes his head. I am not quite sure why, but I am quite prepared to sit down and hear what he has to say.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I can only repeat what I said before, that the noble Lord is labouring under a misapprehension that this clause has something to do with a situation when a union has not yet registered. I can only say again that he is under a complete misapprehension, because it does not.
9.11 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: If I may intervene, I am following the point my noble friend is making, and I think he is supporting the question I put and that he is making a most valid point. If it were the case —which it is not—that my noble friend was dealing with an earlier clause, it would not be surprising in view of the breakneck speed with which we are going through this Bill. But it is not that at all. What my noble friend is referring to is 75(1)(c) where it says:
"… has persisted in its default after the registrar has given it notice specifying the default and fixing a time (not being less than two months) for remedying the fault, and that time has expired."
What my noble friend is making clear is that it is an even greater penalty for a union which has succeeded in registering, having wanted to register and to take on all the responsibilities of registration to have its registration withdrawn for some fault—and we are concerned with timing now—and to have been given at least two months to put it right. I know that is at least two months, but if it had said at least two years I would have been much more content; because two months is a totally ridiculous period to put into anyone's mind when one is dealing with changes of a union's rules. It is a ridiculous period, and gives the impression that if two months is too little, well, three months is all right and six months must be all right. But six months is a totally inadequate period. I am bound to say to the Government, with great seriousness, that my noble friend has made a very valid and important point.
The reason for raising these questions is that we want to ascertain the Government's position so that we can put forward appropriate Amendments at the Report stage, because we are not going to leave the Bill without a serious attempt to get a less than two months' provision removed and something more sensible put in its place. If the Government wanted to say " a reasonable period " that would be something, but a period which definitely points to three, four or five months being an adequate period is a wholly misleading provision in this Bill, and it can lead to tremendous penalties and would be totally inappropriate. I hope the noble and learned Lord now understands why my noble
886
friend Lord Shinwell and I certainly share the view that this is an impossible provision to have in the Bill.
While I am on my feet, may I say with regard to the other change of circumstances that I did not regard the answer to that as at all reassuring. I am told, for example, that this provision could mean that if a union were to take on the task of training members this would be a change of circumstances. Training is not the first and primary function of a trade union, but a trade union does a number of very valuable things; for example, it proposes names for men who are appointed to the Bench, who are on hospital committees, who do a great number of valuable jobs, and it may be that a union would take the view that training is so important that it ought to start initiating itself some form of training for men. It would be ridiculous that the union should in any way be penalised for taking on such a wholly useful social activity.
I am bound to say that the words " other change of circumstances " are not at all satisfactory. I heard what the noble Lord said the first time. If he has nothing more to help us, we will come back at Report Stage with something which meets what the noble Lord said but which is not in the Bill. Something as misleading as " not being less than two months " is wholly unsatisfactory.
LORD SHINWELL: May I return to the matter for a moment? I began my speech by pointing out that both sides of the Committee, and in particular the Government, want unions to become registered. If a union, for some reason or other, fails to secure registration,obviously it is not afforded the protection that a registered union has. That is quite plain. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, assents to my proposition. Because the rules are not up to the requirement of the registrar, or not specific in character, a union having made its application but having defaulted for some reason or other should not be excluded from registration again, for the simple reason that it loses the protection that a registered union possesses. That is what I am pointing out. I put the simple point: can we be assured that in the legislation there is such provision in timing so that neither the Industrial Court, nor the registrar, should lengthen

887
the gap in any way, either deliberately or unwittingly, that would prevent the union becoming registered? That is the question to which I want an answer.
Why the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, adopts his " hoity-toity " attitude when I venture to put a simple proposition is more than I can understand, unless he is trying to get revenge for what I used to do to him in the other place. I am beginning to think that that is what the trouble is. He can try that on somebody else, but he must not do that with me. I beg of him not to indulge in that attitude. I prefer an answer from the noble Lord, Lord Dumalbyn.
LORD CONESFORD: I think the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is under a misapprehension as to the attitude taken by my noble and learned friend. We are on Clause 75; his speech is devoted to the case of a trade union that has not been registered. Clause 75 deals with a trade union that has been registered. I really think that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is wrong in thinking that his point arises under this clause at all. If I may come to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, about the period of time mentioned in subsection (1)(c), " not being less than two months ", he suggests that such a period would be insufficient. I appreciate that in some cases it may be insufficient, but what the noble Lord has overlooked, it seems to me, is the fact that the Court is entitled to deal with that, if the period is insufficient, under subsection (3) because it can extend the time. I suggest that there is nothing wrong with the two months as a minimum. If in any case it is not sufficient, the Court can, under subsection (3), extend the time.
LORD HANKEY: I personally think this a good text, but in view of the fears that have been expressed on the Opposition side of the Committee, would the Government consider having something put into the code of industrial practice to make clear how this is to work in practice? We obviously want it to work in a humane and reasonable way, taking account of the necessities of the situation. I believe that a paragraph in the code of industrial practice might give noble Lords of the Opposition the satisfaction which they require.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It is not a case of organisations of workers having to wait for registration. They start with registration, so the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, can put that idea right out of his mind. We are dealing here with the cancellation of registration once a union has got it. Concerning the two months we are here dealing with rectifying an administrative defect. Subsection (1), says " not being less than two months ". So an organisation must have at least two months in which to do what is required. The extent of the time will naturally vary with particular circumstances and according to what has to be put right. If the trade union thinks that not sufficient time has been given, the Industrial Court can further extend the time if it thinks fit. I think noble Lords opposite might be satisfied on this occasion, at any rate.
LORD DIAMOND: I do not share that view. I am bound to say that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is the Minister in charge, and he must know the best way of getting business through. But I should have thought that on a small matter like this it would not have stretched his responsibility overmuch for him to say that he thinks that two months is right but that he will look at this question again before Report to see whether it is misleading. I think two months is misleading. We do not want to keep criticising the Government and we want all the time we can get to criticise the Government for the many defects which are evident in the Bill. I will not pursue the matter, although we are wholly opposed to the clause, but we will let it go through in the ordinary way.
Clause 75 agreed to.
Clause 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Transfer from provisional register and cancellation of entries]:
9.24 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263CC:
Page 61, line 21, at end insert—
(" (6) Cancellation of registration pursuant to this section shall not affect the traditional tax exemption of any organisation of workers which would have been eligible to register under the Trade Union Act 1871 in respect of provident benefits, and for which it is at present eligible under section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a fundamentally important point relating to the existence, I might almost say the continued existence, of many trade unions. It relates to the tax exemption of an organisation of workers, which has existed for 100 years under the 1871 Act. This was consolidated in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act, 1970. I understood what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said earlier, that that. being a consolidation measure, and not intended to alter the rights of any individual in any substantial way, it excluded a reference to registration under the 1871 Act specifically because such words were no longer necessary as that was the only meaning that could be put on those words. We are therefore on common ground in saying that the exemption from tax of the income of certain provident funds, which has continued since 1871 for unions registered under that Act, will no longer apply if unions do not register under the Bill. The noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong.
The Government think it right that unions should register. Many unions are already registered, and the figure that I gave earlier was an understatement. In fact, according to Donovan, over 85 per cent. of trade unionists are in trade unions which are registered under the 1871 Act or under subsequent Acts. The reason why many unions will not register under this Bill is because of the burdens which it puts upon registered trade unions. Therefore, those unions which do not think it right that burdens from which they have been exempt for a century should suddenly be put upon them and which refuse to register, will in the Government's view be failing in their duty.
The Donovan Report recommended that there should be registration, but explicitly stated that registration should be on similar lines to that already existing. So that was a totally different contemplation. The Donovan recommendation as to registration went on to state that those which did not register should he penalised in the same way as a company which does not register with the companies' Registrar a change of registered office or the fact that one individual has ceased to be a director and another individual has been appointed in his place, has to pay a fine of £x per day or per week if the default continues. In
890
short, there is a monetary penalty of a very modest order.
But now the Government are proposing deliberately, as I understand it—quite apart from the other denial of rights in which non-registration will result, so far as organisations of workers are concerned —that unions will cease to be entitled to reclaim the tax on their provident funds if they do not register under the new Act. That is not a small penalty. That is not giving force to a particular point of view. That is withdrawing from the beneficiaries of provident funds—whether a fund caters for old age, illness or a variety of life's difficulties and miseries —a large part of their income, because that income is derived from the total fund. Under the present proposals of the Government, the amount available to go to widows, to people of greatly advanced years, to people who are suffering, to people who have been injured, will be reduced by a substantial proportion running into many tens of thousands or even hundred of thousands of pounds in the case of very large provident funds.
To make sure what we are arguing about, I should like to ask the Government this question. What would be the total amount of additional revenue for the Inland Revenue which would result from this provision, if all the unions refrained from registration? I hope I am making it plain that what we are discussing is a most serious withdrawal of funds from those suffering in one way or another, and who are at the moment covered by trade union provident funds, as a result of the present proposals of the Government. I want to know what the Government are proposing to do about this in order to put the matter right. They can put the matter right in a Finance Bill; they can put it right in this Bill. I am suggesting a form of words which obviously will not be wholly satisfactory, but which could put the matter right and would certainly enable this very difficult position to be dealt with. I do not think it would be right for me to say more at the moment. I should be grateful if I could be supplied with the facts and the answers to the questions I have raised. I beg to move.
9.31 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): This is

891
an important Amendment. It is a large subject, and it might be helpful if I replied for the Government at this stage and then, if there are further questions and comments from other noble Lords, I would be happy to reply to them at the end of the debate. I should begin by explaining the current tax legislation. Under the provisions of Section 338 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970, which were mentioned in the discussion on an earlier Amendment this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, registered trade unions are exempt from tax on the income derived from investments or chargeable gains which is devoted to the payment of provident benefits. This has been the position since the 1920s. Provident benefits by definition include superannuation, sickness and other benefits for members, but not strike benefit. The exemption is restricted to those unions which limit the benefits receivable to £500 as a lump sum or £104 per annum, and although it is believed unlikely that any union offers benefits in excess of these limits, if they did the concession cuts off at that point.
It therefore follows from what I have said that trade unions benefit from this tax concession only if they provide provident benefits for their members, and that the importance of the concession is directly related to the scale of benefits which they provide. Thus, the big, long-established unions, such as the Transport and General Workers, the A.U.E.W. and the Municipal and General Workers, which Lord Cooper spoke about last Thursday, which spend very substantial sums each year on superannuation and other provident benefits, obtain, according to their own estimate, tax relief at the rate of approximately three-quarters of a million pounds for the Transport and General Workers and half a million pounds for the A.U.E.W.; whereas certain other unions, notably the newer, so-called white collar unions, have little or no expenditure on provident benefits, and are consequently not affected by the tax concessions. I do not have a figure of the total amount that would go back to the Revenue if this concession was withdrawn, but I do not think I would argue with the tenor of the remarks of the noble
892
Lord, Lord Diamond. We are talking about very substantial sums, and I have given him the estimated figure for the two largest unions which are concerned in this field.
Unregistered unions are not eligible for the concession at present, which therefore provides a powerful incentive to the older unions, for whom provident benefits are an important part of their activities, to register under the 1871 Trade Union Act. This incentive is reinforced by the exclusion of registered unions from the insurance companies Acts, which would otherwise prevent them from carrying on this type of insurance activity. The principle behind the concession is that trade unions should enjoy the same kind of tax advantages as are enjoyed by other organisations providing provident benefits for their own members. I give as an example friendly societies. The concept is limited therefore to that part of the activities of trade unions which is on all fours with those of the friendly societies. We must get it clear that we are talking about unions which are registered—and I believe the figure is of the order of 328 separate unions registered under the 1871 Act—and those which have provident activities. Some of the particularly big and well-established ones have and the newer ones have not.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me for having dealt with the background before coming on to the substance of the Amendment. The fact is that there may be some organisations of workers which, because of the Bill, will no longer be able to register as trade unions, and they should not on that account be deprived of this tax concession. We must ask ourselves what organisations could suffer in this way. The Amendment envisages those organisations whose registration is cancelled under Clause 77; but the only organisations whose provisional registration would be cancelled, other than when they transfer to the main register, are those which the Registrar finds ineligible for registration as trade unions.
We have already dealt with the clause defining the conditions of eligibility for registration as a trade union, and with Clause 59 which defines an organisation of workers and trade unions. Taken together, these definitions include virtually all trade unions of workers which are

893
at present registered under the legislation to which I have referred. The effect of the Bill is that the only trade unions of workers registered under the existing legislation which will be precluded from registering as trade unions under the Bill and thereby from remaining within the scope of Section 338, will be those organisations which are under the dominance or control of employers. From what noble Lords who were debating this point last week had to say, I find it difficult to see that they would have any wish to grant preferential treatment to organisations of this kind.
We should also dwell for a moment on the position of the branches. We are dealing with a matter of great importance and we ought to be clear what the Bill proposes. It is true that some branches are at present registered in their own right and may be claiming relief under Section 338 accordingly. Subsection (1)(b)of Clause 65 could prevent the separate registration of such non-autonomous bodies in the future. But I should make it clear that this will in no way prevent them from benefiting from tax relief granted in respect of the activities of the parent organisation and all its branches providing the parent organisation registers under the Bill.
Finally, there is the question which the noble Lord has raised and which lies behind his Amendment. That is the organisation of workers which is at present registered under the 1871 Act but which wishes to cancel its registration under this particular Bill. There is no question of tax exemption being used as a threat to force reluctant unions to remain registered. 'Tax exemption is not mentioned in this Part of the Bill or in any Part of the Bill. For many years it has been a principle of legislation, and not only in this field, that tax relief should be related to registered status. We have debated the principles underlying registration very fully. We had quite an extensive debate last Thursday to which the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, made a notable contribution, when we were talking about the definition of trade unions as registered trade unions. The matter has been fully discussed this afternoon and this evening on Clause 63 and on Schedule 4, in which we have been over the ground again. In short, it seems to the Government that registration is a
894
reasonable requirement, particularly bearing in mind that the unions we are speaking of now have been registered for many years past and it is hard to see what arguments of substance exist against the principle of registration. The only really significant change is that the rules of trade unions in future should be open to scrutiny and improvement by an independent and impartial official. This does not seem to the Government very much to ask in return for the very substantial privileges which trade unions will enjoy under the Bill. As I said on Thursday, I think that we can understand and appreciate very well the traditional reasons for the trade unions' opposition to this part of the Bill with the strength that they have. This is a legitimate argument, put forward by a special interest claiming special treatment to be allowed to continue in the way they have done for so many years past. We can understand and respect that point of view, but in Parliament we have to think also of the public good, and it is for this reason that we think this feature of the Bill is an essential one and must be retained.
LORD SAINSBURY: The noble Lord has explained in his usual careful and courteous way, but would not lie accept that unions would he justified in feeling that this is a financial sanction to force them to register, because it deprives unions of their tax concession, as he pointed out, on their provident benefits and therefore it is another means of antagonising the unions?
9.42 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I would like to support my noble friend in what he has said on this point. I must confess that I was alarmed at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. He confirmed exactly what we have said in connection with this registration and the tax on provident funds. He stated that this was no threat; that tax remission was not being given to non-registered trade unions; it was not mentioned in the Bill. Of course it is not mentioned. The only people who are mentioned are those who register; and only those organisations of workers who register according to the terms laid down by the registrar will be classed as trade unions. The others are organisations of workers with no definition as to

895
trade union standing. This Bill puts them outside the law so far as trade unions are concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made it perfectly clear that the unions who do not register will be found by the registrar to be ineligible as trade unions. To think that this blackmail should come in to compel trade unions to register!
The noble Lord has mentioned the sums that might be involved with the Transport and General Workers, and the Municipal and General Workers. He also mentioned the principle involved, that it is where the funds are limited to £500 grant or £104 superannuation. Surely if the workers in a given trade union feel so keenly about their objections to this Bill that they are prepared to face paying up to £100,000 compensation for any illegal action, according to the definition of the Bill, that is a sufficient penalty, without penalising them again by taking away the privileges given to them under the 1871 Act. Surely this is a mean and despicable action. The unions were born on a friendly society basis and developed on this basis, but this has been ignored by previous Governments in the legislation they enacted. The provident funds of the union are not used at all with a view to disrupting industry. The amounts involved in strike pay do not come under income tax relief. The Government have talked a great deal about penalising widows and orphans. My own union, the National Union of Railwaymen, have funds for giving benefits at death and to orphans and widows. But these are the funds which will be penalised should the union refuse to register. These funds are on a non-profit-making basis. No one gets anything out of them except the unfortunate, the sick and the disabled. Surely if an organisation is prepared to fight and to stand up to the penalties that can be placed upon it, it is a mean and despicable trick to make its provident funds pay income tax.
9.47 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in answering my noble friend Lord Diamond, did not adequately take into account the argument which my noble friend had advanced, to this effect: that in refusing relief to the unregistered union the persons who are being penalised
896
or damnified are the persons who would qualify for the receipt of benefits. One has to bear in mind that tax relief is granted only in respect of funds which are applicable and are actually applied for the provision of provident benefits. If it were the case that the union which recovered tax on the amount it paid for the purpose of providing provident benefits could incorporate the tax refund as part of its general funds, then the argument of my noble friend would not be so forceful. But, surely, he is on a very strong point indeed when he submits to this Committee that in refusing the relief, the loss is not being suffered by the general members of the union, but those specific persons who would come within the category of qualifying for provident benefits.
It seems to me a very cogent consideration, when one is considering whether the relief should be applicable only in the case of unions who become registered under this Act, that you are not talking really about the interests of the union; you are talking about the interests of the annuitants. It is a little hard that their interests should depend upon the question of whether the union which pays them their benefit is or is not a registered union. I do not think that the noble Lord answered that point at all, and I would respectfully submit that it tilts the balance of merit the other way. One should look at the annuitant, and one should look at the fund which provides the benefits. One should then ask: is it right to reduce the amount of that fund by cancelling the tax repayment which would otherwise be obtained on that fund? I would respectfully ask the noble Lord to give further consideration to this matter, because it seems to me that he has applied the wrong touchstone. He has asked whether the union deserves the relief, whereas the question that should be asked is: does the annuitant or do other posible annuitants deserve the relief? When one considers that those are the people whose interests really are involved by this relief, it becomes more or less irrelevant whether the union does or does not qualify the registration under the present Bill.
LORD COLLISON: Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham to the speech made last Thursday by my noble friend Lord Cooper. He described

897
it as a very useful and important contribution to the debate, and I entirely agree with that; but to make quite sure that there is no misunderstanding I am certain that if Lord Cooper were in his place this evening he would have been on his feet now, because Lord Cooper made it perfectly clear that while he was going to register his union he was doing it under duress. That bears out what my noble friend has just said. Lord Cooper recognises the involvement of his people in this affair, and it is because he has a sense of responsibility to his union and his membership that he made clear to your Lordships that he would register, as I say, under a form of duress. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will acknowledge this because I think it is important that my noble friend, whom we all greatly respect, should not be misjudged in this matter.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, conceded, or admitted, that this Clause was a hard one on the unions, but said that it was a fair exchange for the many privileges that the Bill gave to trade unions. There seems to be a real breakdown in communications somewhere, because if there are real privileges in the Bill for trade unions why are they so against it? They are surely not mad. If they felt there were privileges they would be for the Bill.
9.53 p.m.
LORD BERNSTEIN: I should like to say the same as Baroness Gaitskell. What are these privileges which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned that trade unions get under the Bill? I should like to know them. I have not seen them, and I have tried to extract what I could by reading the Bill a number of times. I do not agree with my friend Lord Popplewell that this is blackmail. I think that is too strong a word. It may be a rich carrot for the workers. There are no similar opportunities for employers. They do not require a bribe of this kind. What seems to me to be involved is a kind of people's dignity. If you offer people a concession of this kind it is tantamount to saying to them: if you do what we want you to do, if you tip your hat in the right way, you will have a special privilege—that is, a tax exemption. This
898
undermines the very independence which the Government say they want the trade unions to have. I cannot believe that this is good for trade unions, and I cannot believe that it is good for any kind of thing in this country to offer a tax incentive when there is no real benefit to either side. If it was for export, and the trade union were to get an " E" for export, it might be understood, although I should not agree with it. But I cannot see the point of this kind of bribe to get a group of people who in the past have not done too badly—we have not got the evidence, but my noble friend Lord Diamond suggests that they have done badly so far as other cases are concerned—involved in something just because there is going to be a tax exemption. It does not seem right to me.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I have not joined in these debates very much because I have some doubts about our attitude towards this Bill, but it seems to me that in this case the Government are suggesting something that is extremely disagreeable. They seem to be suggesting retrospective action in respect of a third party. Suppose you are an annuitant and receiving your £104 a year, or whatever it may be. Because your leader, from whom you are detached—you have retired from the union—does something, with which you may not agree, your annuity is placed at risk. If this is the position, I find it extremely disagreeable. I should like to be clear that that is an accurate description of what the Government are proposing.
LORD DIAMOND: So far as I am concerned, what my noble friend has just said is an accurate description of what the Government are proposing, and he has put it in very moderate language which I shall find difficulty in following. I much prefer a simple word like " blackmail ", with all the authority that I can put into it from the Front Bench. As my noble friend Lord Stow Hill made clear, what the Government are doing is not what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said. What the Government are doing is penalising beneficiaries who are widows, people suffering from accidents, people whose funeral expenses have to be provided for, and all that kind of thing. Those are the beneficiaries who

899
will suffer, for reasons which have nothing to do with them directly; and unexpectedly so, because all their arrangements, which have been in force since 1922, for half a century, have been based on the continuance of national policy in favour of saving for this kind of thing.
When the noble Lord referred to this as being some kind of ex gratin benefit—I think " concession " was the word he used—he was not giving us the whole story. It has been national policy for a century, I imagine, in terms of insurance generally, which has brushed over to small savers of this kind, to encourage saving, and to encourage people to be prepared for their own misfortunes in later life by saving for them, by giving some special relief from taxation. This is what insurance relief is. There is no justification for giving relief to people who have insurance policies except as a matter of deliberate Government policy, of which anybody who has spent any time in the Treasury is well aware, in order to encourage individuals to provide over the years for the difficulties that life may have for them later on. This is not a concession of any particular kind; it is a continuation of that kind of policy. That is now being withdrawn from the beneficiaries of these provident funds, the categories that we have described, because the unions, who continue to provide benefits but keep their funds quite separate (these funds cannot be used for industrial purposes), are not proposing to register and take on the additional liabilities which the Government want them to take on.
The unions take the view that they have carried on perfectly properly for the last one hundred years; they take the view that Donovan has found no evidence of their abuse; they think they are entitled to the same conditions which have existed for the last one hundred years, and therefore they do not propose to take on additional responsibilities. Where they take the view (and the Municipal and General, I am glad to hear, is in exactly the same category, because it takes the view that were it not for the pressure, amounting to duress, it would not register) that they should not register, the Government are proposing to penalise the widows and orphans, to put it shortly, under this provision. I do not
900
know what the difference between that and blackmail is. It is merely putting pressure on a trade union, as pressure may be put on an individual for something which he cannot control, which is not related to the argument at all; it is totally divorced from the argument, as my noble friend Lord Stow Hill made clear. We regard this as a most despicable attempt on the part of the Government to force a very large section of the population to comply with the Government's own view of what its conduct should be. And I have not finished yet, not by a long way.
The noble Lord did not say one word about what his right honourable friend said in the other place. The noble Lord took a different line. His right honourable friend in another place said that of course he admitted that this would be a terrible thing to do. But he said that the Government are not doing it; he said that all that the union has to do in order to escape from this withdrawal of income tax benefits, in order to maintain the funds for the beneficiaries in the way that they have contracted to do and that the beneficiaries have had good legislative reason to expect for the last half century, is to hive off the provident funds and register as a separate organisation. If I am wrong the noble Lord will correct me when he replies. What was behind the right honourable gentleman's making that statement was that admittedly this would be a terrible thing to happen to provident funds. The noble Lord has given the figures—three-quarters of a million pounds for one provident fund alone. I understand malice, but I do not understand malice to the extent of three-quarters of a million pounds per annum. What the Government are therefore proposing, so far as the right honourable gentleman is concerned, is that unions should avoid this tragedy happening so far as their provident funds are concerned by hiving them off and registering separately.
I am saying to the noble Lord and the Government that if there is a difference of view between us as to whether it is right to register or not, there can be no difference of view as to whether there are burdens put upon those who wish to register and maintain their position as trade unions. As we are concerned with provident funds, why do

901
not the Government carry on in the normal way—I know that noble Lords have to speak to one another on the Front Bench, and I have been as guilty of that as anyone else; but this is a matter of such importance that I am bound to repeat it, for I would not sleep if I thought I had not done everything possible to right the worst wrong in this Bill. Why do not the Government, therefore, if there is this difference of view as to whether trade unions should register, allow tax repayment and relief from taxation to unions so long as they have had these funds and so long as these funds continue?
You may, if you want to, take a different view about the future. You may take a different view about those who contract in the future, who pay their small amounts in order to receive their small benefits when misfortune arises, if you think it is a wise policy. But what you cannot do is to say, as a matter of pressure to register, that it is right to withdraw a benefit which has been in existence as part of deliberate Government policy by every kind of Government of all Parties over the last 50 years.
I am saying to the noble Lord that I should be grateful if he would deal with the essential point which my noble friend Lord Stow Hill brought out: that it is an irrelevance, and evidence of the malice of the Government against the trade unions, to penalise the widow because the trade union takes a particular view as to whether or not it should register. It is grossly unfair, and discreditable to the last degree, to withdraw a large part of those benefits. It is open to the Government, without prejudicing their position with regard to registration of trade unions, to rely on the kind of formula f have indicated under which unions with existing provident funds could, for subscriptions so far received —not necessarily future subscriptions—deal with the income from the invested funds in exactly the same way as they dealt with them over the past 50 years.
10.7 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It is important to see a proposal of this sort in the context of the Bill. What the Bill is trying to do, and the approach of the Government, is towards the reform of
902
trade unions—because that is what we are concerned with. Let us take the general question first, and then move into the particular. The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, and the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, asked what are the benefits that the registered trade unions will obtain under the Bill. That is an extremely fundamental question to put, and we need to be clear in our minds about it. There are a whole number of them, and I should like to itemise five only, because these are the principal ones.
The first is the protection of the organisation, and its authorised agents, if in furtherance of a trade dispute it either induces or threatens to induce another person to break his contract. That is a legal privilege given, I think I am right in saying, to no other organisation or individual in this country. Secondly, the right to apply—
LORD DIAMOND: I apologise for intervening, but I hope the noble Lord is going to make it clear that the question that he is answering is what new benefits will be given in return for new responsibilities. It is no good the noble Lord rehearsing all the existing benefits.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am saying what, in my view, will be the principal benefits for trade unions of registration. Some of these are the established benefits, such as immunity. The noble Lord has quoted Donovan in his support of this question of registration. We speak in the presence of the Chairman of the Royal Commission. The noble Lord will remember that Donovan recommended the registration of trade unions. The noble and learning Lord, Lord Donovan, told us in a most interesting intervention that that flowed from a belief of a number of members of the Royal Commission—including himself—that trade unions should have corporate personality; that they should be incorporated, and from that flowed the recommendation that unions should be registered. It is also true that a majority —not the whole—of the members of the Royal Commission recommended that immunity from legal proceedings should be attached only to registered trade unions. Let us bear that in mind when we talk of the Donovan Report.

903
Let me continue with the list of benefits, because some points are new, and some are existing ones. Secondly, there is the right to apply for recognition as a sole bargaining agent; thirdly, the right to enter into an agency shop agreement. Of course, that is a completely new right and benefit. The agency shop has not existed before, so that that, by definition, must be a completely new benefit. Noble Lords do not seem to be as familiar with this Bill as they should be. Here is another new one: that employers will be under a general duty to disclose to trade union representatives information about the business. Then there are the limits on compensation, which we have not yet discussed but which we shall be coming to in the course of this week. Finally, there is the continuation of the financial and other advantages relating to the benevolent activities of trade unions. In return for these benefits the Government are asking one thing. They are asking that unions should register—most of them do already—but the Registrar is being given new powers to scrutinise the rules of the trade union and to improve those rules if it is thought to be necessary.
Let me move next to some of the points that were raised in the course of the debate. I cannot accept the word " blackmail ". The noble Lord will have to square his choice of that word with his noble friend Lord Bernstein behind him, who speaks with great experience as a most enlightened employer and who thought that word was too strong, although he dissents from what is proposed in this part of the Bill. The noble Lord will also have to square it with what the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, had to say earlier today, speaking with great experience as a former member of the Royal Commission and independent of the main political Parties.
As I have listened to this debate, it has seemed to me—and this thought occurred to me on Thursday, but I did not have an opportunity to share it with the Committee then—that in a way the benefits for registered trade unions that I have itemised under this Bill are so great that a sort of reverse transference takes place in the minds of some trade union leaders, who say, " If these benefits are so great, why is it that we are being urged towards registration? Look how
904
terrible it would be if we did not register ". Therefore the fear of registration has built up into this great bogey. I can understand the origins of this matter, but I do not believe that 100 years after the trade union movement first coalesced into these voluntary movements they still have the vulnerability that they had then, or need the protection that they needed at that time.
The noble Lords, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge and Lord Stow Hill, asked about the beneficaries of the union provident funds. I think there are two points to be made here. The first is what the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, said—and I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Collison, for his comment. When he studies Hansard I think he will see that 1 was not seeking to imply that the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, was in any way in agreement with these proposals; he made his opposition quite plain, both in public as reported in the Guardian about two weeks ago, and in his speech last Thursday. But what he did say was that if a union decided to cancel its registration it would then have to increase its contributions. Therefore it would be within the power of the union itself to decide whether or not to increase its contribution in order to fulfil its commitments.
The second point concerns what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said, about which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked me. I can confirm that what the noble Lord said is, generally speaking, an accurate report of my right honourable friend's observation, and it bears on this: that the registered union at the moment which decides, despite everything, that it is going to defy this extremely advantageous provision and to cancel its registration, can hive off its provident fund into a sperately registered fund, but that would of course be registered. It would not be under this Bill, but it would be registered, presumably, as a charity with the Charity Commissioners, or perhaps registered as a friendly society; but in each case it is an absolute requirement for tax exemption that there should be a registered body. One of the reasons for this is quite straightforward, although it has not been mentioned in the debate: in order to benefit from tax exemption, any organisation has an obligation to keep and produce proper accounts and to have them audited by independent and

905
professionally qualified accountants. Schedule 5 to the Bill provides for exactly that.
This debate has been an important one. Strong feelings have been expressed, and we cannot argue against that in any way. But what we are being asked to do in this Amendment is to accept the status quo. The arguments have been put skilfully, ingeniously and with passion, but it is an argument for continuation of the present system. Yet it was this system that led the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, and the Royal Commission to say that rules should be clear and unambiguous but that at present they fall far short of a satisfactory standard in this respect. Those were the words used, and the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, elaborated on this point earlier today. This is an argument to be left alone: it is one that anyone in politics gets very used to—and one can understand it and the strength with which it is held—hut it is not one which we can accept in the context of this Bill.
LORD SLATER: I am not going to take up any time—just two seconds—but I want to comment on what the noble Lord has said before Lord Diamond rises to his feet again. In effect, what the Schedule is putting forward is a form of lockout imposed upon trade unions because they refuse to register.
LORD STOW HILL: I am sorry to intervene again, but may I just put one question to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham? Assume for the sake of argument —I do not accept it; nor does anyone on this side of the Committee—that the Government are quite right in saying to the trade unions " You will obtain the benefits which the Bill provides, for example, in respect of Clause 92—only if you register ". What on earth has that to do with the question of whether provident funds, which do not belong in any real sense any longer to the union but belong to the prospective or actual annuitants, should or should not be depleted by not having tax repayment?
LORD BERNSTEIN: As the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, mentioned my comment, I should like to say that I suggested " bribery " would be the word. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could no doubt tell us about the
906
criminal law and what happens with regard to bribery and blackmail. To me they are both despicable. Bribery affects the human dignity of a greater number of people in this Bill than perhaps blackmail does in other walks of life. They are both equally despicable.
LORD POPPLEWELL: I wonder if the noble Lord would agree that there are five points involved. The first one concerns privileges—and those privileges are ones that the trade union movement has had to fight for throughout the ages. Points 2 and 3 refer to agency shops and the right to have an agency shop. This is just a subterfuge to prevent the further development of the closed shop in which nearly four million workers are already working.
As regards the disclosure of business accounts, this is something that is inevitable in large-scale industry to-day when applications for wages are being put forward. The accounts are being produced, and all kinds of statements are made that the undertakings " simply cannot afford anything more at the present time ". This question of the disclosure of accounts is only a matter of following up practices that are now developing, particularly in the publicly-owned undertakings. I am astonished that the noble Lord should mention benevolent fund benefits, because those benevolent funds that have been established by the trade union movement are there to protect their fallen brethren, and have been so through the ages, and this is nothing new.
10.21 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: We are not far from being in agreement that we have not got a fair, objective answer to our complaints yet. The noble Lord has not improved the case in a number of ways. First of all, he has not explained why he thought it right to give a full answer in his first speech without dealing at all with the argument which was put forward by his right honourable friend in another place. When the noble Lord found that he had to deal with this argument he was compelled to speak about a union, in spite of all the advantages that were being offered to it, for some curious reason taking the view that it should not register, as if these large and responsible unions are going to take the view that

907
they should refrain from registration for some totally unreal reason. They are refraining from registration because they take the view, which I share, that, on balance, the advantages of registration are much less than the disadvantages, and that they are entitled to go on on the same basis as previously.
Their case has been examined, and the result of the examination is twofold: first, that unions should be strengthened (and the Government are claiming that this is what their Bill is doing); and, secondly, that evidence of abuse on any substantial scale is absent. So, if you are starting off to strengthen the unions, and there is no abuse to justify a variation in the circumstances, what is the justification for varying them so profoundly? The noble Lord did not advance his case by putting forward this catalogue of advantages, some of which exist already. I thought it was a great pity that he did not make it clear that he was referring to advantages which already exist before claiming them as new advantages. When he tries to pretend to us that the agency shop is a new advantage, then it is difficult not to smile about it. The agency shop is a withdrawal of the rights which many unions enjoy in practice at the present time, and which many employers hope will continue, and urge us to press the Government to see that they should continue. That is the situation with regard to the closed shop.
There is not a single new advantage accruing to unions as a result of this Bill which goes in any sense to match the disadvantages. I am bound to say again that it is the unions who ought to be regarded perhaps as authoritative as the noble Lord in deciding whether it is an advantage to register or not. A union having decided not to register, then the widows of previous members of the union are going to be penalised, against public policy, in this way. I find this utterly scandalous, and we are bound to press the Government to give some explanation of why it is that they are taking this action—unless it is what we allege, that the Government are exerting undue pres-
908
sure on unions to make them register by withdrawing these very substantial financial rights which they, and everyone who saved in similar controlled and small circumstances, have been entitled to certainly since the turn of the century, and in this specific form for 50 years. I find it absolutely intolerable that the Government should maintain this attitude. We must have some explanation.
THE EARL of BALFOUR: May I ask a question before my noble friend Lord Windlesham speaks for the Government? If this Amendment were accepted, would he then allow an unregistered charitable organisation to have full tax relief regardless of whether it was a registered trade union or any other body?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I have already spoken twice at some length on this Amendment and I do not think I should delay the Committee further. I do not think that however long I spoke now we should reach agreement. I said when we debated registration on Thursday last that I thought this was a feature of the Bill on which more than any other arguments for and against did not meet; they flew past each other. I hoped that in our debates we might come a little closer to reconciling those points of view. I am not sure from what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said that we have come any closer. I think we still have a very wide gulf between us. I made a rather full speech at the beginning of the debate. I did not cover the comments made by my right honourable friend in another place, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will find when he studies Hansard a great deal of new and factual information which was not available before. We have said on one or two occasions that we should concern ourselves with those Parts of the Bill which another place did not discuss, and I think that where we can cover fresh ground it is advisable to do so. Of course I agree that on major issues it is right that these things should be threshed out and that we should have a full debate, but I think it is now for the Committee to decide this question.
10.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 263CC) shall be agreed to?

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Platt, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Popplewell, L.

Barrington, V.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Rusholme, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bernstein, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, I..

Hughes, L.

Slater, L.

Blyton, L.

Janner, L.

Stamp, L.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Lindgren, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Wade, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

Energlyn, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Willis, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Abinger, L.

Denham, L.[Teller.]

Mansfield, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Digby, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Balerno, L.

Dundee, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balfour, E.

Falmouth, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Barnby, L.

Fortescue, E.

Redmayne, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Glendevon, L.

Rothermere, V.

Belstead, L.

Goschen. V.[Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Gowrie, E.

St. Helens, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gray, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Burton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Chelmer, L.

Hailes, L.

Somers, L.

Clwyd, L.

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

Suffield, L.

Colyton, L.

Terrington, L.

Conesford, L

Hankey, L.

Teviot, L.

Cowley, E.

Inglewood, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tweedsmuir, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Kemsley, V.

Twecdsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Cranbrook, E.

Killearn. L.

Vivian, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Windlesham, L.

Cromartie, E.

Latymer, L.

Wolverton, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 78.
10.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 77 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: I do not think I need detain your Lordships long on this clause. Although the serious Amendment which we have just discussed was placed under this clause, the clause and the Amendment were quite independent. The tax evil remains whether this clause stands or not. Therefore, as this clause is not otherwise an important one, I do not wish to detain your Lordships on it.
Clause 77 agreed to.
Clause 78 [Effect of entry in provisional register]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ST. HELENS): I understand that Amendment No. 263PPP is not going to be moved, and that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is going to move a manuscript Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved a manuscript Amendment.
Page 61, line 26, after the first " of " insert "section 5 of ".
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I propose not to move Amendment No. 263PPP, but in its place to move a manuscript Amendment in a different form. The only difference between Amendment No. 263PPP, as it appears on the Marshalled List, and this new Amendment is that the new form omits the reference to " section 147 "; otherwise all the other provisions of the printed clause and of Amendment No. 263PPP remain. We have not agreed about very much this evening, but I hope that we can agree about this.
The reason we want to insert " section 5 " into Clause 78 at the appropriate place is purely consequential on something that has already been done. The original form of Amendment No. 263PPP contained a reference to " section 147 ", and this was intended to be paving for a subsequent Amendment which may not now be moved. That is the reason why I have omitted it from the revised form of Amendment, and I hope that in its revised form the Amendment will be reasonably uncontentious. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: I am sure that every one of your Lordships will have found the explanation of the noble and learned Lord as simple and obvious as I did.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 [Application to registrar to investigate]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ST. HELENS): If Amendment No. 263DD is agreed to, I cannot call the following Amendment, No. 263EE.
10.38 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263DD:
Page 61, line 30, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: We now move on to Clause 79, which deals with the power of the Registrar to investigate and, as the rubric makes clear, with applications to him to do so. The Amendment seeks to leave out subsection (1), under which anybody who is a member of an appropriate organisation or who has ceased to be a member can make application. The reason why we seek to leave out subsection (1), which enables individuals who are members of a trade union to apply to the Registrar for an investigation on the grounds that the union has been guilty of an unfair industrial practice (and of course it does not apply only to employees; it applies also to employers), is the same as that for which we opposed Clauses 63 and 64. Unfortunately, I was not able to be here when those clauses were discussed, but those clauses are themselves regarded as objectionable. This clause enables dissidents, some of whom will not even be, and will never have been, members of the organisation, to introduce a series of investigations as to whether the organisation is complying with the principles enunciated in Clause 63.
Clause 63, your Lordships will remember, contains the guiding principles for organisations of workers, in which, in particular, subsection (7) was most objectionable. So the evils of Clause 63 are carried on into Clause 79, and individuals

913
are given power to apply to the Registrar for investigation. This power, we think, is given not only to an existing member but also to one who was formerly a member and has ceased to be a member otherwise than by voluntary resignation, as well as to somebody who has tried to become a member but has been refused admission. We think that this clause, mind in particular subsection (1), will extend the evil, to which we have frequently referred, of giving far too much power to those who are dissident and temporarily dissatisfied with the way the union is behaving, and will lead to splintering and a diminution in the proper powers of the unions. It is for that reason that we think that this particular subsection ought to be removed. I beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: This clause appears to go very considerably further than it should, and although I do not go the whole way with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in suggesting leaving out the whole subsection (unless, of course, he explains to me that he has so many other Amendments up his sleeve that it really makes sense after all), I think that the Government ought to give something on this point. So far as I can see—and I stand open to correction—anyone who has ceased to be a member of one of these organisations other than by voluntary resignation, or has been refused admission to it, shall be eligible to make application under this clause really for as long as he wishes. So far as I can see, there does not appear anywhere in the rest of the clause, or anywhere else in the Bill, to be a time limit on this.
Now whereas I can perfectly well see that someone who has been refused membership, or who has been expelled, should have the power to make an application, exactly such a person may well be a serious troublemaker over and above any particular damage that he thinks he has suffered: the kind of person who, as the noble and learned Lord or any other lawyer will know, comes back and back and back to the courts on smaller and smaller pretexts in order to argue more and more unconvincing cases. We must allow for the possibility of anyone who is aggrieved applying to the Registrar; but there is no obligation on us at all to
914
grant this concession without a time limit or to grant it except for the particular circumstances in which such a person has been aggrieved. I hope that the Government will be able either to give us an explanation of what seems to be an uncommonly widely drawn clause or to give us some satisfaction.
10.45 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I may, I will deal first with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. There is a limitation as to time in the following clause, Clause 80(2). To turn to the substance of the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I find it difficult to agree that application to the registrar to investigate should be made only by a person who is a member of an organisation and not by one who has been forced to resign. Surely former members should also have a right to complain against what they thought was unfair expulsion, not merely to an internal appeals body but also to an independent body which can give an unbiased judgment. The same applies to potential members who have been unable to gain entry to a union. They ought also to be allowed to make application to the registrar to investigate. This is all that is involved here. They must do it within a certain period. I should have thought it was only fair that this should be done; and, what is more, it would be impossible to assure that their rights under the Bill would be secured unless such investigations were possible.
LORD DIAMOND: The.noble Lord gave an example of an ex-member being entitled to ask a question relating to the cessation of his membership. I did not read the subsection in that way. He says that the application can refer only to matters affecting the applicant himself. I read it as meaning that any person can apply for an investigation if there is anything to be investigated, and that his application will succeed if the registrar is satisfied that there is something to be investigated; but that the subject matter of the investigation could be anything; that there need be no direct connection between the applicant and the matter complained of. Would the noble Lord tell me whether the example he gave was deliberate? If so, would he justify it in relation to the subsection?
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. That is how I read it. That is what I meant by saying there is no time limit. There is a time limit from the moment that what is to be investigated occurs and the moment when the application is to be made; but there is no time limit affecting the period between the person's ceasing to be a member of the organisation, or being refused membership of the organisation, and any complaint he may make about anything the organisation does. I think that this is a serious point.
LORD BROWN: Any person who applies for a job in an organisation and is refused can make an application to the registrar. Of course, the registrar could turn it down if the grounds were slight, but it must mean that the registrar is going to get a large number of applications, and he will have to consider and investigate them all. We all know in employment circles that there are many people who believe they have been discriminated against. This may not be so; but they will have the right to apply and may do so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The intention of this clause undoubtedly is that the person who himself has cause of complain shall be able to get it investigated. Others can complain to the registrar and ask for an investigation; but in such cases the registrar will be initiating the investigation himself—he is bound to get his information from somewhere. That is not a complaint within the meaning of this clause. We are here talking about an unfair industrial practice under Clause 64 in regard to the guiding principles or under the rules. I do not really see that there is any great difficulty about this. The intention is that it should be the person who actually has the cause of complaint who brings the matter to the registrar to investigate.
LORD DIAMOND: Then I must press the noble Lord a little further. I am grateful to him for explaining to us that that is the intention of the clause: he has answered my first question. He says that this was a deliberate answer that he gave, of an individual complaining about something affecting himself.
916
The second question I asked is where in the clause does it so limit an application? I cannot see it. Would the noble Lord be good enough to help me? Clause 79(3) says:
"Any person who … is eligible to do so …"
and the eligibility arises in the subsection we are now discussing. It covers somebody who has never been a member of the organisation at all, but who sought to become a member and has been refused admission. To go back to subsection (3), it says:
"Any person who … is eligible to do so may make an application to the registrar on the grounds that action specified in the application has been taken by or on behalf of the organisation and …
(b) constituted a breach of the rules of the organisation."
So (b) is one of the grounds. I am saying, therefore, that this person who has never been a member of the organisation, can apply for an investigation on the grounds that a specified action taken —not necessarily this action:
"constituted a breach of the rules of the organisation."
That is a very wide statement indeed. It could refer, so far as I can see, to any action. I should have thought that there was enough doubt about it—we are not experts on this side of the Committee—for the noble Lord to undertake to look into this matter very carefully to see whether the clause can be construed only in the way he has construed it, or whether it could also be construed in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and I both construed it.
LORD BROWN: There is another point that emerges. Under Clause 21 we have the start of the section dealing with an appeal against dismissal. This is a drafting point—all these Amendments are in a sense drafting points. Clause 79(1)(b) refers to a member who has ceased to be a member " otherwise than by voluntary resignation ". If a person is dismissed unfairly he falls under Clause 79(1)(b), but he also has a right of appeal under Clause 20(1). Is there not a great danger, owing to inadequate drafting, of confusion here in setting up what are in effect two means of appeal for the same implied unfairness?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Looking at the point which the noble Lord has made I do not think that this is so. I must confess that I was wrong in the guidance I gave to the Committee on this point. Clause 79 does not confine the right of complaint to aggrieved persons. Of course it is necessary to look at the matters on which complaints can be made. If the noble Lord will look at the guiding principle he will see the sort of thing that can be complained about. For example, under Clause 63(2)—
"Any person who applies for members of the organisation … shall not, by way of any arbitrary or unreasonable discrimination, be excluded from membership …"
If he does not get in, why should he not have a right of complaint, or why should somebody not have a right of complaint about his not getting in? I should have thought it obvious that a case like that had to be covered by saying that a man may have sought to become a member and had been refused admission. The same applies to a person who has been a member and who has been unfairly deprived of his membership. Clearly both cases have to be covered. I am sorry that I construed this point in the wrong way. have been informed that what I said is not correct. l should he glad to look at this point further.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at this matter further. He was saying earlier that the intention of the clause was that the application should be limited to matters affecting the applicant. He is now saying that this is not the intention of the clause. So all the arguments he used are quite invalid. The noble Lord is in considerable difficulty in this regard. It is only because he is a person of common sense that he used the obvious argument to justify this subsection, and he was wrong. If one uses the only argument there is and finds one is wrong, there are no arguments left which one can use.
That brings us back to what I was saying in the first place. Any person who applies to a union and is not admitted can apply to the Registrar and may cause trouble. Anyone can threaten, " If I am not admitted, I will apply to the Registrar." Of course, that course may not get him far, but it will be a nuisance for the union in question and they do not
918
wish it. We are grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will look at this point again, but we think it a little too late. He has been advised that he was wrong and any argument he used has been cut away beneath him. I am bound to say to the Committee that this is a subsection which ought not to be in the Bill; it is one which tends to undermine the unions and to splinter them.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: No one will grudge the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, harrying the Government on a point into which he has been able to get his teeth deeply. I suggest that this is not an occasion when this Amendment should be pressed to a Division. This is a situation which is bound to occur in a long and complicated Bill which has not been offered to scrutiny in another place clause by clause. Here I think that a genuine mistake has been made. In the circumstances, I suggest that the best thing is for the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. to look at this point again, as he has said he will do, but with a slightly more generous grace. The Government have been caught out on this clause. The field is opened to people who have been known to apply for membership and do not get admitted, just for the sake of harassing a union; and they can go on doing it for any breach of the rules. They can keep an eye on the Press and everything that goes on in that union and they can make themselves a nuisance. Of course, they will be turned down by the Registrar, but it is not really good enough that this should be allowed. The clause is really drawn a great deal too widely. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not just look at it again, but will seek to amend it; and I hope further that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will not press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD BROWN: May I for the purpose of having it taken into account when the noble Lord reconsiders this matter, say that there are a large number of citizens not born in this country, many of whom suffer, justifiably or otherwise, from the feeling that they are discriminated against by employers and by unions. Any personnel officer in a large company in this country will tell you that, having made what he would claim to be a fair rejection of a candidate for a job, quite frequently he is immediately

919
accused of discrimination. That is not uncommon at all, and the circumstances really provide of threat of being a nuisance which goes too far. I wonder whether these remarks could be taken into account when the drafting of this clause is reconsidered. I am not asking for any sort of reply to this comment now.
LORD DIAMOND: I have listened and agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont said. We had a very frank admission by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that he will look at the matter, and in these circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.3 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263EE:
Page 61, line 35, at end insert (" for nonpayment of any contribution which under the rules of the organisation he is required to pay, or ").
The noble Lord said: This is a second-best to the first Amendment, but as that has been withdrawn it rises in priority and becomes an Amendment which we seek to have accepted. It relates to Clause 79(1)(b) where a person who can apply was a member of such an organisation of the union and has ceased to be a member of it otherwise than by voluntary resignation. This means that he cannot apply if he resigned voluntarily, but that in any other circumstances he can apply. That is going far too far and, in particular, it is quite absurd, in my view, that a person who has not paid his contribution, and has thus ceased to be a member under the rule of the organisation, should be entitled to apply. It really is going far too far and is asking for trouble.
I hope that this Amendment, which is absolutely simple and straightforward, will be accepted—if not in these words, in words which give effect to it.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has argued that an individual has a responsibility to pay his
920
subscription and if he does not do so, and as a consequence is expelled by the trade union, he should not then have a right of complaint against that organisation. On the face of it this point certainly seems reasonable, but I think there are two reasons why it is difficult to accept the Amendment. First, it may not, for example, always be the fault of the individual that he gets into arrears with subscriptions; and of course, as your Lordships know, there is the case of Edwards v. SOGAT where the branch secretary failed to forward to the employer a form completed by Mr. Edwards authorising his union subscription to be deducted from his wages. Unknown to himself, Mr. Edwards fell into arrears and was in fact deprived of membership
The second reason why it is difficult to accept this Amendment is that the Registrar is empowered to investigate, under this clause, breaches of the rules and breaches of the guiding principles of Clause 63. This is the purpose of the clause, and what we on this side of the Committee do not want is for the Registrar to become involved in lengthy preliminary investigations to determine who is or who is not eligible to complain. That is why we are glad to have a simple eligibility test in subsection (1)(a), (b) and (c) of the clause. In brief, I think the chief reason for resisting this Amendment, in general terms, is that we feel that a breach of rules or the guiding principles is wrong in principle, and it seems to us that it is fundamentally dangerous to exclude particular types of people who otherwise would be considered eligible to complain. Though we concede that it is invariably necessary to envisage extreme cases of difficulty or extreme cases of injustice, it is possible that, if one accepted this Amendment, sooner or later an injustice that would be regretted might ensue.
LORD DIAMOND: The noble Lord has made it clear that the view of the Government and the view of the Opposition are poles apart in their approach to the freedom of individuals to having unions and to make a nuisance of themselves unnecessarily. So far as the Government's position is concerned, it seems to me that anybody can come along and complain: a person who has been a member, a person who has not been a member, a person who has not paid his

921
subscriptions—virtually anybody can come along and start complaining, and the justification for this is that it is nice to have a simple eligibility rule. Well, they have the simple eligibility rule, and anybody can come along and make life difficult for the unions. The Government may think that that is satisfactory, but we do not, and we propose to divide against it.
LORD BROWN: The arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, were, frankly, ridiculous. If a union member had taken steps to pay his subscription, and the subscription did not arrive at the right place through the inefficiency of somebody else, could that possibly be construed as non-payment of that member's subscription? I very much doubt if the Registrar could possibly construe it in that way. Any sensible person set up to judge such a case would not construe the individual as not having paid his subscription. If that is the case, then the law is an ass. This is an extremely thin reason for rejecting the Amendment, and the arguments put forward by my noble and learned friend are very strong. This ought to be considered seriously, otherwise individuals, particularly when they have animosity against the union or past happenings, will seek to harry the union in this way.
LORD BELSTEAD: Before this matter goes to some form of conclusion, it might be fair to point out to the Committee that it is because basically we on this side agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that we are resisting this Amendment. It is because in a previous case precisely this happened: the rules of the union took a certain view, and a certain situation developed. This can happen. It is the sort of thing that everyone deprecates, but it can occur. Unfortunately, it is no good the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and it is no good noble Lords on this side, saying that we deprecate this: it is something that could occur, and we feel that it could occur on this Amendment.
LORD BROWN: The point is that in the previous cases cited the union or some other body made the decision to which the noble Lord referred. The person who in future, when this Bill becomes art Act, has to make the decision will be
922
the Registrar. It is a different set of circumstances. The situation is not the same as it has been in the past, and the cases cited from the past have no relevance to the future situation.
LORD BELSTEAD: With respect to the noble Lord, I do not think what he is saying, which is eminently reasonable, ties up with subsection (1) of the clause. I would also point out that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, called in aid that what we were voting on was that anybody could be difficult and harry a union. I think it is reasonable to draw your Lordships' attention to an ensuing Government Amendment. We do not know what view the Committee will take of it, but it is the intention of the Government that they would like the Committee to agree that complaints should not be vexatious or frivolous. It will be for the Committee to decide.
11.10 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: The Government might take that view, but there is no reason why, even if the Committee does support the subsequent Amendment, that we should on this Amendment support the Government's ambivalence. If the Government want to go two different ways, they cannot expect us to be equally pointless and support them in both directions. T did not dwell on this because I thought the other point was more important: namely, the attitude of the Government. But as the noble Lord has come back to the case itself, I do not think it is relevant to the case.
We are considering who should be eligible to complain; and what the Amendment indicates is that the person who is eligible to complain should not be a person who has ceased to be a member of the union for non-payment of his contribution. As my noble friend said, you cannot say that he ceased to be a member for non-payment of his contribution if he has paid it. That determines whether he is eligible to make a complaint. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has made it clear that if he is eligible to make a complaint the subject matter of the complaint is not restricted to this particular incident; it can relate to anything affecting the union. Therefore, once he has got through this hoop he can complain.

923
I repeat what I said earlier. I think it is quite ridiculous that a person who was a member of the union and refused to pay—not an unfortunate sufferer of some mistake in the accountant's office or something like that—but refused to pay, and ceased to be a member because he refused to pay, can then have a roving brief to apply for investigation and harrying of the union because he feels disgruntled about it. No doubt it was because he felt disgruntled that he ceased to pay. But he cannot have it both ways. Nor can the Government.
LORD HANKEY: I do find this pretty hard to understand. A person has not paid his subscription and has been pushed out of the organisation and then makes a complaint to the Registrar; is it seriously contended that under subsection (3) he could claim that the organisation had committed an unfair industrial practice against him? I do not see just how the case lies; it seems to me thought up out of the sky. A chap like this is entitled to make an application, but if you look at subsection (3) it says what he is to complain of; it is either an unfair industrial practice or a breach of rule of the organisation. I do not see that anybody who has failed to pay his contribution can make a claim under either.
LORD BROWN: Nobody is contending that he would win his case. What is being contended is that he has the right to make an infernal nuisance of himself. This would involve the union opening their books to investigation and the Registrar having the problem. The noble

CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lindgren, L.

Beswick, L.

Energlyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Gardiner, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Garnsworthy, L.[Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.[Teller.]

Brown, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Walston, L.

Champion, L.

Hughes, L.

Willis, L.

Diamond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Bessborough, E.

Chelmer, L.

Abinger, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Conesford, L.

Aldenham, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Cowley. E.

Balerno, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Cranbrook, E.

Balfour, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Belstead, L.

Burton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Lord is satisfied he could not win his case, but he cannot be satisfied that he cannot make a confounded nuisance of himself on the flimsiest of grounds.
LORD HANKEY: We cannot draft our laws to avoid any trouble by any crackpot. It is only an utter crackpot who can do this.
LORD BROWN: Our laws are drafted so that people who want to take matters before the courts have hurdles to clear before they can cause a nuisance in the courts, and this is so in this case.
LORD SOMERS: Before we divide, could my noble friend say whether a man who, under the agency shop provision, has consciencious objections, and is not a member of the union, and is paying instead to a charity, will still be eligible to complain?
LORD BELSTEAD: I think the answer is " Yes ". I am speaking without advice, but I have looked again at subsection (1), and confirm my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brown. You may get a situation in which a union member says he has paid a subscription and the union says he has not. Who is to tell? One is forced back to the guiding principles. For that reason I feel we are reasonable to say we will not accept the Amendment, and to exclude the wish of the Opposition in this matter.
11.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 263EE) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 71.

Daventry, V.

Hankey, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.[Teller.]

Denham, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Helens, L.

Digby, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

St. Just, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sandford, L.

Dudley, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Selkirk, E.

Dundee, E.

Latymer, L.

Selsdon, L.

Falmouth, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Ferrers, E.

Mansfield, E.

Somers, L.

Fisher, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Terrington, L.

Fortescue, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Teviot, L.

Glendevon, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Goschen. V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs

Gray, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Vivian, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Windlesham, L.

Hailes, L.

Redmayne, L.

Yarborough, E.

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

Rothermere, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.24 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 263QQQ:
Page 62, line 17, at end insert (" other than a breach to which the next following subsection applies.
(3A) This subsection applies—

(a) to any breach of any rules made in pursuance of section 3 section 4(1) or section 5(1) of the Trade Union Act 1913 (which relate to political funds), and

(b) to any breach of rules in taking a vote on a resolution to approve an instrument of amalgamation or transfer within the meaning of the Trade Union (Amalgamations, etc.) Act 1964.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to exclude from the right of complaint to the Registrar any matter for which redress already exists under the Trade Union Act 1913 and the Trade Union (Amalgamations) Act 1964. The reason for the Amendment is that the procedures laid down by the 1913 and 1964 Acts for complaint to the Registrar are considerably different from what is provided in Clause 79. As the Clause stands it allows complaints to the Registrar against any breach of rules or guiding principles by a trade union. In other words it covers complaints from the 1913 and 1964 Acts.
As noble Lords will know, the 1913 Act deals with unions' political funds, and it governs the means by which such funds may be established and the objects for which they may be expended, and the right of members to contract out of paying a union's political levy. There is a parallel with the present Bill in that both measures seek to secure rights for indi-
926
viduals and to provide enforcement machinery, but there are two significant differences. Under the 1913 Act the Registrar may hear complaints against any organisation satisfying the old definition of trade union, whereas in this Bill the Registrar deals only with workers' organisations which have registered and thereby become unions in the new sense. Secondly, if a complaint made under the 1913 Act is found to be justified, the Registrar may make an order enforceable through the County Court, whereas under Clause 80 of this Bill, on the other hand, he has no power to enforce a settlement. He can attempt to settle matters informally or, failing this, refer the case to the Industrial Court or an industrial tribunal.
There being these differences, it is felt that it is much better that the 1913 and 1964 procedures, which have worked satisfactorily in the past, should be retained alongside the procedures of this Bill. Clause 81(2) of the Bill provides for the exclusion of political funds and amalgamation cases from the Bill's provisions as to investigations undertaken by the Registrar on his own initiative. I hope the Committee will agree that a parallel provision is needed in this clause, which deals with complaints by individual members to the Registrar. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: I would only wish to thank the noble Lord for his explanation and to say how much I agree with him that procedures which have worked well in the past should be continued. It seems to me a very appropriate context, and I would like to support this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 79, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: We have discussed this clause and have made our views known on a particular section of it. It really is a most unsatisfactory clause—unsatisfactory in a series of ways—and I

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Digby, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Aldenham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dudley, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Dundee E.

Pender, L.

Balfour, E.

Falmouth, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Barrington, V.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fisher, L.

Redmayne, L.

Belstead, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rothermere, V.

Bessborough, E.

Glendevon, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Helens, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gowrie, E.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hailes, L.

Selkirk, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

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

Selsdon, L.

Burton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Chelmer, L.

Hankey, L.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Terrington, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Jellicoe, E. (Lord Privy Seal.)

Teviot, L.

Cowley, E.

Kemsley, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Cromartie, E.

Latymer, L.

Vivian, L.

Daventry, V.

Mansfield, E.

Windlesham, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Yarborough, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Bernstein, L.

Diamond, L.

Lindgren, L.

Beswick, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Energlyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Gardiner, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Brown, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Willis, L.

Champion, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 79, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
11.35 p.m.
Clause 80 [Action by registrar on application under section 79]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD ST. HELENS): I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment 263GG is agreed to, I shall not call the subsequent Amendment No. 263RRR.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263GG:
Page 62, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 40.
The noble Lord said: Nevertheless I think it would be a sensible course for me to move this Amendment and to
928
think we should register our lack of approval of the clause as a whole.
11.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 79, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 71; Not-Contents, 17.
invite your Lordships to agree to Amendment No. 263GG, which perhaps can be discussed with Amendment No. 263RRR as the points are closely related and the Amendments come at the same point in the Bill.
The reason, as will be obvious, why we put this Amendment at the start of line 38 is that we thought the reasons given earlier in the clause in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) were quite inadequate and there was no justification for a further one, namely, that the Registrar should be satisfied that in the circumstances there were special reasons for proceeding with the application. This is extremely vague and could open the door to almost anything. I am aware that what the Government propose is
" it was not practicable of the application to be made before"

929
is an improvement on the situation. Obviously the Government and the Opposition are thinking somewhat on the same lines. I think the best course is for me to move this Amendment without more ado and leave it to the Government to explain why their Amendment is better than ours, apart from the fact that their troops are more numerous than ours.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Diamond. As he has said, obviously we are thinking along the same lines, and obviously some sort of time limit is needed as memories become blurred. Having proposed a fairly short time limit of four weeks, we think there should be some discretion given to the Registrar to be able to extend the period in appropriate cases, for example where the complainant has been sick or where seamen or other workers have been employed outside the country and it has not been practicable for the complainant to present his case to the Registrar. To meet these cases and to avoid possible injustice we propose that the Registrar should have this discretion to extend the time limit.
As will be seen from the Marshalled List of Amendments, the Amendment in my name would have the effect of restricting the discretion of the Registrar to cases in which it was not practicable for the complaint to be brought within the time limit of four weeks. We accept that it is not justifiable to give an unlimited discretion to waive the four-weeks rule, and the Government Amendment narrows the Registrar's discretion very much indeed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, will accept this compromise which is much closer to his Amendment than to the words actually in the clause. I hope that he will graciously withdraw his Amendment and allow me to move mine.
LORD DIAMOND: It was the fact that the Government Amendment was near to ours that made me so suspicious, but having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 263RRR:
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 38, leave out from (" circumstances") to end of line 39, and insert ("it was not practicable for the application to be made before ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN: moved Amendment No. 263SSS:
Page 63, line 11, at end insert—
(" () The registrar shall not be required to proceed with any such application if in his opinion it is frivolous or vexatious.")
The noble Lord said: At present the Registrar is bound to investigate any complaint which complies with the conditions specified in Clause 79. This Amendment seeks to remove this obligation in respect of " frivolous or vexatious " complaints. Under Clause 79 the complaint must be made by an eligible person against a registered organisation on grounds of a breach of rules or guiding principle. If these conditions are fulfilled, as the clause stands the Registrar is bound to investigate. But it may be that it is clear from the outset that the complaint is frivolous and the complainant has been in the habit of bombarding the Registrar with similar baseless and irrational effusions. Without this Amendment, the Registrar would still have to investigate the complaint, however baseless, and notify the conclusions to both parties. That would take up unnecessary time. Those of us who have been Members of Parliament are all too familiar with this kind of problem. I hope in those circumstances noble Lords will agree to accept this amendment, particularly as the N.I.R.C. and the industrial tribunals will have a sanction against vexatious and improper complaints which may be brought to them.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the Government for going a little way to meet our point of view.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 [Investigation initiated by registrar]:
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263HH:
Page 63, line 32, leave out (" has been a serious breach or have been persistent breaches") and insert (" have been serious and persistent breaches").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It really speaks for itself. At present the Bill at line 32 refers to " a serious breach " or " persistent breaches ". The point I am making is that persistent breaches may be persistent breaches of such a very minor character that the fact that they are persistent really does not affect the issue; it is a very minor breach, it does not matter how many times it is repeated. What I presume the Government in the clause are getting at is the serious and persistent breach, and a persistent breach which is a serious breach is even more serious. I think the wording proposed in the Amendment, " serious and persistent breaches" is the better wording.
LORD BELSTEAD: What worries us about Lord Diamond's wording in this Amendment is that it restricts the Registrar's initiative to the investigation of breaches which are both serious and persistent. There have to be the two aspects of the case. The noble Lord will remember that the Royal Commission envisaged that all complaints by individuals would be addressed in the first instance to the Registrar, and the Commission thought it important that ordinary trade unions should feel that they could turn to the Registrar for expert and impartial help when needed. It is fair to say that we share that view. It seems probable that in the course of these frequent contacts with trade unionists the Registrar will from time to time hear of grievances which individually appear to be relatively insignificant but which when taken together could imply underlying weakness in the organisation. For example, there might be a number of individual complaints about fines being imposed upon union members not in accordance with the rules, and each incident might seem to be of comparative lack of importance, but a number of such incidents would be sufficient justification for the Registrar to suspect that perhaps the liaison between the trade union, its local officials and shop stewards was not satisfactory. We believe that in such circumstances the Registrar would be justified in undertaking an investigation.
932
On the other hand, if there is a serious breach of the rules, such as an election malpractice, it is surely desirable that the Registrar should be able to investigate, even though it is not persistent and is only a single occurrence. In a case of that sort, would it be that under this Amendment the Registrar would hold back because a breach had not been persistent? One might almost ask: would it be that the Registrar was an accessory because he had no evidence that the trade union, knowing that it was acting in breach of its rules, persisted in the malpractice? It is because of these two sides of the case that we feel we must resist the Amendment in this case
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord is probably right that the Amendment is defective. On the other hand, the present requirement is that if the Registrar suspects a number of persistent breaches he has no alternative but to investigate. Anybody in administration, in a trade union or anywhere else, will know that in order to carry on at all there may be all sorts of minor matters where there are persistent breaches. I am wondering whether the Government would be prepared to look at this matter again. I fully accept that if there is a serious breach the Registrar probably ought to investigate it, but what I am thinking of—and I do not have the right form of words—is something like " a serious breach or breaches " or " a number of breaches which have a serious effect in total ".
As the Bill is drafted, if there are a number of breaches which go on all the time, the Registrar has no option but to investigate, and I do not think anybody would recommend that. Will the Government undertake to look at this point further and see whether they can find a better form of words than the ones which we proposed, which would prevent the Registrar from having to look at a large number of minor breaches which nobody would want to look at anyway but which he would now have no option but to look at?
LORD BELSTEAD: The noble Lord is certainly persuasive in the way he puts his argument forward. There are perhaps two points here. I am quite sure that the Government will be only too pleased to look at this point, but I am

933
not in a position to give any form of helpful or encouraging commitment. I say that for two reasons. The first is that the word " persistent " presumably means what it says, and that denotes a degree of gravity which I tried to explain. The other point is that there are the conciliation provisions in subsection (3), and they are obviously a safety valve to the clause. For those two reasons, although I certainly undertake to ask that this matter be looked at, I am not in a position to say that it definitely will be looked at with a result which the noble Lord would wish.
LORD SHACKLETON: I cannot see how the word " persistent " can possibly include gravity. Otherwise, why do the Government bother to insert the word " serious "? The escape is, of course, when an investigation takes place. I fully accept that the noble Lord has taken my point. It is a perfectly valid point and I will not press him further—
LORD DRUMALBYN: I took the trouble to look up the dictionary. I think the gravity lies in the obstinacy of it. The dictionary gives the interpretation, " obstinately pursued ".
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not know that " obstinately pursued " necessarily means that it is grave. I do not want to waste time now, although 1 ant sure that the noble and learned Lord would help us if we really went into the matter. All I am asking is that the Government take this as a serious point and will look at it again. They are making no commitment to do anything about it, but we may wish to return to it at a later stage when they can improve the drafting a little. Otherwise, even if " persistent " means " obstinately pursued ", it may not be very sensible for them obstinately to pursue minor breaches. We all have to commit minor breaches. Indeed, we do it constantly. We do it constantly in your Lordships' House, sometimes to our benefit, sometimes more seriously to our disadvantage.
LORD DIAMOND: I gather the noble Lord said that nevertheless he was going to look at the matter; that he is making no promise; but he is going to look at it. In those circumstances, I seek the leave
934
of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.51 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263JJ:
Page 63, line 34, leave out from (" section") to end of line 40.
The noble Lord said: I hope we can deal with this Amendment very shortly indeed. Some of the lines which it is sought to leave out the Government and ourselves would never agree about; namely, the principles set out in Clause 63. Therefore, there is no point in arguing about them. But, again, there is a reference to
" persistently taken by it or on its behalf ",
and if the noble Lord would take into his review that word " persistently " as well as the earlier " persistant " I do not think I need keep the Committee any longer. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, this is the same point, and we shall certainly be willing to look at it.
LORD DIAMOND: Then I seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 263TTT:
Page 63, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 64, and insert (" any breach of rules to which section 79(3A) of this Act applies").
The noble Lord said: I mentioned the need for this Amendment when I moved Amendment No. 263000. I then explained that it was desirable to ensure that there was no power in the Bill to deal with any breach of the rules made in pursuance of the 1913 Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 263MM:
Page 64, line 17, leave out from (" question ") to end of line 35.
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is the normal one of restricting somewhat the field of the Registrar and turning him, if possible, back into the role which we think he

935
should occupy, that of conciliator, and away from the role which the Government try to put him into; that is to say, the role of prosecutor.
I still think and hope that the Government will recognise that the way to improve the situation is to make the relationship between the unions and the Registrar of the same friendly kind as that which has persisted hitherto, and if this Amendment were accepted it would help towards that end. Accordingly, I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: This Amendment would remove the Registrar's power to bring a complaint to the Industrial Court if, once the Registrar had investigated a suspected breach of the rules or guiding principles, the trade union or employers' association concerned failed to take the necessary remedial action. I understood the noble Lord to imply that such power is inconsistent with the Registrar's role, and that it turned him into a prosecutor. I think we should look at it rather from another point of view. Suppose a trade union has conducted its elections improperly and the Registrar has good reason to suspect what has gone on although he has had no formal complaint. He decides to investigate and finds his suspicions justified. He tells the union and endeavours to have the matter put right, and asks for an undertaking that future elections will be properly held. The union refuse to take any action or to give an undertaking. What then? If we accept this Amendment, nothing happens. The union carries on in the same way and the Registrar exhausts his powers. His findings cannot be enforced. This may be rare; but it is an undesirable state and not in the interests of ordinary trade union members.
We believe that if this Bill is to effect an improvement of industrial relations in this country, its provisions must always, so far as possible, be enforceable. That is not to say that we believe that employers, trade unions, registrars or anyone else should complain to the courts every time there is a problem. As my right honourable friend said in another place, recourse to the courts will be the last, not the first, resort. As regards the clause and the Amendment we are now
936
discussing, I do not expect that the Registrar will have frequent need to initiate investigations into breaches of rules. Organisations which accept the responsibility implied by registering are unlikely to disregard their obligations. Where the Registrar initiates investigations we expect that the occasions on which he is unable to secure a satisfactory undertaking or remedial action will be rare; but all the same we should provide for the eventuality.
LORD BERNSTEIN: It seems to me that there is no parallel procedure in the case of unfair dismissal or an unfair industrial practice by the employer. Have I overlooked something?
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is quite understandable; because the dismissal must be by the employer. We have discussed the dismissals aspect already. I do not understand the noble Lord's point.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My question was a simple one. What the Registrar can do in the case of a trade union, can he also do in the case of an employer?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I have already pointed out that this applies to employers' associations as well as to trade unions.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I think this follows what was said earlier. The purpose of the Amendment is to mitigate the effect of the clause, so that the Registrar simply gives notice but does not have the power of enforcement. In this way we believe the Registrar will have a conciliatory role and not that of a prosecutor. I believe that to build an iron framework of law, with all the nuts and bolts secure, will ultimately fail. We need an element of human understanding, a situation in which the Registrar can take on the role of adviser. That, I believe, would be the better approach. I deplore this tendency to try to screw everything tightly in legislative phraseology. I do not want to reiterate points which have been more ably made than I can do; nevertheless, I want to support my noble friend on the Front Bench.
LORD DIAMOND: My noble friend should not be so modest; he has made a most persuasive speech, and what he has said I echo to the syllable. I can

937
only say to the Government that we regard this as a most unsatisfactory clause. The part covered by this Amendment is very unsatisfactory indeed, and we can only show our dissatisfaction in the usual way.

CONTENTS

Bernstein. L.

Diamond, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Energlyn, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Gardiner, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Davies of Leek, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller]

Willis, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Aldenham, L.

Dudley, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Dundee, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Eccles, V.

Pender, L.

Balfour, E.

Falmouth, V.

Penrhyn, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fisher, L.

Redmayne, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rothermere, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Glendevon, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Goschen. V. [Teller]

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Gowrie, E.

St. Just, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray, L.

Sandford, L.

Burton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Selkirk, E.

Chelmer, L.

Hailes, L.

Selsdon, L.

Conesford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone L. [L. Chancellor.]

Semphill, Ly.

Cottesloe. L.

Somers, L.

Cowley, E.

Inglewood, L.

Suffield, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Jellicoe, E. [L. Privy Seal].

Terrington, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kemsley, V.

Thorneycroft, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cromartie, E.

Latymer, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Mansfield, E.

Windlesham, L.

Digby, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

MOTOR VEHICLES (PASSENGER INSURANCE) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendment agreed to.
EXETER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]

  MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
  Reported with Amendments.
  12 midnight
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 263MM) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordship divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 71.

  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY: AID FROM PUBLIC FUNDS
  SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY: AID FROM PUBLIC FUNDS